ThinkProgress Logo

Politics

Huckabee Too Busy Keeping Up With ‘Britney’ Gossip To Follow Foreign Policy

In an interview with the Quad-City Times yesterday, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee tried to make excuses for his lack of foreign policy knowledge and his ignorance on the most recent National Intelligence Estimate on Iran. He compared the NIE to gossip about Britney Spears, saying he just can’t “keep up with every single thing“:

The point I’m trying to make is that, on the campaign trail, nobody’s going to be able, if they’ve been campaigning as hard as we have been, to keep up with every single thing, from what happened to Britney last night to who won “Dancing with the Stars.”

Presumably, presidential candidates are supposed to keep track of foreign policy developments more closely than celebrity gossip. But when asked about the NIE on Dec. 4 — a day after the report was released — Huckabee said he wasn’t even aware of it. Days later, Huckabee defended his gaffe by misrepresenting the timeline of his mistake, quipping that the “report was released at 10:00 in the morning, the president hadn’t seen it in four years and I’m supposed to see it four hours later.”

In fact, despite his lament that he is too busy to follow with current events, Huckabee seems to have had no trouble following the events of Britney Spears and her family. When asked on Dec. 20 about the pregnancy of Britney’s sister, Jamie Lynn Spears, Huckabee had no trouble in quickly giving a response:

It’s a tragedy when a 16-year-old who is not really prepared for all the responsibilities of adult life is going to be now faced with all the responsibilities of honest-to-goodness adult life. I respect it.

Apparently, she’s going to have the child and I think that is the right decision, a good decision, and I respect that and appreciate it. I hope it is not an encouragement to other 16-year-olds who think that is the best course of action.

Oops, he did it again.

Digg It!

Yglesias

Legitimacy

I can’t say anything about the situation in Kenya beyond what I read in the papers but it does speak in some ways to the misguided embrace of “democracy” as the key indicator for political development. The idea of an effective democracy presupposes the idea of a broad consensus about the legitimate decision-making unit. Viewed in those terms, the noteworthy thing about Kenya isn’t so much that there was a closely contested election marred by credible allegations of fraud followed by something of a popular uprising against the regime, but the fact that there’s such substantial support for the incumbent anyway: “Gangs of young men have built roadblocks between the neighborhoods of the Kikuyus, Mr. Kibaki’s tribe, and the Luos, the tribe of Raila Odinga, the top opposition leader, who narrowly lost the election [...] the no man’s land between them is often a single lane of potholed asphalt, patrolled by men holding huge rocks in their hands.”

If Kikuyus feel that their main loyalty should be toward the Kikuyu then there mere fact that the Kikuyu may be outnumbered by the Luos isn’t going to carry much weight. In the US, pretty much everyone thinks of themselves as owing primary allegiance to the United States. But it wasn’t always thus. During the Civil War, at least some Southerners agreed to abide by the decisions of their respective state governments to secede without necessarily believing that secession was the best move on the merits. These days, the number of Americans who seriously contest the legitimacy of the United States of America as a decision-making unit is trivial, which is what makes things like Orson Scott Card’s Empire so preposterous.

But that sense of agreement about the legitimate level of decision-making doesn’t just happen inevitably because you live in the same borders with some other people. In Iraq, clearly, you don’t have it just as Chechens seem disinclined to treat “Russia” as a legitimate unit and just as how the Irish in the early 20th century didn’t view their right to elect members of parliament in Westminster as adequate compensation for the absence of national self-determination.

Security

Bush Issues Signing Statement Undermining Sudan Accountability And Divestment Act

Yesterday, President Bush signed the Sudan Accountability and Divestment Act, which makes it easier for “states, local governments and private investors to cut investment ties with Sudan as a way to pressure the Khartoum government into ending violence in the country’s Darfur region.” Both the House and the Senate passed the bill unanimously.

Bush has claimed an intense interest and outrage at the situation in Sudan, going so far as to call killings in Darfur “genocide” in 2005. Yet his signature on the legislation yesterday was accompanied by a signing statement, in which he reserved the right to “overrule” divestment decisions if they conflict with administration foreign policy. The New York Times notes:

But the administration has expressed reservations about the bill, and Mr. Bush’s signature was accompanied by a proviso known as a signing statement, in which he said he was reserving the authority to overrule state and local divestment decisions if they conflicted with foreign policy. The statement said the measure “risks being interpreted as insulating” state and local divestment actions from federal oversight.

Unfortunately, the Bush administration’s foreign policy hasn’t always put pressure on Sudan. In May, the State Department released its 2006 terrorism report, in which it called Sudan a “strong partner in the War on Terror“:

The Sudanese government was a strong partner in the War on Terror and aggressively pursued terrorist operations directly involving threats to U.S. interests and personnel in Sudan.

Hundreds of thousands of people have died in Darfur, and 2.5 million more have been forced to flee their homes. Twenty-two states and more than fifty universities have already “passed divestment measures from problematic companies in Sudan.”

Digg It!

Politics

Romney and Institutional Power

Andrew Sullivan recommends David Brooks’ thoughts on Mitt Romney: “The leaders of the Republican coalition know Romney will lose. But some would rather remain in control of a party that loses than lose control of a party that wins. Others haven’t yet suffered the agony of defeat, and so are not yet emotionally ready for the trauma of transformation. Others still simply don’t know which way to turn.” That seems about right. In the progressive blogosphere, this idea circulates under the heading “iron law of institutions” which posits that institutional leaders care more about their own power within the institution than about the institution’s power in the world.

It strikes me as a largely accurate characterization of the choice.

That said, to give Romney the benefit of the doubt, one thing I can say about him is that there’s some indication he might make an okay president. He ran a successful business. He managed the Olympics well. He took over a state that enjoyed a high standard of living and during his years of governor it continued to enjoy a high standard of living and he never tried to do anything crazy. He’s taken a lot of repugnant stands in the campaign, but that’s clearly because he’s telling people what he thinks they want to hear. When he thoughts his constituents wanted to hear about gay equality and a women’s right to choose he said that stuff, too. He’s a giant phony. But also a technocrat with some record of competence — basically a risk-averse guy who knows what he’s doing and understands how to color between the lines. It’s impossible to imagine him being a great president, but it’s relatively easy to imagine him being an okay president.

The others in the field, not so much. Who knows what wars Rudy Giuliani or John McCain would start? And Mike Huckabee can’t even fake knowing what he’s talking about for fifteen minutes.

Politics

The Possibly Not Coming Storm

Ross Douthat previews the next great conservative crack-up:

It’s true that the current conservative intelligentsia, forged in the crucible of Ronald Reagan’s successes, is heavily invested in keeping the triple alliance intact – hence the Thompson bubble, the anti-Huckabee crusade, and the “rally round Romney” effect. And it’s true, as well, that if the Republican Party recovers its majority in the next election the alliance will be considerably strengthened. But such a recovery is unlikely, and already, in the wake of just a single midterm-election debacle, it’s obvious that the Norquistians and neocons and social conservatives aren’t inevitable allies – that many tax-cutters and foreign-policy hawks, for instance, would happily screw over their Christian-Right allies to nominate Rudy Giuliani; or that many social conservatives don’t give a tinker’s dam what the Club for Growth thinks about Mike Huckabee’s record. (So too with the neocon yearning for a McCain-Lieberman ticket, which would arguably represent a far more radical remaking of the GOP coalition than anything Chuck Hagel has to offer.) The “movement” institutions, from the think tanks to talk radio, have resisted these fissiparous tendencies, and if Mitt Romney wins the nomination they’ll be able to claim a temporary victory. But if the GOP continues to suffer at the polls, in ’08 and beyond, the (right-of) center can’t be expected to hold, and the result will be a struggle for power that’s likely to leave the conservative movement changed, considerably, from the way that Tomasky finds it today.

To which I say: Maybe!

Seriously, I sometimes do think that’ll happen. Alternatively, maybe Romney gets the nomination and Romney gets beaten pretty badly. Then maybe conservatives say he was done in by (a) flip-flopping, (b) anti-Mormon bias, (c) bad political headwinds and decide nothing really needs to be done. Then, the congressional GOP just realizes that the conservative movement is really more comfortable in a quasi-opposition role, sets about using the filibuster and the timidity of the remaining southern Democratic senators to make the country ungovernable, does well in the 2010 midterms, and everything just kind of keeps on keeping on. It could happen. One’s natural desire, as an observer of the political scene, is for something dramatic and interesting to happen. And sometimes something dramatic and interesting does happen. And it really might happen. The signs are there. But then again, it might not.

Yglesias

No More “War on Terror”

The UK drops the label. There have actually been several moves over the years from within the US bureaucracy to do the same thing. The Republican Party, though, is clearly addicted to the “war” mentality. And when the Democrats were given an opportunity to disavow it, only John Edwards would. It seems to me that few if any policymakers on the Democratic side actually believe that this sort of conceptual framework is a helpful way to think about things, but knowing the right answer to questions is of limited value if political leaders aren’t going to do anything about it.

Culture

Al Jefferson’s Inefficiency

jeffersoncomparison.png

When I was complaining about the sweetheart deal that Kevin McHale gave to the Celtics, some people were defending it in comments. At the center of any such defense is, necessarily, an overrating of Al Jefferson. Make no mistake, he’s a pretty nice player. In particular, he’s a very good rebounder. Even here, though, a simple look at 12.1 boards per game — good for fourth in the league — is a bit misleading. Look at him in terms of rebounds per 48 minutes or rebound rate and he drops down a bit.

But it’s on the scoring front where Jefferson’s status as a solid 20-10 guy looks most suspect. His usage rate is sky-high and he plays a lot of minutes per game. That bumps up his points per game despite the fact that, as you can see above, his shooting efficiency is kind of unimpressive for a center. One doesn’t want to overstate the case here, he’s obviously a nice prospect. But there’s reason to think he’s not really as nice as he seems — surrounded by terrible players in Minnesota they’re giving him tons of shots and he’s scoring some, but other prospects on this list (Biedrens and Bynum come to mind especially) might well be putting up better numbers in Jefferson’s situation.

Yglesias

Eco Hat

ecohat.jpg

I was reading in Dwell about the Oxley Woods development in England and the distinctive “eco-hat” package of solar and other technological contrivances that allow for a large gain in energy efficiency at low monetary costs. The article doesn’t seem to be online, but this website has a decent explanation of the project. The whole subject of green architecture is one I find pretty fascinating. In this and other cases, it turns out that a lot of the work is being done not by technology as such (thought obviously technology matters) but by design — simply doing the architecture with an eye to the energy use implications of the plan.

That kind of thing makes green architectural schemes well worth public investment. Given the appropriate financial incentives, firms can come up with different kinds of ways to meet the projects goals. But once the work’s been done, the underlying design principles simply add to the general stock of human knowledge and become something that other firms can borrow or improve upon.

Climate Progress

Top 10 global warming stories of 2007

What events or actions had the most positive or negative impact on the likelihood that the nation and the world will act in time to avoid catastrophic warming? Here are my picks:

#10. Over a barrel: Oil nearing $100. Technically not a global warming story — but who can doubt that part of the renewed interest in energy policy in general and alternatives/efficiency in particular is due to record oil prices? Certainly OPEC is a bit worried. And if, as many believe, this is evidence that we are nearing peak oil — then this story foreshadows even more dramatic changes in the future.

#9. Australian denier bites the dust — literally: Conservative Prime Minister John Howard of drought-riddled Australia lost perhaps the first national election in which global warming was a pivotal issue. The immediate impact was Australia signing the Kyoto protocol — further isolating this country. But a much bigger impact may be felt if U.S. progressives come to see that fighting global warming is not just the morally right thing to do — it is winning politics.

#8. The climate, it is a changin’: The painful reality of global warming is becoming obvious to more and more people in 2007, as the weather gets more and more extreme. Australians reversed their thinking in large part because of the brutal multi-year drought they are now in (see here and here and here). Then we have the brutal droughts in this country (see here), which are increasingly being linked to global warming. Same for the record-breaking wildfires. The Brits know climate change is behind their record flooding. Same for the Chinese.

#7. Delayers/Deniers Double Down. In spite of the painful obviousness of climate change, the incontrovertible science linking it to human activity, and the graver and graver warnings of potential catastrophe — many Deniers, like Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), just continue putting out the same old disinformation in new packages or obsessing over meaningless NASA data revisions. A lot of people seem simply impervious to the facts and to science — and desperate to cling to any media stories or studies, however inaccurate, that seem to undermine the overwhelming body of evidence. And then we have the emergence of the Delayers, who say they believe in global warming but show that they really don’t get it by embracing only voluntary technological strategies, which can’t get us to 550 ppm, let alone the 450 or less we need to avert catastrophe. Remember, only 41 Senators representing a small fraction of the American people, can stop serious domestic action — if they so choose. Heck, they stopped a measly 15% renewable electricity requirement and a shift of money from unneeded oil subsidies to vital clean energy technologies — imagine what they’ll do with a serious climate bill. And 34 Senators can stop this country from ratifying any international treaty. The mindless — and self-destructive — implacability of conservatives could easily be the top story of the year and — spoiler alert – in some sense it is.

#6. Fewer fools on the Hill. While the deniers/delayers remain locked in the past, those who believe in action took control of both houses of Congress this year, a key reason we got tougher fuel economy standards passed and a real climate bill out of the Senate Environment and Public Works committee. The only way we’ll get serious enough climate action domestically to give us the credibility needed to bring China and other countries along is if we have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. Let’s hope 2008 Congressional elections continue the trend.

Read more

Older

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up