Winning the War on Terror

A nice report this morning from the Associated Press:

Many in terrorists' 'next generation' dead
By PAUL HAVEN, Associated Press Writer
Fri Jun 9, 3:35 PM ET

They rose up quickly to take up Osama bin Laden's call for jihad, ruthless men in their 20s and 30s heralded as the next generation of global terror.

Two years later, 40 percent are dead, targets of a worldwide crackdown that claimed its biggest victory with the killing of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, al-Qaida's front man in Iraq.

Manhunts in Asia, Africa and Europe have pushed most of the rest deep underground — finding refuge in wartorn Somalia or the jungles of the southern Philippines. While there are still recruits ready to take up al-Qaida's call to arms, analysts say the newcomers have fewer connections than the men they are replacing, less training and sparser resources.

"There are more people popping up than are being put away," said Magnus Ranstorp, a terrorism expert at the Swedish National Defense College. "But the question is whether the new ones have the fortitude to take up the mantle and carry the struggle forward. I don't see that they have."

...But Ranstorp said it was far from clear if al-Zarqawi's replacement will have the contacts, resources or capacity to match the dead leader's effectiveness at the helm of Iraqi insurgent forces.

"I'm not convinced that there is somebody ready to step in and fill Zarqawi's shoes," he said. "There may be, but it will take some time."

Globally, security forces have also had considerable success. Another four of the top 12 young militants in the 2004 list have met violent ends — in shootouts in Saudi Arabia, under U.S. bombardment in Iraq, or in an Algerian terror sweep. The seven who remain at large are on the run, and none has been able to match al-Zarqawi's success at launching large-scale attacks since mid-2004.

...For most of those at large, life is anything but easy.

Amer el-Azizi, a Moroccan-born al-Qaida recruiter in Spain, has disappeared, though Spanish intelligence officials who had his wife under surveillance say that in 2003 the woman fled to Morocco, and later turned up in London and then Afghanistan.

Little is known about the fate of Saad Houssaini, a suspected co-plotter in the Casablanca attacks. Newspaper reports said he was arrested along the Syria-Iraq border and turned over to Morocco, but Moroccan officials have denied that.

Dulmatin, a key suspect in the 2002 Bali nightclub bombings, and Khadaffy Janjalani, chief of the extremist group Abu Sayyaf, have taken refuge on the Philippine island of Jolo, along with a force of 70-80 men, according to Philippine military officials. They are believed to be running low on weapons and ammunition.

Zulkarnaen, an Indonesia native who is operations chief of the Jemaah Islamiyah terror group, is believed to be hiding on the island of Java, though his location has not been verified since late 2002.

Two terror suspects, Fazul Abdullah Mohammed and Saleh Ali Saleh Nabhan, are believed to be holed up in Mogadishu, the Somali capital. The men are being sheltered by extremists who are part of the Islamic Courts Union, which took over the city this week.

A U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject, said earlier this year that Washington supplied information about the men and their locations to Somali community leaders and urged them to turn them over to U.S. authorities. A group of secular warlords, believed financed by the United States, attacked the Islamic forces, but was driven from Mogadishu on Monday.

It calls to mind George Patton: "Now I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. You won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."

Back to the top.

"Smart Dust?" Are You Kidding?

Sometimes I feel I'm the only person in Washington, D.C., without a security clearance. Perhaps someone who has one - or who has served in Iraq - can tell me if this is an elaborate April Fool's Day joke: smart dust?

I suppose that's mostly a rhetorical question, as there are numerous sites for it on the Internet. It looks like the guys at Cal are working on it (In Your FACE, Stanford!).

A quick perusal of the source material suggests that it's some wild kind of... nanotechnology. And you know what that means! "Blah, blah, blah... nanotechnology, blah, blah, blah Army of Davids, blah, blah, blah... buy my book."

Back to the top.

Lewis Aide Clears His Chest

It appears that a senior aide to Appropriations Committee Chairman Jerry Lewis has decided to come clean about his finances, before reporters start picking through his garbage can:

Rep. Lewis aide got buyout from lobby firm
By ERICA WERNER, Associated Press Writer
Fri Jun 9, 11:05 PM ET

A top aide to House Appropriations Committee Chairman Jerry Lewis received $1.96 million in severance payments from a lobbying firm with ties to Lewis, according to documents released Friday.

The connection between Lewis, a California Republican, and the Washington-based firm, Copeland, Lowery, Jacquez, Denton, & White, is under federal investigation.

The payment to Jeff Shockey, who left Copeland Lowery early last year to become deputy staff director of the Appropriations Committee, was contained in his 2005 financial disclosure form. Congressional lawmakers and top staff must file such forms each year.

Attorneys for Shockey and his wife, Alexandra, a lobbyist, released the form Friday and discussed it with reporters on a conference call on condition they not be identified.

Shockey's 2004 financial disclosure form reported he had received at least $600,000 when he left the lobbying firm. But he was paid full sum last year.

...The payments were based in part on revenue that Shockey would have brought in had he stayed with the firm. Based on the figures in the disclosure form, his revenue estimate jumped from about $1.7 million in 2004 to about $3 million in 2005 as he added new clients, his attorneys said.

That period coincided with speculation that Lewis, then chairman of the Appropriations defense subcommittee, would take over the gavel of the full committee. That happened in January 2005.

Attorneys for the Shockeys said the separation payment was a buyout of his ownership stake in the lobbying firm and that he was legally obligated to divest all interest in the firm to avoid any conflict of interest when he returned to Capitol Hill.

It had earlier been reported that Shockey received a substantial 'severance package' from his firm when he returned to Lewis' staff. The explanation contained here - that he was liquidating his stake in the firm - casts the story in a somewhat better light. Still - nice line of work if you can get it.

Back to the top.

Don't Get Excited About Murtha

John Murtha has declared that if House Democrats retake the majority, he intends to seek the Majority Leader spot. The timing of this annoucement is surprising, and it can only tend to split House Democrats. But while Captain Ed does a good job of laying out the possibilities, I think that he and others are overstating the case.

If they retake the majority, Democrats will probably face fights in several key races - Majority Leader, Majority Whip, and in the lesser ranks of leadership. Every Member of the House Democratic Conference knows that. There can't be any real serious campaigning for these posts however, until after election day, because few Democratic Represenatives will commit to a candidate until it becomes clearer that there will actually be such a race.

More importantly, a Hoyer-Murtha race would represent a moderate-moderate fight - at least as far as Democrats are concerned. Because for all his criticism of the Iraq effort, most Democrats still see John Murtha as an old-fashioned pro-defense Democrat. And for such a high-level leadership position, there WILL be a liberal in the race. Also, the Campaign Committee Chairs of both parties have benefitted in leadership races from successful elections. Thus Rahm Emanuel - a rising liberal star - will clearly be a contender for a leadership spot if Democrats retake the House this year, during his term as Chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Majority Leader will certainly be a likely spot for him to look at.

If Rahm Emanuel were to do what Murtha has just done - declare his intention to seek the Majority Leader spot - it would give the race the liberal that everyone knows it needs, and it will potentially open a liberal-moderate fight within the Democratic caucus. Then Captain Ed's assessment will be spot-on.

Back to the top.

President's Polling Looking Up?

The Hotline notes a bump in the ratings for the economy, along with an improvement in the President's poll numbers:

The Big Number: 36
Every day, we'll highlight one poll number that we think teaches us something new about the political landscape. Today's big number is 36 -- the percentage of Americans who rate economic conditions in the U.S. as excellent or good, according to a Gallup poll out today. That's not huge, but it is up 7% since the last time the question was asked, in mid-May.

Could it be that Americans are getting used to higher gas prices? While 22% of Americans called energy costs the most important problem facing the U.S. in the May poll, just half that number said the same thing in today's survey. Is it possible that the U.S., already mocked in Europe for whining about $3/gallon gas when they're paying $6 or $7, is getting used to the high price of oil?

But that's just one possible answer. Another: Could we be suffering from summer optimism? Pres. Bush's approval ratings are up modestly, and just about every indicator that goes something like "Is ___ getting better?" is up as well. If it were still cold and snowy, would these numbers be changing? [REID WILSON]

With regard to the question of whether Americans are getting used to higher gas prices, I've noted in the past that they're not really all that high. Plus, gas prices don't seem to have had much effect on elections in the past.

I'll also note that if the President's numbers continue to rebound, he will reach a point - perhaps at 40% approval or so - where the MSM's herd mentality leads to a raft of stories about how the President is doing better, and wondering whether it's because of the improved situation in Iraq, the improvements in the economy, or his handling of the immigration question. I say this because the MSM is very predictable. They may LIKE the story that the President's numbers are plummeting, but if they're rising, they still must find SOMETHING to write. And if the numbers are rising, then they have to find SOMETHING to ascribe it to. That might lead to a series of stories about how things aren't really so bad on the economy and Iraq.

We'll see.

Back to the top.

Lieberman Headed for Party Switch?

The Hotline notes that the most recent Quinnipiac poll shows Joe Lieberman with a surprisingly-narrow lead over his primary opponent, Ned Lamont. While Lieberman previously led by 45 percentage points, he now leads by 15:

The Big Number: 15
Every day, we'll highlight one poll number that we think teaches us something new about the political landscape. We forgot yesterday's, so here's a make-up from yesterday's Hotline. Today's big number is 15. Better put, it's 15 and possibly closing.

CT Sen. Joe Lieberman (D) leads his primary challenger, cable executive Ned Lamont (D), by a margin of just 15 points, 55%-40% in the latest Quinnipiac Univ. poll, after boasting a more than 45% lead in a Q-poll last month. What's worse, the margin is that tight even though only 17% of Dems know enough about Lamont to have formed an opinion (his fav/unfav rating among Dems stands at 11%-6%).

What could be better news for Lieberman, on the other hand, is that those who think he deserves re-election -- a full 61% of respondents -- cite a wide variety of reasons for voting for him. Those who think he doesn't mostly cite his views on Iraq, his conservatism and his closeness with Pres. Bush. Oh, and if Lamont does end up beating Lieberman in the primary and the senator decides to run as an indie, the Q-poll shows him rolling Lamont and GOPer Alan Schlesinger, 56%-18%-8%.

So, concerning to the incumbent on one hand, but intriguing cause for optimism on the other. [REID WILSON]

This primary poll is probably more worrisome for Lieberman than the Hotline conveys: Lieberman's 15-point lead is among all Democrats. It must be lower among the more liberal crowd that votes in primaries. Lieberman might well trail among that core group. Plus, once Lamont begins advertising, his numbers ought to improve.

On the other hand, if Lieberman loses his primary and chooses to run as an Independent, then look for the GOP to go very easy on him - in the hopes of bringing him into their Senate caucus as an Independent, should he win re-election.

Back to the top.

House GOP Right to be Optimistic

Yesterday I linked to Stu Rothenberg's analysis of the results of Tuesday's election. National Journal's Hotline takes a crack at it as well, and notes an important fact: if Democrats want to retake the House, they will have to win districts more reliably Republican than the one they lost Tuesday:

June 07, 2006
Ruby Red Tuesday
Much of the Dem post-primary spin has centered on the fact that Francine Busby performed capably given the Republican nature of CA 50.

But if Democrats plan on winning back the House, they’re going to have to win races in even redder territory. In fact, almost half of the Dems’ top pickup opportunities are in districts that Bush carried with over 55% in 2004. Here’s a list of Bush’s vote share in these vulnerable incumbents’ GOP districts:

Rep. Geoff Davis (R-KY 04): 63%
Rep. John Hostettler (R-IN 08): 62%
Rep. Don Sherwood (R-PA 10) 60%
Rep. Mike Sodrel (R-IN 09): 59%
Rep. Thelma Drake (R-VA 02) 58%
Rep. Bob Ney (R-OH 18) 57%
Rep. Charles Taylor (R-NC 11) 57%

Add the MN 06 (57%) and TX 22 (64%) open seats, and you’ve got 9 top-tier Dem races in heavily GOP districts, districts that make CA 50 (55%) look less than “ruby red.” [JOSH KRAUSHAAR]

The race won by Bilbray did not represent the Democrats' 'dream scenario,' but they had every shot to win. Given the nature of the Congressional vacancy, this district was ground-zero for the 'ethics issue' to make a difference. Bilbray was a lobbyist, which provided valuable fodder, and turnout was set to favor Democrats given the Democratic gubernatorial primary the same day. Nevertheless, Francine Busby did not even improve her performance from the primary to the special election.

Democrats will need to do much better in November than they did on Tuesday. They will need to win races in more hostile districts, and they will need to do it in a number of places at once - not just in a 'one-off' race like the one they just lost.

Back to the top.

New Wrinkle in Lewis Investigation

Captain's Quarters covers a new wrinkle in the investigation into the ethics of House Appropriations Committee Chairman Jerry Lewis. A big beneficiary of earmarks sponsored by Lewis started a Political Action Committee that paid Lewis' stepdaughter rather high fees - at least in comparison to the donations made by the PAC.

Once again, this brings us to a new slogan for Porkbusters: "Earmarks: Look What They're Doing for Jerry Lewis!"

Back to the top.

Dems Show Hypocrisy on DeLay

Texas Democrats are trying to keep Tom DeLay's name on the ballot for re-election in November. This would be a huge victory for them, because it would keep the DeLay controversy in the news at election time, while also giving them a big edge over an almost unelectable incumbent in a district where they would otherwise have no chance:

Democrats want DeLay's name on ballot
Fri Jun 9, 12:15 AM ET

The Texas Democratic Party won a temporary restraining order Thursday blocking the process that would name a replacement for Republican U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay on the November ballot.

State District Judge Darlene Byrne ordered Texas GOP Chairwoman Tina Benkiser not to convene party officials to decide on DeLay's replacement until after a June 22 court hearing.

Democrats are trying to keep DeLay's name on the ballot, which would also keep his legal problems in front of voters. DeLay leaves Congress on Friday.

State Democratic Party Chairman Boyd Richie said Democrats are trying to keep the GOP from creating a "sham vacancy" for the Republican nomination for the 22nd Congressional District.

Richie said DeLay intentionally waited until after the primary to get out of the race, announcing he would abandon his re-election campaign and move to the Washington suburbs. He said the GOP then declared DeLay ineligible, assuming he would move from the state, and started a replacement nomination process while he was still in Congress and eligible for the ballot.

Does this scenario ring a bell? Think New Jersey, Torricelli, Forrester.

In 2002, Bob Torricelli quit his re-election bid when it became clear that even New Jersey wasn't going to return a crook like him to the Senate. Although he quit the race after the legal deadline for removing his name from the ballot, the courts allowed Democrats to replace his name with that of Frank Lautenberg, who subsequently won the election. Democrats argued that to prevent the move would be 'denying the people a choice' in the election.

Let's see how many Democrats take the same position in the DeLay case.

Back to the top.

Suspicious Timing...

The House of Representatives will next week debate the US role in Iraq. It has been known for a while that the House would hold this debate at some time this Summer, but the date was set relatively recently.

Obviously, I'm suspicious about the timing. Al-Zarqawi was betrayed and martyred just days before the debate was set to begin - awfully convenient, huh? Bush and Rove are clearly manipulating events to their political advantage.

I think we need to watch the events of the next few days very closely. And I'll make a bold prediction: Bush will end all violence in Iraq on Monday. I mean, we all know that this is about oil, and that Bush is pulling strings to boost his political ratings. Having pulled Zarqawi's body out of the freezer and arranged the new Iraqi government this week, he's clearly going to end all violence next week - just as a partisan thing to embarrass Democrats.

I'll give you a bonus, too: Iraq's oil production will conveniently return to pre-war levels on Monday as well, leading to a pump price of $1.09/gallon late next week - just in time for the heavy Summer driving season. Since that would be awfully convenient as well, Bush will make it happen.

Back to the top.

Dems to Dump Jefferson from Committee

Roll Call (subscription required) reports that the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee has recommended that Congressman Bill Jefferson be dumped from his post on the Ways and Means Committee. The decision is likely to be ratified by the full Democratic caucus next Thursday, but it apparently will cause a fight with the Congressional Black Caucus:

Vote Sets Stage for Jefferson Ways and Means Expulsion
Thursday, June 8; 8:10 pm
By Steve Kornacki,
Roll Call Staff

Members of the Democratic Steering and Policy Committee voted to toss Rep. William Jefferson (La.) from the Ways and Means Committee on Thursday evening, a recommendation that is expected to be ratified next Thursday by the full Democratic Caucus -- unless the Congressman steps down on his own before then.
Democratic leaders had attempted to push the embattled Louisianan's expulsion through Thursday night, hastily scheduling a full Caucus meeting less than two hours after the Steering and Policy session broke up. But when Rep. Rosa DeLauro (Conn.), the co-chairwoman of Steering and Policy, offered her panel's recommendation to the Caucus for consideration, Rep. Mel Watt (N.C.), the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, rose to object, arguing that Caucus meetings require advance notice of five legislative days.

A discussion ensued, after which Rep. James Clyburn (S.C.), the Democratic Caucus chairman, ruled that consideration of the Jefferson matter would be postponed until next Thursday.

Tonight's developments are expected to bring to the surface the tensions between the CBC and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), who set this chain of events in motion by calling for Jefferson to give up his seat on the influential committee two weeks ago, "in the interest of upholding the high ethical standard of the Democratic Caucus."

Watt had warned Pelosi that any formal sanctions against Jefferson, who is the subject of a federal bribery probe, before an indictment would be met with a loud public outcry from the CBC. A CBC source has estimated that about two-thirds of the group's 43 members share Watt's view that, guilty or not, Jefferson is being treated differently than past House Members who have been suspected of, but not charged with, any wrongdoing.

...If the Democratic Caucus does vote to unseat Jefferson from Ways and Means, the issue would then go to the full House. Typically, when a change in a committee assignment reaches the floor, the opposite party approves it without objection, but some Democrats are suspicious that Republicans might look for a way to play tricks with a floor debate on Jefferson in an effort to score political points.

This could provide an opportunity for the House GOP to score political points, but I suspect that they will tread lightly. After all, they could find several of their Members held to similar standards before the year is out.
Back to the top.

Mullah Omar Helps the West

Mullah Omar apparently released a statement in response to the fantastic news about al-Zarqawi. While Iraqis seem to have a clear response to Zarqawi's death - jubilation - Mullah Omar seems torn. His statement shows why pluralism and western values will ultimately win the day:

Purported statement from Taliban leader Mullah Omar mourns al-Zarqawi death

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (AP) - A written statement purportedly from supreme Taliban leader Mullah Omar on Friday mourned the death of the al-Qaida in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and vowed to keep fighting in Afghanistan.

Omar was "deeply sad over the martyrdom of Abu Masab al-Zarqawi" but his death would not weaken the resistance in Iraq, "as it is the people's resistance and every youth can become al-Zarqawi," the Pashto-language statement said. "I want to assure the Muslims across the world that we will not stop our struggle against crusaders in Afghanistan," Omar was quoted as saying.

So Mullah Omar is 'deeply saddened' about Zarqawi's death, but promises that 'every youth can become al-Zarqawi.' How can a philosophy whose great promise is a sad, violent, youthful death, ultimately emerge victorious? It cannot.

That great philosopher Sting [sarcasm watch] once said 'I hope the Russians love their children, too.' Apart from the banal, vapid, silliness of it, it does hold an important truth. People do love their kids. There's a limit to the number of parents who'll tell their kids that martyrdom is a good career choice.

Ultimately, there's a reason that there aren't too many Shakers left. You have to be able to beget the next generation of followers.

Back to the top.

Looking for (Bill) Clinton Democrats

Sorry it took me a little while to learn about this and post it. Very funny.

Back to the top.

Rothenberg: Mixed News for Congressional GOP

Roll Call's Stu Rothenberg (subscription required) writes that Republicans can take some solace in the results of Tuesday's voting in Califonia, but should be concerned in Montana.

He notes that Francine Busby - the Democratic candidate who lost in the race to replace Duke Cunningham - showed no improvement from normal Democratic numbers in the district. This ought to raise questions about the salience of Democratic attacks. In particular, since the vacancy was created by the resignation of a corrupt Republican headed to jail, you would think that she would have gained on the ethics issue alone, but did not:

California Blues: A Bit of a Downer for the Democrats
June 8, 2006
By Stuart Rothenberg,
Roll Call Contributing Writer

That sigh you heard Wednesday morning coming from national Democrats wasn’t the roar of approval and satisfaction that they hoped for. The results are in from California, and the news was surprisingly good for Republicans.


Former and future Rep. Brian Bilbray drew just under 50 percent of the vote in the special election in the 50th district, holding the open seat for the GOP. Democrat Francine Busby’s 45 percent showing was right in line with past Democratic efforts in the district — and therefore was disappointing.

Given the national political environment, the “lobbyist” line of attack that Democrats used against Bilbray and the nature of the vacancy — GOP ex-Rep. Duke Cunningham took bribes and went to jail — Democrats had every reason to believe that Busby could increase her percentage of the vote by at least a couple of points. But she didn’t.

Don’t get me wrong: Republicans shouldn’t misinterpret the results as evidence that everything is fine and dandy as they head into the November elections. In fact, Bilbray polled under the normal Republican vote on Election Day. A similar 5-point drop-off in the GOP vote in other districts would cost them plenty of seats and possibly control of the House itself.

Moreover, Busby was a mediocre candidate, and the National Republican Congressional Committee had to open its checkbook to save the seat. So it was a win, but a very costly one, for the Republicans.

Even so, Busby’s inability to expand her vote — and Republican voters’ apparent unwillingness to vote Democratic — does raise questions about the prospects for Democratic challengers and open-seat candidates in Republican-leaning, but now seemingly competitive, districts such as Minnesota’s 6th, Wisconsin’s 8th and Nevada’s 2nd.

Rothenberg also notes that the win of a Democrat from Kos-istan, in the primary race to oppose Congressman Richard Pombo, likely removes that seat from the list of potential Democratic targets. It also gives the Democrats a tough test: will they waste money on a losing candidate who happens to be a darling of the netroots:

In the 11th district, Democrats nominated Jerry McNerney over the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s preferred candidate, airline pilot Steve Filson.

McNerney is a nice man, and he deserves a lot of credit for defeating Filson, who had the backing of powerful state and national Democratic insiders. But Rep. Richard Pombo (R) pummeled McNerney 61.2 percent to 38.8 percent in 2004, and there is absolutely no reason to believe Pombo won’t win again this year.

Pombo’s 62 percent showing in his own primary certainly was nothing to write home about. Any incumbent who loses more than one-third of the vote in a primary has problems in his own party and has reason to be concerned about his political future.

But McNerney is simply too far to the left to knock off Pombo in this district, and he doesn’t project the kind of persona that a challenger needs to win against an incumbent. That’s the very reason why Democratic insiders lined up behind Filson, who seemed more polished and formidable.

The big question for the DCCC is whether it will throw its firepower behind McNerney, a favorite of liberals and the netroots.

If DCCC Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.) decides to take a pass on the race, liberal Web loggers within his party will scream. If he invests significantly in McNerney, he will take resources away from other races that offer the DCCC much better opportunities for victory.

Rothenberg points out a bright spot for Democrats, and a reason for Republicans to worry, in Montana:

Despite polls showing a neck-and-neck race, state Senate President Jon Tester routed state Auditor John Morrison for the Democratic Senate nomination and the right to take on Sen. Conrad Burns (R) in the fall.

Tester has Burns’ homey appeal and lacks Morrison’s personal baggage. And while Republicans surely will attack the Democratic nominee as a liberal, Democrats have to like their chances of picking up this Senate seat with Tester as their nominee.

Back to the top.

It's a Beautiful Morning...

All news outlets covering the story that Abu Musab al Zarqawi has been killed by US and coalition forces in Iraq. After hitting the safe house where he was holed up, the US pounced on 17 other target sites that they had been watching to learn more about his movements.

This sounds like a significant victory - both in public relations and on the ground. I'm curious as to how big a win it is, inasmuch as it has seemed for a little while that Zarqawi's effectiveness was suffering, and he was becoming an embarrassment to AQ worldwide. Still, I don't see how this can be seen as anything other than a big win. I would imagine we're likely to see an increase in violence in the next week or two, as Zarqawi's followers try to show that they remain strong. The test will come afterwards.

Second point - this comes a little while after Zarqawi was embarrassed by the video released by the US of him being unable to fire a Squad Automatic Weapon. Did that 'black eye' lead to him being 'ratted out?'

Back to the top.

Mugabe gets around to liquidating the rest of the Kulaks

There's nothing funny in this. Just another worsening African tragedy. I'm all for a charitable approach to foreign aid and debt forgiveness, but when will some luminary make this his cause celebre. Mugabe's old-school Soviet economics do more damage in a week than charity can compensate for in a year.

Is it a conspiracy when everyone is in on it?

Most of the "War on Terror" scandals have had a pretty short half-life. The European "secret prison" conspiracy can now join the NSA data mining projects and warrantless eavesdropping in the great scandal graveyard. Some Council of Europe watchdog just issued his findings that 14 European nations were involved to some degree or another in collaborating with the United States on secret prison and clandestine rendition of prisoners. That's 14. 11 of the 14 are EU members. And the EU only has 25 members. No offense to anybody, but the only major EU player not included on the list is France. Otherwise, the only ones not getting in on the conspiracy are the Low Countries, the Balts, and some of the central/eastern Europeans. Meanwhile, the "guilty" include the UK, Germany, Spain, Italy, Greece, Sweden, Poland, Rumania, Ireland, Portugal, and Cyprus. Plus three non-EU members, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Macedonia, and Turkey. It is nice to see something that Turkey, Greece, and Cyprus can all get together on. If anything, this was a conspiracy by actual heads of state against EU bureaucrats.

Bilbray Gets the Win

GOP breathes a sigh of relief.

Back to the top.

House Dems Preparing to Dump Jefferson?

According to Roll Call (subscription required), the House Democrat Steering and Policy Committee - which determines Committee assignments for House Democrats - will meet as early as today to decide whether to strip Congressman Bill Jefferson of his assignment to the Ways and Means Committee:

Democrats to Discuss Jefferson
June 6, 2006
By Steve Kornacki,
Roll Call Staff

Rep. William Jefferson’s (La.) tenuous standing as a member of the Ways and Means Committee will be discussed when the Democratic Steering and Policy Committee convenes a members-only session, tentatively set for late Tuesday afternoon.
The committee does not hold regularly scheduled meetings, but on Monday, members were told to be present Tuesday for what was billed as an important event: a discussion of the party’s message and agenda.

But the timing — it was only a few session days ago that Jefferson ignored a demand from House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) that he leave Ways and Means immediately — promptly ignited specualtion that Pelosi is planning to ask the Steering and Policy Committee to recommend to the full Democratic Caucus that Jefferson be stripped of his assignment on the exclusive panel.

“If that’s what they’re going to do, they probably won’t say it until everyone’s there,” a Democratic aide noted.

A senior Democratic aide, however, said that Pelosi is expected to broach the Jefferson subject but said that she is likely to tread carefully, perhaps only sampling opinion instead of calling for specific actions.

...Other aides also expressed doubt that Pelosi would ask for an actual vote on Jefferson’s status at the meeting, but in showing a desire to press ahead on the matter, she is testing, at least potentially, her relationship with the Congressional Black Caucus.

...There are two avenues available to Pelosi to pry Jefferson from the committee. She could simply invoke her status as Minority Leader and bring a privileged resolution to the House floor, a death knell for Jefferson unless Republicans for some reason rallied to his defense. But such a move could stir broad resentment among House Democrats, who might interpret it as a precedent for future heavy-handedness.

Pelosi’s other option involves building consensus within the Democratic Caucus, first by winning a recommendation from the 50-member Steering and Policy Committee and then by making her case to the full Caucus.

As the Minority Leader, Pelosi has packed Steering and Policy with some of her closest allies, including Reps. George Miller (Calif.) and Rosa DeLauro (Conn.), who serve as the body’s co-chairs. The primary function of Steering and Policy is to make recommendations on committee appointments — recommendations that typically, and not coincidentally, jibe with Pelosi’s own preferences.

...If Steering and Policy were to endorse Jefferson’s removal, the matter would be taken up by the full Caucus, which will next hold a weekly meeting on Wednesday morning. Those close to Pelosi say she did her homework before calling for Jefferson’s head and have expressed confidence she would prevail in a vote of all 203 Democrats — even if the CBC’s opposition ensures the maneuver wouldn’t be entirely tidy.

...The latest hint that Jefferson’s days on Ways and Means might be drawing to a close is only fueling speculation about his successor.

The most popular theory has Pelosi tapping Rep. Artur Davis (Ala.) to fill a slot that many believe is unofficially earmarked for a CBC member from a Southern state. Given the current tension, Pelosi might find particular urgency in trying to assuage the CBC with a Jefferson replacement pick.

But there also are suggestions that some CBC veterans, who recall that Davis ousted Earl Hilliard, a longtime CBC member, in 2002, might prefer that the spot go to someone else — Elijah Cummings (Md.), for instance, who already has expressed a desire to replace Rep. Benjamin Cardin on Ways and Means when his fellow Marylander leaves the House at the end of the year.

If the Democratic Caucus does strip Jefferson of this Committee assignment, it will raise the stakes for other Democratic members with ethics troubles, who serve on important committees (we're looking at you, Alan Mollohan). Should Mollohan (or another Member in a similar situation) look like he or she will be indicted, there will be pressure from the Congressional Black Caucus to punish that Member as well.

And of course, the media will not forget the actions of the Democratic caucus, and press House Republicans to treat one of their own in the same way. Eventually, this could cause trouble for Jerry Lewis, for example.

Back to the top.

The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Sorry blogging has been non-existent the last few days; I was overcoming technical difficulties.

But why not kick off the day with a salute to what the media - always desparate for a story - seems to be calling the date of the end of the world - 6/6/06.

Now I'm no biblical expert, but isn't 6-6-6 the 'Mark of the Beast,' the number of the Antichrist? I think there would have been even MORE news coverage if it were named in Revelation as the date of the end of the world. I mean if I was told that, I would have run up my credit card bill.

Anyway, to set you up for the end of the world, here is a site where you can get 10-1 odds that the world ends today. If you put some money down and the world ends, you'll really clean up.

And here's something to put you in an 'end of the world' mood. Safe for work.

Back to the top.

Al Qaeda Plot Foiled in Toronto

Breaking news on CNN, as well as here at CBS.

I don't see how this can be possible. Canada has not helped us in the War in Iraq. Thus, they should be safe from Al Qaeda activity.

On a more serious note, thank God, thank the Canadian authorities. And Americans should be thankful for Canadian vigilance generally, which will make American citizens safer.

Back to the top.

Pelosi in 07: Speaker or Unemployed?

Bob Novak writes an interesting piece today, suggesting that there's talk among House Democrats of replacing Nancy Pelosi as leader if Democrats don't regain the majority. I would say that objectively, Pelosi has been a weak leader. Most recently and obviously, she led with her chin when she raised the specter of hearings and impeachment proceedings if Democrats take the House. She has also failed to project an image of Democrats as ready to govern.

Novak is vague on one point though: Pelosi has not been the House Democratic leader for all 12 years in the Minority. She took over after Dick Gephardt retired in 2002. As such, 2006 will represent only the second Congressional election under her leadership:

Goodbye to Nancy?
By Robert Novak
Jun 3, 2006

WASHINGTON -- Talk is increasing among House Democrats that if they fail to regain control after 12 years of a Republican majority, Rep. Nancy Pelosi should be replaced as the party's leader in the House.

If Democrats recapture the House, Pelosi surely will be the first female speaker in the nation's history. But Republican strategists are posing that possibility as a reason for voting Republican, and she will be widely blamed as a San Francisco liberal if there is a Democratic failure in November. Pelosi's colleagues complain about her public performances, especially on NBC's "Meet the Press" May 7.

The highly regarded Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, second-ranking in the House hierarchy as Democratic whip, ordinarily would be in line to succeed Pelosi. However, tension between Pelosi and Hoyer has been so great that many Democrats would prefer somebody not identified as her antagonist. Consequently, there is speculation about Rep. Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, a second-termer who chairs the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, as Pelosi's logical replacement.

Read the whole Novak column, as he also identifies former House Judiciary Committee staffer Paul McNulty as the main source of friction between DoJ and the House of Representatives in the Jefferson raid matter. This has been a point of interest to me since the raid took place: the lead DoJ staffers on this matter, and McNulty in particular, have extensive House experience. You would think that this would help quell any uproar. Instead, the reverse seems to be the case.

Back to the top.

More on the California Special

No sign of the Busby/illegal immigrant appeal story in the MSM. I'll watch to see if it pops up.

The Hotline notes that the scheduling of the special election on the same day as the CA primary could hurt Bilbray, since the Democrats have a contested gubernatorial primary that should boost Democratic turnout.

On the other hand, the Sacramento Bee (registration required) suggests that turnout looks like it will be 'paltry.' This illustrates one of my favorite phenomena: cognitive dissonance in the MSM - the simultaneous belief in two contradictory ideas.

Election turnout looking paltry
Activist fatigue, voter disenchantment cited as possible reasons.
By Laura Mecoy -- Bee Los Angeles Bureau
Published 12:01 am PDT Saturday, June 3, 2006

MANHATTAN BEACH -- Trying to fire up a lackluster crowd at a "get out the vote" rally, City Councilman Jim Aldinger asked who would be working over the weekend to get Californians to the polls on Tuesday.
Only a handful of the 80 activists raised their hands at the rally Thursday for gubernatorial candidate Phil Angelides.

Campaign consultants reported similarly tepid responses from volunteers around the state -- even though an expected low voter turnout and an extremely tight gubernatorial primary could make this year's "get out the vote" efforts more decisive than in past statewide campaigns.

Secretary of State Bruce McPherson said Friday he expects 38 percent of registered voters to cast ballots in Tuesday's primary election. That amounts to about one in four of all Californians eligible to vote.

That would place Tuesday's turnout among the lowest ever for a California gubernatorial primary in a year when the polls indicate this could be one of the state's closest-ever gubernatorial primaries.

Back to the top.

Busby Boosts Bilbray

I've commented recently on the Congressional special election in San Diego on Tuesday. It's generally been felt that this would be a very hard race for Republicans to lose, but in the last week or two there's been speculation that Francine Busby could indeed pull an upset. Such a victory would be regarded as a strong indicator that Republicans are headed for trouble in November.

After the news that hit today, a Busby win on Tuesday will be even more shocking. It seems that Ms. Busby has been caught on tape encouraging illegal immigrants to help her campaign, saying 'you don't need papers to vote.'

The immigration issue has been key in this race, and Brian Bilbray was seen as a strong candidate here based on his tough record on illegal immigration during his previous tenure in the House. Busby had tried to paint him as 'soft' on illegal immigration however. Well, looks like that appeal is likely to fall on deaf ears. And Ms. Busby will spend the last few days of the campaign explaining how her comments were 'taken out of context.'

Update: Critics have pointed out that Ms. Busby's comments are not definitively addressed to illegal immigrants. This is true. Thus I want to provide more detail. In addressing a Spanish-speaking audience through a translator, Ms. Busby said:

"Well sure, everybody can help. Yeah, absolutely. You can all help. Yeah, you don’t need papers for voting, you don’t need to be a registered voter to help."

Draw your own conclusions.

Back to the top.

NY GOP Implodes

I think it's pretty widely accepted that George Pataki should never be allowed to 'help' the Republican party in any way. Ever. Again.

But if you ever find yourself doubting that idea; if you ever think, 'gee, maybe he wasn't that bad,' or 'maybe we should let him run for dogcatcher,' then just remember this article from the New York Times:

June 2, 2006
State G.O.P. Convention Rebuffs Weld and Backs Faso for Governor
By PATRICK HEALY
HEMPSTEAD, N.Y., June 1 — William F. Weld, the former Massachusetts governor, suffered a major rebuke from his own party on Thursday when he lost his bid to win Republicans' backing in the race for governor of New York, though he still won enough support to remain on the Sept. 12 primary ballot.

Instead, delegates in the deeply divided party chose John Faso, a former assemblyman from Columbia County, by a ratio of more than three to two in balloting at their state convention here.

Mr. Weld had the tacit support of Gov. George E. Pataki and other party leaders, who encouraged him to run and pressured delegates to embrace him as their best hope against Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, the likely Democratic nominee.

In a roll call of the delegates, however, Mr. Faso won 61.2 percent to Mr. Weld's 38.8 percent, with 25 percent required for a place on the primary ballot. Mr. Weld said that despite the outcome, he would stay in the race.

Being the party designee is usually a nominal honor, but Republicans say it is sure to be consequential in this race. It elevates Mr. Faso against a former star of the national party, Mr. Weld, and Faso aides believe it will improve their fund-raising, media attention and endorsements, all of which Mr. Weld has had to a greater degree.

Most worrisome to Republicans is that the convention vote exposed tensions between the party's moderate wing, represented by Mr. Weld, and the more conservative members who support Mr. Faso. That split could undermine a party that has held the governor's office for 12 years and is likely to face a formidable challenge this fall.

Back in 1990, the Republican Party in the state of New York was falling apart. The party backed a political neophyte - businessman Pierre Rinfret - for governor. The New York Conservative party, which has often provided crucial votes to Republicans through the cross-endorsement of Republican candidates, saw Rinfret as too liberal, and a likely loser. They instead backed Herb London.

The campaign was an embarrassment for Republicans. London was clearly the better candidate (as I recall), and came within one percentage point of beating the Rinfret for second place, as Mario Cuomo won his third term. The Republican party Chairman in New York's Nassau County excitedly declared on election night 'we came in second,' because a fall to third place would have left the Democrats and the Conservatives as New York state's two major parties, under state law.

It was the nadir for New York Republicans.

Then, just 4 years later, Republicans and Conservatives both endorsed George Pataki, who beat Cumomo in a landslide. Pataki was re-elected with strong margins in 1998 and 2002, but the state organization failed to improve upon its standing. In 1998 Democrat Charlie Schumer defeated Al D'Amato for Senate, and Elliot Spitzer defeated Republican incumbent Dennis Vacco for Attorney General.

Now, history has come full circle. Republicans and Conservatives are again fighting over whom to nominate, and who is too liberal. Republicans have turned to a 'wild card' - former Massachusetts Governor William Weld - to attempt to hold onto the Governorship. And like Cuomo in 1994, a Democrat who appear to have significant weaknesses as a candidate seems destined for a landslide victory.

This is what the New York Republican organization has to show for 12 years of a Republican governor?

Back to the top.

The 2008 Presidential Campaign - a Retrospective

With all the talk lately about conservatives hoping for Republicans to lose the House, and the formation of new third parties, and independent bids for the Presidency, I thought I'd take a crack at something to unite all those themes.

I'll preface this by saying that I certainly don't think that this will happen, but I think everything in here is plausible. And some things are likely. With that, I give you a look back at the 2008 Presidential campaign:

House Elects New York Senator Clinton President

(Washington, DC) – January 6, 2009 – In a dramatic conclusion to the most unusual Presidential election in the nation’s history, the House of Representatives and Senate elected Senator Hillary Clinton of New York as the nation’s next President and Governor Jeb Bush of Florida as Vice-President. While few could have foreseen such a result a few short months ago, the outcome is not a surprise. Mrs. Clinton’s elevation to the Oval Office has been expected since it became clear that Independent Presidential candidate John McCain could not win the support of a sufficient number of House members to earn him a majority of state delegations. Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush was elected Vice President in a largely party-line Senate vote, despite running on the third-place ticket of Virginia Senator George Allen.

While the 2008 campaign saw a variety of stunning events, the outcome of the Presidential election was in many ways determined on election day, 2006. At that time resurgent Democrats, aided by the unpopularity of outgoing President George W. Bush, saw a chance to claim a majority in the House of Representatives for the first time in 12 years. They fell short that night – gaining only 13 of the 15 seats required. Victories in key races in Pennsylvania, Colorado, and Minnesota however, yielded Democratic majorities in the Congressional delegations of those 3 states. Democratic representatives in those states voted in unison for Senator Clinton yesterday, giving her the margin of victory as she claimed majorities in all 3 of those delegations, among her 26 total votes.

The twin elections in the House and Senate were a fitting punctuation to a campaign in which Senator John McCain launched the first significant independent bid for the Presidency in 16 years. Senator McCain withdrew from the race for the Republican nomination after losing the South Carolina primary. He announced the end of his affiliation with the Republican party, declaring “you won’t have McCain to kick around any more.” Three days later he announced his independent bid for the Presidency with former Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman as his running mate. Lieberman had been defeated in a Senate primary in 2006, and renounced his affiliation with the Democratic party, in failed bid for re-election to the Senate as an independent.

McCain and Lieberman seemed to be a perfect match. Both were rejected by their parties due to deviation from ‘the party line.’ Each held to positions unpopular in his own party, even at the cost of their political careers. Ultimately the McCain-Lieberman ticket came in second place in both the popular and electoral votes, winning 37% of the vote, while carrying 18 states with 161 electoral votes.

When Senator McCain announced his intent to seek the Presidency as an independent, many analysts argued that he and Senator Allen would split the conservative vote. In the end however, exit polling showed that many liberals and independents supported McCain, responding to his promises to ‘end crony capitalism,’ and to ‘knock tweedle-dum and tweedle-dumber from their perches of power.’ The Senator promised that under a McCain Presidency, Washington would ‘once again be answerable to the people.’

Analysts have credited President-elect Clinton, who ultimately won 15 states with 224 electoral votes, with running a ‘nimble’ campaign. Sources close to Clinton say that she was ‘surprised’ that McCain campaigned so aggressively for the votes of traditional Democratic constituencies. Mrs. Clinton has also privately vowed ‘payback’ for former Vice President Al Gore, who campaigned for Senator McCain after being defeated by Mrs. Clinton in his bid for the Democratic Presidential nomination. Senator McCain and Mr. Gore have vowed to continue the ‘crusade for representative government,’ and have formed a political action committee to support candidates who agree with their 10 point reform agenda.

Senator Allen expressed disappointment in the wake of the House vote yesterday, but promised to support the incoming President “anyway I can, in bringing a torn nation back together.” He further stated that “Jeb Bush is going to be the best damn Vice President this nation has ever seen," and said that the former Florida Governor will ensure that “there’s an independent voice in the White House, to make sure that those who support traditional values, smaller government, and respect for the law get a fair shake.”

House Speaker Boehner stated “I look forward to helping the President when she’s right, and convincing her of her error when she’s wrong – always pursuing the best interests of the American people.” Since election day, Speaker Boehner had led the effort to unite House Republicans in support of Senator McCain, as the only viable candidate to prevent Mrs. Clinton from winning the White House. This effort splintered when it became clear that most House Democrats would vote for Mrs. Clinton – even those who represented states or districts where Senator McCain had won a plurality or majority of the vote.

Majority Leader Reid issued a statement congratulating his former Senate colleague on her victory…

Back to the top.

Energy Independence Key to War on Terror?

Dick Morris has an interesting piece in the Hill, where he argues that both Al Gore and Hillary Clinton recognize that there is a coalition forming among Reagan Democrats, environmentalists, Jewish voters, and others, who favor independece from foreign oil, and that the President ignores it at his own peril:

Gore, Hillary go where Bush fears to tread
Green isn’t what it used to be. It was once just the color of the trees and grass that the environmental movement tried to protect. But now it is also the color of the three dollar bills Americans must suddenly pay for a gallon of gas.

More broadly, our frustrations in Iraq and the stalemate in Iran give an indication that it is only by following where the green movement points — to independence from oil domination — that we can vindicate the red, white and blue and, for Jewish voters, the blue and white, the colors of the Israeli flag.

After five months of inaction, after his “oil addiction” reference in his State of the Union speech, President Bush now faces a Democratic Party galvanized by this new rainbow coalition of colors around a coherent policy theme. While Bush has dithered and the Republicans in Congress have failed to look beyond Alaska drilling as the solution to our dependence on foreign oil, first Gore and now Hillary have passed them by and staked out their claims to the issue.

Bush cannot afford to yield this ground because it is no longer the esoteric preserve of the environmental-policy wonks. Rising gas prices have generated a populist anger at the bottom of the social ladder. The former Reagan Democrats are outraged by pump prices and demand action. Just as Republicans once lured them with promises of lower taxes, so Democrats can now appeal to them with the lure of lower gas costs.

Morris is a bright guy. He can be spectularly right and spectacularly wrong. I don't think I'm with him here however, because I don't think the American people really believe gas prices are all that high. Sure, I don't want to spend $3 for a gallon of gas, and not many do. Plus, folks who spend a higher portion of their incomes on gasoline will feel it much more than others do.

That said, I don't see the revolution forming - at least not yet. People are driving as much as before, and the focus on policy in Washington has already moved way beyond gas prices. I mean, when was the last time it was the headline on the evening news?

I talk more about the excessive focus on gasoline prices here.

Back to the top.

Zinsmesister Welcomed with Lawsuit?

In the days since Karl Zinsmeister was named Chief White House Domestic Policy Advisor, he's been criticized for revising quotes in a newspaper profile of him, and re-posting the edited article on the AEI website, still under the byline of the original author. Zinsmeister has admitted doing this, and said he was merely trying to correct misquotes and misimpressions. The professional Left has criticized Zinsmeister pretty heavily.

Well, today it is reported that the Syracuse New Times - the original publisher of the piece in question - is thinking about bringing suit against Zinsmeister.

How long before people ask when the President is going to fire Zinsmeister for this transgression?

Back to the top.

House Republicans Should Run Against the President

Interesting piece by Matt Towery. Towery recognizes that House Republicans are generally helped by their commitment to border enforcement, and suggests that they should directly contrast that with the position of the President and the Senate.

It's something I suggested a little while ago.

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out the next month or so, by which time I expect an immigration deal will get done.

BTW, Mickey Kaus has an interesting piece on the Pence immigration compromise, considering whether it confers an unfair benefit on illegals currently in the US.

Back to the top.

Eyes on Bilbray in California Special

Next Tuesday voters in California's 50th District will pick a replacement for Congressman Duke Cunningham. Former Congressman Brian Bilbray is the Republican nominee, and would normally be heavily favored. However, because of ambivalence about the President and an unusually strong Democratic nominee, Bilbray's only a alight favorite to retain the seat (and even that depends on who you talk to).

Others have written on this race, but I thought I would call attention to the big spending by the National Republican Congressional Committee in this race - reportedly $4.5 million. If Bilbray holds on to win the seat, there's no doubt it will be partly because of the ability of the NRCC to finance the race. It's all the more reason that Democrats should be concerned about the horrible mismanagement of Howard Dean at the DNC.

Back to the top.

Moore Lies; Victimizes Little Guy?

Michael Moore is accused of using excerpts of an interview with an Iraq War vet without permission, and misrepresenting the vet's views:

GI'S BIG FAT SUIT VS. MOORE
SEEKS $85M FOR 'LYING' 9/11 CLIP
By JENNIFER FERMINO
May 31, 2006 -- EXCLUSIVE

A double-amputee Iraq-war vet is suing Michael Moore for $85 million, claiming the portly peacenik recycled an old interview and used it out of context to make him appear anti-war in "Fahrenheit 9/11."

Sgt. Peter Damon, 33, who strongly supports America's invasion of Iraq, said he never agreed to be in the 2004 movie, which trashes President Bush.

In the 2003 interview, which he did at Walter Reed Army Hospital for NBC News, he discussed only a new painkiller the military was using on wounded vets.

"They took the clip because it was a gut-wrenching scene," Damon said yesterday. "They sandwiched it in. [Moore] was using me as ammunition."

Damon seems to "voice complaint about the war effort" in the movie, according to the lawsuit.

But what the father of two from Middleborough, Mass., was really talking about was the "excruciating" pain he felt after he lost his arms when a Black Hawk helicopter exploded in front of him.

...Particularly outrageous to Damon is the fact that Moore never interviewed him or asked his permission to use the old clip.

"I was complaining about the pain I would've been having [if it weren't for the painkiller]," he said.

NBC is named in the suit - which was filed in Suffolk County, Mass., on Friday - along with Harvey and Robert Weinstein, Miramax Corp., Lions Gate Films and other production companies involved with the picture.

Newsman Brian Williams ends the NBC clip by adding, "These men, with catastrophic wounds are . . . completely behind the war effort," according to the lawsuit.

That part, which wasn't shown in the Moore movie, is a far more accurate depiction of Damon's feelings, he said.

Lawyer Dennis Lynch said he took the case last year and they held off filing the lawsuit in a bid to settle the matter.

"We attempted to resolve the situation amicably with Mr. Moore [for a year] but he refused," he said.

If you think $85 million sounds a little steep, you'll be relieved to know that Michael Moore seems to think that tort reform and caps on damages for pain and suffering are bad ideas.

Hat Tip Instapundit.

Back to the top.

Flash: Nature Affects Global Temperature!

Looks like researchers have discovered an 'inconvenient truth' about shifting in average global temperature. An area near the North Pole had an average temperature of 74 degrees fahrenheit about 55 million years ago:

Scientists say Arctic once was tropical
By SETH BORENSTEIN, AP Science Writer

Scientists have found what might have been the ideal ancient vacation hotspot with a 74-degree Fahrenheit average temperature, alligator ancestors and palm trees. It's smack in the middle of the Arctic.

First-of-its-kind core samples dug up from deep beneath the Arctic Ocean floor show that 55 million years ago an area near the North Pole was practically a subtropical paradise, three new studies show.

The scientists say their findings are a glimpse backward into a much warmer-than-thought polar region heated by run-amok greenhouse gases that came about naturally.

I'm sure it was caused by human activities... perhaps out-of-control manufacture of spears produced excessive greenhouse gases.

The writer responds to 'climate skeptics' with an irrelevancy:

Skeptics of man-made causes of global warming have nothing to rejoice over, however. The researchers say their studies appearing in Thursday's issue of Nature also offer a peak at just how bad conditions can get.

"It probably was (a tropical paradise) but the mosquitoes were probably the size of your head," said Yale geology professor Mark Pagani, a study co-author.

I don't recall global warming skeptics arguing that a warmer world would be nice. I think they are skeptical of man's role in the phenomenon. They say that temperature swings are cyclical, and that nature can produce temperature swings that swamp the contribution made by human activity. Looks like this article supports that point of view quite clearly.

Millions of years ago the Earth experienced an extended period of natural global warming. But around 55 million years ago there was a sudden supercharged spike of carbon dioxide that accelerated the greenhouse effect.

Scientists already knew this "thermal event" happened but are not sure what caused it. Perhaps massive releases of methane from the ocean, the continent-sized burning of trees, lots of volcanic eruptions.

Many experts figured that while the rest of the world got really hot, the polar regions were still comfortably cooler, maybe about 52 degrees Fahrenheit.

But the new research found the polar average was closer to 74 degrees. So instead of Boston-like weather year-round, the Arctic was more like Miami North. Way north.

"It's the first time we've looked at the Arctic, and man, it was a big surprise to us," said study co-author Kathryn Moran, an oceanographer at the University of Rhode Island. "It's a new look to how the Earth can respond to these peaks in carbon dioxide."

...What's troubling is that this hints that future projections for warming, several degrees over the next century, may be on the low end, said study lead author Appy Sluijs of the Institute of Environmental Biology at Utrecht University in the Netherlands.

Also it shows that what happened 55 million years ago was proof that too much carbon dioxide — more than four times current levels — can cause global warming, said another co-author Henk Brinkhuis at Utrecht University.

Purdue University atmospheric sciences professor Gabriel Bowen, who was not part of the team, praised the work and said it showed that "there are tipping points in our (climate) system that can throw us to these conditions."

Is there anything surprising in here? Carbon dioxide at more than 4 times the current level can lead to dramatic climate changes? I'm no scientist, but I'm guessing it's not a surprise. 'There are tipping points in our system?' You don't need to be a scientist to understand that, intuitively. Current projections for global warming may be on the low end? Based on an example of a time when CO2 concentrations were quadruple what they are today? Let's just say that that might be clearer with more explanation - but I am skeptical today.

Back to the top.

Not Too Late for Spending Reform

I've argued before that the White House ought to focus on spending restraint in the months between now and election day. I know the President's credibility on this is not great, but I think people will accept a convert. He could start by saying that 'different times and circumstances demand different policy responses.' Now that we've been fighing the War on Terror for nearly 5 years, and now that the economy is booming, the time is right to shift to a greater focus on restraining federal spending.

To that end, the President could push for Congress to approve:

1) A Balanced Budget Amendment;
2) Enhanced Rescission Authority (also known as a line-item veto);
3) Earmark Reform; and,
4) a "Pork Database"

The Pork Database is a great idea, because as I've noted several times, it's almost impossible to eliminate earmarks. The reform advocated by Coburn, McCain, Carper, and Obama would ensure that the pork-barrel projects that survive any reform process (and there will be many), will at least be disclosed for all to review.

The great political benefit of a focus on spending reform is obvious: it is a sure appeal to the conservative base, which is proving... difficult to reach... through other approaches. Plus, given the current circumstances, there are no voters lost by it. Plus of course, it's the right thing to do.

Back to the top.

House Still Doesn't Get It

Dana Milbank is not my favorite, but he gives the Judiciary Committee a taste of what's to come if they call in the Attorney General and FBI Director for a hearing to castigate them over the Jefferson office raid:

FBI Raid Hits a Constitutional Nerve
By Dana Milbank
Wednesday, May 31, 2006; A02

When asked to hold hearings on the rendition and torture of terrorism suspects, House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.) respectfully declined.

Invited repeatedly to probe the Bush administration's leaking of a CIA operative's identity, the chairman sent his regrets.

Urged to have hearings dedicated to the administration's warrantless eavesdropping, Sensenbrenner demurred once more.

But when FBI agents searched a congressional office 11 days ago, Sensenbrenner went up to the attic and found his gavel.

Yesterday, he held the first of at least four hearings into the raid -- the debut was dispassionately titled "Reckless Justice" -- and announced that he will haul the attorney general and FBI director before his committee. He also vowed that he will "promptly" write legislation to prevent a recurrence.

Even before the expert witnesses were sworn in yesterday, Sensenbrenner said his mind was made up. "Documents having nothing whatsoever to do with any crime," he lectured absent administration officials, were "seized by the executive branch without constitutional authority."

The four witnesses performed in the perfect harmony of an amen chorus.

"A wholesale constitutional violation," said former House lawyer Charles Tiefer.

"Unconstitutional," judged constitutional lawyer Bruce Fein.

"Abandonment of fundamental law," said former congressman Bob Walker (R-Pa.). "A recipe for constitutional crisis."

"A profound and almost gratuitous insult," contributed George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley. "Raw arrogance."

Milbank's mockery goes on for a while.

Now here's the thing: I don't know whether the search was constitutional or not. I don't see any strong argument against and I, like many in the House Republican majority, advocate a narrow reading of the Constitution.

But in an important sense, it doesn't matter if it's Constitutional or not. To argue this case prominently and publicly - and particularly to do so at a time when there is no other news about Congress in the papers (Memorial Day recess) - is stupid. What can be gained by flaunting this in front of the national media, that can't be achieved through private communications with the White House? And while I think that Alberto Gonzalez will have the good grace not to show the Committee up if he is called to testify, why should he? After all, the President gave the House an 'out' when he decided to seal the documents for 45 days. If the Congress wants to continue to pick at this scab, why should the administration save them (politically) AGAIN? Take the olive branch (or life preserver) that has been offered, negotiate a face-saving compromise for these documents that allows you to state that no precedent has been set, and end this argument.

Back to the top.

Google Fights Bird Flu

That's probably what they were doing instead of recognizing Memorial Day. Too busy saving the world.

US poultry experts using Google to beat bird flu
Tue May 30, 3:50 PM ET

Poultry experts are turning to sophisticated computer imaging to help them prepare for the expected arrival of the deadly bird flu virus in the United States later this year.

Geographic Information System (GIS) technology is being used to pinpoint the location of commercial poultry flocks, feed mills and processing plants, said Sherrill Davison, professor of avian medicine at the University of Pennsylvania.

The information will be used to help create buffer zones around an infected flock and contain the H5N1 strain when it makes its U.S. appearance.

Since the beginning of the year, experts have also been using Google Earth (Nasdaq:GOOG - news), which combines satellite imagery, maps and the company's search engine to span the globe. It gives extra details including the location of buildings, schools and roads near large chicken and turkey farms and production facilities.

"Twenty years ago we had to drive around the countryside and find the chicken farm that reported a disease, but now everything is on a mapping system," Davison told Reuters in a recent interview.

"Now, we can very quickly, within about an hour, know exactly how many farms are in an (affected) area. Then we can know which farms to send teams to for extra sampling.

Google vs. the Bird Flu, huh? Well, not as cool as Batman vs. Superman, but not bad.

And let me beat Insty to the punch: "Army of Davids... something, something... mumble, bird flu... buy my book."

Back to the top.

More Republican Infighting

Well, looks like things continue not to be hunky-dory on the Hill. In fact, according to the Hill, Republicans continue to have internal fights over spending, immigration, ethics, and probably anything else you can name:

More splits in House GOP ranks
By Patrick O’Connor

As the midterm elections loom and concern about maintaining their majority hold on the House increases, rank-and-file Republicans have grown more and more combative with their leaders and themselves.

In the past two weeks, Republican House members have sparred openly on the House floor and have criticized their Speaker behind closed doors.

With immigration reform, an update of the Voting Rights Act and a series of appropriations bills among the few big-ticket items remaining on this year’s legislative calendar, it is unlikely these intraparty squabbles will die down any time soon, particularly as vulnerable Republicans seek to distance themselves from their party and their president.

While bickering is a constant on Capitol Hill, the recent rancor illustrates the election-year self-interest of individual members that could make it increasingly difficult for leaders to tackle controversial legislation. In turn, the growing discord could help paint the GOP as divided.

With all eyes on immigration, spending restraint continues to be the quiet issue that divides congressional Republicans this year. Members were forced to postpone a vote on the supplemental spending bill to fund the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq until after the Memorial Day recess because House and Senate negotiators were unable to settle on a final bill.

In the House, Republicans have been arguing internally about this issue all year.

Last week, during a closed-door meeting of the conservative Republican Study Committee (RSC), Reps. John Carter (Texas) and Zach Wamp (Tenn.), who both serve on the Appropriations Committee, criticized some of their colleagues for raising points of order to strip $507 million in construction projects from a military spending bill two weeks ago.

Rep. Ray LaHood (R-Ill.) openly rebuked Reps. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas) and Mike Pence (R-Ind.), who chairs the RSC, for stripping the money in a rare public showdown among congressional Republicans on the House floor.

Carter and Wamp told RSC members during the group’s regular Wednesday meeting that it would be more effective if they worked with conservatives on the Appropriations Committee behind the scenes before taking something directly to the House floor.

“They should talk to [RSC members on the committee] and maybe we can resolve the situation,” Carter said Thursday, adding that the military spending bill was bad legislation on which to highlight spending cuts. “I didn’t think it was a good place to pick a fight.”

...In an issue that dominated headlines last week, House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) endured modest criticism from some members during a closed-door meeting Thursday convened to discuss a recent FBI raid on the congressional office of Rep. William Jefferson (D-La.).

During the meeting, members echoed the concerns of their constituents in criticizing Hastert for appearing to protect a Democratic member of Congress who, according to court documents, has been videotaped receiving $100,000 in cash, $90,000 of which was later discovered in his freezer.

In an indirect rebuke of the Speaker, Republican Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite (Fla.) announced Friday that she would introduce a resolution condemning Hastert’s efforts to protect congressional offices from a raid by federal law enforcement officers.

“I am extremely disappointed that some in this body — including the Speaker and the Minority Leader [Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.)] — feel that somehow our actions are sacrosanct and above public scrutiny,” Brown-Waite said in a release sent out by her office. “We are sending the wrong message to our constituents when we say that Congress is off limits to federal inspection.”

Brown-Waite said she does not intend her resolution to be a direct affront to the Speaker. She said it was meant to reflect the frustration she has heard from her constituents. “I understand their ire,” she said.

Well, so there's infighting. There was TONS of infighting on the Yankees teams of Reggie Jackson, Thurman Munson, Goose Gossage, and Billy Martin? Perhaps House Republicans are simply waiting for the pressure, when they'll truly shine?

Oh, and let's make it official: Ginny Brown-Waite DOES win my play of the week. Presumably she'll find a Democratic cosponsor to claim the award with her.

Back to the top.

Headed for a Holding Pattern?

The air traffic system may be about to move more slowly, as a European court has thrown out the US-EU agreement to disclose passenger data before planes arrive in the US. Spokespeople say it will be negotiated before there's any adverse impact on travelers. Let's hope so.

If not, more will die (scroll down to 'Math Murder').

Back to the top.

NYTimes: Finger on the Pulse...

Congressional offices have been receiving bricks from immigration control advocates for weeks. Michelle Malkin covered this as early as mid-April. And the New York Times only things it's newsworthy now?

Back to the top.

Roger Clemens Back?

I don't know why Long Island Newsday would have the story before ESPN or Sports Illustrated, but I assume we'll get confirmation one way or the other.

Update: Newsday sticks by its story, but ESPN says they're wrong! They say the deal is all BUT done, and won't be done until today - or even tomorrow. Whatever.

Back to the top.

Helen Thomas Blasted Again

Great moment at the daily White House press briefing today, and Drudge has the transcript. It was priceless when Snow noted that Zinsmeister might have been talking about the press.

Back to the top.

Not Everyone Reads Tea Leaves

Well, it looks like the same tenacity that has made Representative Jim Sensenbrenner a hero to supporters of border enforcement is also alienating him from those who believe the FBI was right to conduct a raid on Congressman Bill Jefferson's office. Clever readers will recognize that those two groups are often the very same people.

Rather than temper his criticism of the DoJ, as Dennis Hastert and others have done, Sensenbrenner wants to call Alberto Gonzalez on the carpet:

House Panel Probes FBI Search of Rep. Jefferson's Office
Tuesday , May 30, 2006

WASHINGTON — House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner said Tuesday he will summon Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and FBI Director Robert Mueller before his panel to explain their decision to raid a lawmaker's office for the first time in history.

"I want to have Attorney General Gonzales and FBI Director Mueller up here to tell us how they reached the conclusion they did," said Sensenbrenner, one of President Bush's most loyal House allies. Sensenbrenner's hearings, which began Tuesday, are examining whether the May 20 raid violated the Constitution.

Calling the decision to authorize the raid "profoundly disturbing," Sensenbrenner signaled that he would not be among the lawmakers backing off their criticism of the Bush administration. Any progress in talks between House and Justice Department lawyers in crafting guidelines for future criminal investigations of Congress would not deter Sensenbrenner from calling the administration to account for weekend search of Rep. William Jefferson's offices.

"They didn't get it right this time," Sensenbrenner said.

...Calling it the first of three hearings into the matter, Sensenbrenner was not mollified by President Bush's order last week to seal the case, nor behind-the-scenes negotiations since then toward establishing a procedure for future searches.

At the session, Democrats said a member of the Bush administration, and not just legal experts, should have been called before the panel to answer for the raid.

"We've never been told why the search had to be done in the middle of the night," noted ranking Democrat John Conyers of Michigan. "We've never learned why the member in question was not permitted to have his attorneys present while his offices were searched for some 18 hours."

Of course, a hearing featuring the Attorney General and FBI Director would be just the thing to help the President's approval rating and hurt those of Congress. It might even give Gonzalez an 'Ollie North moment' - something like this:

"When I took the oath of office, I swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States, and to enforce the laws of this great nation. And with all due respect Mr. Chairman, getting elected to Congress doesn't entitle a man to take bribes, corrupt the democratic process, and bring dishonor to the Congress itself, all while pretending that his title puts him above the law and allows him to hide evidence on property entrusted to him by the taxpayers. Consistent with the checks and balances that are part of our system, the Department of Justice obtained court permission to go and get the evidence that Mr. Jefferson was withholding, and we would do the same thing in an instant if that was what it took to ensure that a criminal is brought to justice."

Is that really what Chairman Sensenbrenner wants?

Back to the top.

Liberal Bloggers Not Interested in Kerry?

The Hotline's Blogometer provides an overview of the blogospheric reaction to John Kerry's decision to reopen the battle against the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth:

5/30: Deja Vu All Over Again
The Blogometer did not exist for Round One of Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) vs. Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, but the blogger spill over on the issue is definitely part of the reason it was created. Righty bloggers are again driving the issue while lefty bloggers, normally not ones to shy away from a debate, seem contempt [sic] to label all Kerry detractors as liars and leave actual refutation of righty blogger attacks up to the MSM ... which lefty bloggers then criticize for not debunking righty blogger attacks quickly enough. For both sides, however, it's clear that any Kerry candidacy must address this past before looking to the future.

KERRY: Well At Least They Can Agree On One Thing ...
The re-emergence of Kerry's Vietnam record finally generated some consensus in the blogosphere ... if he's going to run in '08 he is going to have to put this issue to bed. Righty Captain's Quarters: "It would be inaccurate, to put it mildly, to say that the Swift boat veterans cost Kerry the presidency. What defeated Kerry was his insistence on focusing his campaign on his valor in Viet Nam and the repetition of stories like Christmas in Cambodia that failed the smell test. ... The only possible reason for raising this issue would be to clear the decks for another presidential run in 2008, but like 2004, it shows that Kerry's only strategy for elections is to live in a refashioned past." Lefty The Democratic Daily: "If John Kerry is going to have a chance to win in 2008 it will be necessary for him eliminate the controversy created by the Swift Boat Liars. Even though the facts were clear that O'Neil and other were both lying and working with GOP operatives, the media concentrated on the horse race aspect with questions as to how the charges affected the campaign, and gave far too little attention to the overwhelming amount of evidence supporting Kerry."

Moving to the actual story, consensus falls apart. Vietnam Vet Bruce Kesler at Democracy Project calls the New York Times a "willing mouthpiece for Kerry" and refutes the Times reporting on Kerry's 1971 "The Dick Cavett Show" appearance. Brainster's Blog looks at the "Christmas in Cambodia" angle while The Unalienable Right parses the Times words to poke fun at their conclusion: "We have very little interest in rehashing Hanoi John Kerry's failed presidential bid, but one paragraph in this fawning NY Times story stuck out in particular: "The Swift boat group insisted that no boats had gone to Cambodia. But Mr. Kerry's researcher, using Vietnam-era military maps and spot reports from the naval archives showing coordinates for his boat, traced his path from Ha Tien toward Cambodia on a mission that records say was to insert Navy Seals." ...You see, some records indicating that his boat went toward Cambodia at some point prove he was in Cambodia at Christmas-time in 1968. One time, we drove from Los Angeles north towards Sacramento. This proves we were in Oregon in 1968." Confederate Yankee pitches in with a map to try and show Kerry's story is impossible.

Not all righty bloggers wanted to relive the debate, but that didn't mean they had sympathy for Kerry. Robert Hahn at RedState: "Apparently neither John Kerry nor the New York Times can get over the idea that they were beaten in their race for the White House. ...Perhaps it is balm for his wounded ego. But he'll have to pardon the rest of us if we don't care anymore. Real presidents do not get second chances to deal with unanticipated events." Blue Crab Boulevard: "I wasn't blogging when that little tempest broke, so I might as well throw in my two cents now since Kerry wants to reopen things. ...Four months or so in Swift Boats do not a "war hero" make."

Outside of labeling righty blogger liars, lefty bloggers left actual refutation of their claims up to the Times. The most common lefty reaction was to attack the media for not debunking the Swift Boat/righty blogger claims fast enough. Greg Sargent at TAPPED: "Look, here's the thing. To the extent that the Swift Boat Liars were effective -- and that's in dispute -- it wasn't just because of their spending on ads. It was because the media amplified those charges for days and days, if not weeks, without examining them critically. When the press did get around to debunking the charges whatever damage there was had already been done. The media tried to shift blame for this to Kerry by arguing that he'd failed to respond aggressively. But here's the point: The press shouldn't have had to wait for Kerry to start hitting back before it started to report critically on what the Swift Boat Liars were saying."

This has to be worrying to Kerry's nascent '08 Presidential campaign. Howard Dean, MoveOn, and DailyKos have demonstrated the importance of strong netroots to a Presidential campaign - especially to Democratic campaigns. There aren't many people that give John Kerry a serious shot in 2008. Seeing the lack of interest on the left in re-engaging in this fight, it seems to me that they're not really all that interested in John Kerry.

Back to the top.

Federal Reserve Geeks

Some people had hurt feelings when Ben Bernanke was selected to replace Alan Greenspan. And if you're Columbia Business School Dean Glenn Hubbard (right), how do you express such frustration? You make a music video, or course.

The funniest thing I've seen in a while - plus it's safe for work. Who knew economists could be so entertaining?

Thanks to Joe for sending it.

Back to the top.

What Will the Immigration Compromise Look Like?

Well, seems that lots of folks are now convinced that an immigration bill featuring an amnesty will not be enacted this year, because opposition is too strong among House Republicans. My mom told me to avoid self praise, but I will indulge myself this time, and note that I predicted that on April 7. I suspect that others predicted it earlier, but who has time to do that kind of research?

Now the question becomes what happens next. Will Congressional Republicans come together to pass a bill, will Senate Democrats block it, and will the President sign it?

First off, I think a House-Senate compromise is likely. Even Senate Republicans are starting to see the handwriting on the wall, and recognize that an amnesty is politically dangerous, and probably not attainable with the House, anyway. So will a compromise have anything more than border enforcement? I would say it's likely that it will. House leaders and others have keyed upon the 'path to citizenship' as the problem. That leaves open a guestworker program, which would allow participation by those currently here illegally - perhaps something along the lines of the Pence proposal.

Pence's proposal deals with the problem of the illegal immigrant population, will have significant backing among House conservatives, and does not provide the path to citizenship. Further, the majority of illegal immigrants don't want to become US citizens per se, they simply want to work here - so outside of their liberal spokespeople, most would probably be content with this system. Also, it would allow the President to claim a victory on the issue. And it has the virtue of being opposed by Tom Tancredo. This is not meant to cast aspersions on Tancredo, but the President wants to be seen as one who rises above the extremes of the debate, and whatever you think of Tancredo, he represents one extreme. If Tom Tancredo opposes the final product, it will enhance the ability of the President to say he's forged a compromise that doesn't make anyone entirely happy.

Will Senate Democrats block the bill? Well, I hope so, because I think the Pence idea will probably be as politically popular as an amnesty was often cited as being. Further, a Senate filibuster would put the Democrats on the side of blocking a popular, achievable, reform on a priority issue - immigration. Still, if some of the extreme liberal leaders oppose this strongly, and can get Ted Kennedy and others on their side, a filibuster is possible. This might be the most politically advantageous outcome for Republicans - something that at last motivates their base.

Will the President sign the bill? It's probably as close as he will come to what he wants. It will have significant enforcement measures as well as a worker program that ought to be effective at reducing the illegal population.

So my next prediction is that the President will sign a compromise along these lines in July - after the Mexican Presidential election.

Back to the top.

The 'Reckless' FBI Raid

The House Judiciary Committee is today holding a hearing on the FBI raid of Congressman Bill Jefferson's office. The title seems to give away the aim; it's called "Reckless Justice: Did the Saturday Night Raid of Congress Trample the Constitution." (For those not familiar with Congress, hearings are not designed to expose facts, but to make a point. This one appears to stick to the tradition).

What might the witnesses say? Well, let's take a look. Jonathan Turley told the Times-Picayune, "it seems to have been orchestrated for prime-time news reports and designed to put pressure on the congressman."

Charles Tiefer told the Chicago Tribune, "it's historic, striking, extraordinary and represents a classic effort by the chief executive to balance several of his responsibilities--on the one hand, to respect a coordinate branch of government, and at the same time to take care that the laws be faithfully executed."

Robert Walker served many years in the House, and appears to be an opponent of the raid, as well.

Lastly, I can not find any indication from Bruce Fein of where he stands on this question, going in. Do you think he was drated in to provide an alternate point of view, or will he sing from the same songbook?

Strange that Jim Sensenbrenner - hero of the base on immigration - seems to be opposed on this one.

Back to the top.