ThinkProgress Logo

Politics

Sometimes They Screw-Up

As another note on the immigration issue, I should note that some of the fear of this topic in progressive circles seems to me to reflect an undue Fear of Republicans. Basically, the thinking seems to be that if Republicans are all talking about how tough talk on immigration is going to be a great issue for them it must be right because, after all, the GOP is great at this stuff.

It’s worth keeping in mind, however, that when the ship was being steered by hardened political strategists, the Republican Party was adhering to a firmly pro-immigrant line. It was always known that Bush’s immigration policy wasn’t popular with his base, but he thought it was vital to his strategy in the 2000 election, and the pro-immigration version of the Republican Party did quite well in 2002 and 2004. The turn in Republican rhetoric came because the base revolted against the political strategy that had been outlined by the party’s strategists. Then, as it became clear that Republicans were facing big losses in 2006, a lot of them turned to anti-immigration rhetoric to try to preserve control, but they lost anyway. Similarly, in 2007 those of us in the DC area were inundated with anti-immigrant ads from Virginia Republicans running in local races and the Virginia GOP did terribly.

Basically, immigrant-bashing doesn’t have a great track record as an electoral issue, and it doesn’t seem to be the case that this is actually a cause the Republicans started espousing because of it’s political utility. If anything, it’s the reverse, something the political hacks didn’t want to take on, but that the base has pushed them into.

Security

Wexler On Impeachment: ‘This Is Not The Lunatic Fringe — This Is Mainstream America’

rwex.jpgToday on the Ed Schultz Show, Rep. Robert Wexler (D-FL) discussed his effort to increase public pressure for the commencement of impeachment hearings against Vice President Dick Cheney. Wexler has launched a website — WexlerWantsHearings.com — to collect signatures in support of his call.

Wexler explained that he launched his website after traditional media outlets rejected an op-ed he had written with his colleagues Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) and Tammy Baldwin (D-WI):

We laid out precisely why the House Judiciary Committee should open up hearings. … And we set out in an op-ed why we should do it, and none of the major newspapers in the country — the New York Times or the Washington Post, the Boston Globe, the LA Times — they chose not to run it.

I thought it was a fairly significant statement by the mainstream media that when members of the House Judiciary Committee lay out a credible claim for why impeachment hearings should begin regarding the Vice President of the United States, and they refuse to run it, then we decided well we would start this website…and see what the feeling was in terms of mainstream America.

Listen to it:

[flv http://video.thinkprogress.org/2007/12/wexlerimpeach.320.40.flv]

Wexler said he has been “astonished” by the outpouring of support — over 100,000 have signed up in five days. He said he plans to write a letter to House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) in early January, asking him to begin start impeachment hearings.

“This is not the lunatic fringe — this is mainstream America,” Wexler said. These are “people that believe in the very patriotic vision, and they’re all very upset about what they see as the abuse of power by this administration and the failure of Congress to hold them accountable.”

Digg It!

Yglesias

Moral Clarity

Kevin Drum, aiming for some kind of wanker prize, posts the following missive from “[a] member in (extremely good) standing of the VSP community”:

One thing you might write about — if only because nobody else has, I think — is how that whole dust-up over the O’Hanlon/Pollack oped looks in retrospect. I mean, clearly they were on to something — the relative quieting down of stuff that has taken place in Iraq over the last several months, etc. Completely debatable whether that was due to the surge, or is sustainable, or is deeply significant, etc. etc., but it’s not like the caricature of them put forth in the blogosphere at the time — as paid lobbyists for the Bushies, reporting back what they were told to after checking out a Potemkin village — holds up, does it?

Well, of course, if you mischaracterize the critique that was made of them, then that fake version of the critique doesn’t hold up well. Pollack and O’Hanlon concluded:

How much longer should American troops keep fighting and dying to build a new Iraq while Iraqi leaders fail to do their part? And how much longer can we wear down our forces in this mission? These haunting questions underscore the reality that the surge cannot go on forever. But there is enough good happening on the battlefields of Iraq today that Congress should plan on sustaining the effort at least into 2008.

This, it seems to me, was deliberately dishonest. Part of the effort to confused people about the nature of the choice facing us, by doling the war out in bite-sized morsels. They also managed throughout the course of their op-ed to obscure the fact that the “surge” hasn’t met its stated goals. It remains unclear whether or not they actually visited any portion of Iraq that wasn’t a “Potemkin village” of sorts. For some reason or other, for example, they seem to have not noticed that Baghdad had become a network of walled-off ethnically cleansed cantons.

Clearly, though, the summertime decline in violence has proven more sustainable than I thought it would at the time. Equally clearly, Pollack and O’Hanlon have a good relationship with General Petraeus and came back from Iraq speaking from a set of misleading talking points designed to advance the political sustainability of the Bush administration’s policies. I’m not shedding any tears for them.

Climate Progress

Climate Progress Person of the Year

gore-superman.jpgUntil last week, this long-beloved annual traditional of Climate Progress seemed to be a lock for one person — Nobel laureate, itinerant educator, and media superstar Al Gore. Sadly, he only makes first runner up this year. Similar to Time magazine, our Person of the Year is awarded to the person or group whofor better or for worse … has done the most to influence the events of the yearin the climate arena.

bush-dumb.jpgBy single-handedly stopping any international action on climate at Bali, by stopping California from regulating tailpipe greenhouse gas emissions, by forcing Congress to drop almost all non-oil-related provisions to cut GHGs from the energy bill — all in one week! — one man proved his unchallenged high-impact misleadership on the issue of the century: Dick Cheney George Bush.

[Note to future historians: Curiously, Gore seemed to have gotten more actual votes than Bush did for the honor, but the judges awarded it to Bush anyway.]

In a related story, the FHS (Future Historians Society), having previously named Bush the Worst President in American History, awarded him one of their rare Worst Leaders of All Time Awards, alongside such notables as Neville Chamberlain and Nero, for his tireless efforts to destroy the health and well-being of the next 50 generations.

Bush spokesperson, Dana Perino, said the President always believed he deserved as much recognition for his global warming efforts as Al Gore.

Yglesias

Iraq’s Refugees

Excellent report by Cara Buckley for The New York Times that shows just how far from normal the new, less spectacularly violent Iraq is:

The government’s widely publicized plan to run free buses from Damascus, Syria, to Baghdad was suspended after just two runs. Thousands of Sunni refugees get no aid because they fear registering with the Shiite-led government. While aid organizations are distributing emergency packets that include utensils, blankets and food, deeper structural issues, like securing neighborhoods, supplying housing and creating jobs, remain unresolved and largely unaddressed.

A small fraction of the millions of refugees who fled Iraq have come back. While the government trumpeted their return as proof of newfound security, migration experts said most of them were forced back by expired visas and depleted savings. Ms. Hashim, for one, pawned her wedding ring and gold jewelry to stay in Syria, but came back after her uncle’s visa application was denied.

Given that the West — and especially the USA — showed little inclination to do anything to help refugees (helping refugees, you see, would be like admitting that Iraq’s all screwed up; better to let people suffer in order to keep up appearances) returning home even under these conditions is probably the right move for many families. It’s a reminder, though, of the tenuous nature of whatever kind of security has been brought to Iraq. None of the underlying issues have been resolved, so the potential for further breakdown is constantly looking over the horizon.

Politics

Why Not Ron Paul?

Well, for me it’s a simple question: I agree with him about very little. Indeed, even though I agree with him about the war in Iraq, I don’t actually agree with his broad vision of foreign policy. There’s just very little there to like. But for Megan things are different:

Ron Paul has some beliefs that I like, such as his opposition to eminent domain abuse. But he also has a number of beliefs that are, not to put too fine a point on it, utterly insane. The gold standard is one; the belief that NAFTA is a trojan horse for the North American Union is another. Much of his persona, sincere or not, seems to boil down to “Foreigners are scary, and people who like foreigners are plotting to take away all your stuff.”

These seem like worries to have once it becomes reasonable to think that Ron Paul might become president. That’s not the case right now. If you’re as dyspeptic about both political parties as Megan claims to be it seems to me that a protest vote for Ron Paul on a Libertarian Party line would be the best thing to do. The reason libertarians don’t like either political party, is that nobody feels like catering to a fringe ideology with almost no supporters. David Boaz and David Kirby claim there’s a large “libertarian vote” but the proof would be in the pudding. Paul’s not going to be president, so one doesn’t need to worry about whether or not he’d be a good president. The question is whether or not there’s any constituency for a platform of massively rolling back the government’s activities both at home and abroad — votes for Paul will prove its existence if it’s out there, and then major parties featuring plausible political leaders will move in that direction.

Photo by Flickr user Jayel Aheram used under a Creative Commons license

Politics

U.S. General: Iraqi prisons are breeding insurgents.

Maj. Gen. Doug Stone, who oversees detainees for the US-led force, “is wondering aloud if holding all those detainees is breeding a ‘micro-insurgency’ and asking whether it’s time to begin releasing thousands of people.” Stone argued that holding thousands of “moderate detainees” runs counter to the notion of winning over a population in a classic counterinsurgency.

Older

Newer

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

Sign Up