Shocked, I Am Shocked

Scott McClellan, President Bush’s former Press Secretary who served in the White House for six years, has written a just published book that blasts the White House for its disastrous Iraq strategy, its Katrina performance, and stops just short of accusing the President and his top aides of lying to the public. He describes Bush as an incurious individual, who stubbornly refused to admit mistakes, and centered his entire approach to his job on getting reelected in 2004.

The White House response has been not to deny the accusations but to accuse McClellan of “disloyalty” and to wonder why he didn’t raise these issues when he was employed, as if anyone disagreeing with the established administration policy had any chance of being heard or remaining employed.

How anyone can be surprised by this ‘revelation’ is what is shocking, not what McClellan reveals.

Hearing again about our incompetent President and his failure to deal with reality, unfortunately makes me think of Hilary Clinton’s campaign. Starting as a Clinton supporter and watching horrific misstep after misstep, I’ve become more and more appalled at what she and Bill are willing to do to return to the White House.

First a complete misunderstanding of the steps needed to succeed in the Democratic primary by ignoring the ‘small’ states and assuming she would easily be nominated by just showing up. Than the occurrence of frequent leadership changes and a campaign staff with lowered morale. This was followed by the employment of the Republican race card in South Carolina and the call for “white voters” to support her in the Midwest. The final blow for me is her complete hypocrisy regarding the seating of Florida and Michigan delegations.

She obviously missed out on the benefits of Title Nine and never played team sports as a child where participants learn that you do not change the rules in the middle of games.

All Democratic candidates agreed that Florida and Michigan would be penalized for moving their primary dates forward. No campaign was run in either state. But Hilary wants to count those votes because they are in her favor, without bothering to explain what her position would be if the majority of those uncontested votes went elsewhere.

Completely ignoring the illogical position she holds, she continues to claim that she should get these votes, that she leads in the popular vote, and that she won in states that have more electoral votes than Obama. What she doesn’t lead in are delegates to the convention, which is the only thing that matters. Repeating things that aren’t true until people tune out or assume in the recesses of their minds that they are true, is standard Bush practice over the past 7 ½ years. If Clinton somehow wins this nomination, I am going to have a really difficult time voting for her. I am approaching the stage where I would rather see Obama lose to McCain than have Clinton defeat him.

The key to success in November for the Democratic Party is to make this election a referendum on the Bush years. It doesn’t really matter if McCain is perceived as different from Bush, which I don’t believe he is on major issues like Iraq and the economy. What he is, is a continuation of Republican governance, and that approach has failed so horrendously and done such harm to the United States that its practitioners need to be cast into the wilderness and thrown out of office.

Recount II: Return to the Swamp is The New Republic editorial published: Wednesday, June 11, 2008:

It is usually a mistake to read too deeply into the character of a presidential candidate on the basis of some tactical maneuver or grubby compromise. Anybody who was a saint wouldn't be in the position of running for the White House. And yet, Hillary Clinton's speech last week in Florida was so audacious, so divorced from reality, that it begs characterological questions.

In the speech, Clinton--summoning as much passion and moral fervor as she has mustered at any point in the campaign--demanded that the Florida and Michigan delegations be seated at the Democratic National Convention. She compared her cause to abolition and women's suffrage. And--perhaps even more outrageous to those of us who have lived through the last eight years but weren't around for Seneca Falls--she said the Democratic Party and Barack Obama were reenacting the Republican effort to prevent the Florida recount in 2000.

It is a repellent comparison. "I remember very well back in 2000," she said. "There were those who argued that people's votes should be discounted over technicalities." We remember back in 2007, when Hillary Clinton was one of the people arguing that Florida's and Michigan's votes should be discounted. Her ostensible discovery of the absolute moral principle that every state delegation must be seated in full, whether or not its primary was contested, is purely instrumental and highly dubious.
The fight over the scheduling of the primaries is not one that ought to seize anybody's moral imagination. The current primary system is fairly silly, with Iowa and New Hampshire clinging to outsized roles without any particular justification save precedent. Florida and Michigan, however, did not move their primaries forward in the calendar to advance a principle or improve a flawed system. They did so to increase their own political leverage. They were willing to risk losing some or even all of their seated delegates because they craved the p.r. value that accompanies the earliest primary contests--and they pursued this attention with the full knowledge that it might ultimately cost them.

But, if this whole contretemps can be traced back to an irrational system for nominating candidates and the recklessness of two states, Clinton won't acknowledge it. Last week, she declared that "not counting Florida and Michigan is changing a central governing rule of this country--that whenever we can understand the clear intent of the voters, their votes should be counted." This is a deliberately misleading conflation of the two meanings of the word "count.” The ballots of the Florida primary were, in fact, counted. The prize that both sides understood to be at stake--bragging rights about a big-state victory--was awarded to the winner, Hillary Clinton. That the votes would not produce delegates was something she and her supporters understood well in advance.

Nevertheless, her comparison to the 2000 election does resonate in one crucial respect. In 2000, George W. Bush's campaign and its allies invented and discarded principles whenever it suited them. They called hand counts of ballots inherently unreliable. They insisted on following the letter of the law except in cases, like military ballots, where it benefited them. This proved to be a foreboding premonition of how Bush would use power as president.

Likewise, Clinton's behavior in this case offers a window into her temperament. She appears to have retreated into a cocoon of self-righteousness and unreality. Her management of this issue--and, in some ways, the whole campaign--echoes her management of health care reform back in her husband's first term.

In that debacle, Hillary Clinton's efforts foundered thanks to a host of now-familiar factors. There was her reliance on incompetent advisers. In 1993, her chief guide was Ira Magaziner, who managed to alienate all those around him. As Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala later told author Sally Bedell Smith, "[Magaziner] assumed you were a fool if you asked a question. Bill and Hillary were fascinated by him. They thought he was a genius." In today's Hillaryland, Magaziner has, of course, been superseded by Mark Penn.

Above all, Clinton displayed an inability to grasp the process, confusing dissent with disloyalty, a mindset that ultimately put her out of touch with political reality. J. Bradford DeLong, then a Treasury Department economist, later recalled:
So when senior members of the economic team said that key senators like Daniel Patrick Moynihan would have this-and-that objection, she told them they were disloyal. When junior members of the economic team told her that the Congressional Budget Office would say such-and-such, she told them (wrongly) that her conversations with CBO head Robert Reischauer had already fixed that. When long-time senior Hill staffers told her that she was making a dreadful mistake by fighting with rather than reaching out to John Breaux and Jim Cooper, she told them that they did not understand the wave of popular political support the bill would generate.

When Clinton came to the Senate, she made every effort to show that she had learned from her mistakes. But, in her capacity as candidate, she is an executive again, and it's clear that little has changed. The one positive quality that even her critics concede she has demonstrated is that she's a "fighter." There was a candidate like that during the 2000 Florida recount, too--a fighter who considered victory his birthright and who, unlike his opponent, would not let ethical reservations hold him back. That was George W. Bush.

Leonard Cohen (For Alfreda)

“But you don't really care for music, do you?” My favorite lyric in the culture wars that separated those who listened and loved the music of the 60s and 70s from those who didn’t get it.

The Real McCain

So Who Was He Talking About?

Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history. [President Bush speaking before the Israeli Knesset yesterday].

Senator Obama took offense at President Bush’s remarks yesterday linking those who would talk to terrorists and radicals to Nazi appeasers. The White House denied that Bush was alluding to Obama who is on record as being willing to talk to Iranian leaders. That leaves the mystery of who Bush had in mind. Maybe these quotations will help ferret out the culprits:

We need to figure out a way to develop some leverage . . . and then sit down and talk with [the Iranians]. If there is going to be a discussion, then they need something, too. We can't go to a discussion and be completely the demander, with them not feeling that they need anything from us. [Secretary of Defense Robert Gates two days ago]

They're the government; sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them, one way or another, and I understand why this administration and previous administrations had such antipathy towards Hamas because of their dedication to violence and the things that they not only espouse but practice, so . . . but it's a new reality in the Middle East. [John McCain responding to James Rubin two years ago who asked whether American diplomats should be operating the way they have in the past, working with the Palestinian government if Hamas is now in charge?]

McSame

The Bush administration has destroyed the hopes of conservatives who had believed they were installing the Ronald Reagan legacy throughout the US in perpetuity.

The debacle in Iraq has challenged conservatives' claims to superior wisdom in foreign and military affairs, which for decades has been their prime claim to competence. The turn to regressive tax cuts has helped create monster deficits. Other disasters, above all the government's handling of Hurricane Katrina, exposed the dark consequences of small-government dogma. The Terri Schiavo affair, as well as some spectacular sex scandals, galvanized the public's revulsion at the hypocrisy of the religious right. The uncovering of massive corruption at the party's highest levels, notably in the Jack Abramoff case, prompted even Republicans to wonder if the GOP had been in power too long. (Sean Wilentz Sunset in America TNR 5-7-08)

We don’t yet know who will be running against him, but John McCain is going to be the Republican nominee and he has already started running against the Democrats. As is often too typical, the Republican branding machine will emphasize the Straight Talk Express from now through November, although I think they do better negatively framing their opponent. McCain’s reputation as a maverick that will attract Independents, along with his credentials in national security will be the heart of his campaign.

Assuming Clinton and Obama don’t destroy each other over the remaining primary season; either will face a formidable adversary in a tight race, who despite the distaste of the far right is the only Republican with a chance to be elected this year. But if ever there is a year for a Democratic victory, it is 2008 and the Democratic themes are obvious – a tanking economy fueled by tax credits to the rich, jobs disappearing overseas, the continuing disaster of Iraq, surge or no surge, a diminished position of influence in the world, and an anti-science regulatory stance. All the signs for a Democratic victory are there – Republicans losing Congressional seats they have held for years, the lowest sustained negative ratings for a President in history, enthusiastic Democratic primary voters in record breaking numbers, and a massive influx of newly registered voters.

McCain will try to distance himself from the past eight years. I don’t know how many times during his recent meeting with Bush he referred to Bush’s busy schedule every time George offered to campaign. His reputation for independence, however, has taken severe hits in his campaign for the nomination as he adopts Bush policies about Iraq, about continuing the Bush tax breaks, and about finding more nominees like Roberts and Alito for the Supreme Court.

According to Jonathan Chait, in the New Republic published: Wednesday, February 27, 2008, McCain has changed his positions drastically, completely reversing positions he held less than eight years ago. He has adopted the worst elements of Bush’s and the conservatives’ failed policies. Obama and Clinton will need to hammer away at the lack of straight talk and the marriage to the Bush policies.

Chait defines McCain as he is today, rather than how he will probably be portrayed, and provides fodder for the Democrats when they finally get around to competing with him rather than with themselves. As Chait demonstrates, McCain’s claim that you know where he stands is false.


The prevalent view of McCain is that he is a generally conservative figure with a few maverick stances and an unwavering authenticity. Nearly every liberal editorial board that has made a Republican endorsement has chosen McCain, and nearly all have offered variations on the same theme. "Voters may disagree with his policies, but few doubt his sincerity," editorialized The Boston Globe. "The Arizona senator's conservatism is, if not always to our liking, at least genuine," concluded the Los Angeles Times. This is the consensus: McCain's basically a right-winger, but at least you know where he stands.
Actually, this assessment gets McCain almost totally backward. He has diverged wildly and repeatedly from conservative orthodoxy, but he has also reinvented himself so completely that it has become nearly impossible to figure out what he really believes.
Political conversions are hardly new or scandalous. McCain's ideological transformation is unusual for two reasons: First, he has moved across the political spectrum not once--like Al Smith or Mitt Romney-- but twice. And, second, he refuses to acknowledge his change.
McCain ran for his Senate seat as Barry Goldwater's ideological heir, and, with the exception of a couple maverick episodes--his crusades against Big Tobacco and for campaign finance reform-- he fulfilled that pledge. But something dramatic changed during, and after, his 2000 presidential campaign.
Conservatives complain constantly of McCain's disloyalty, but the full extent of that disloyalty is not widely known. Even though it is in the public record, McCain's voting behavior during Bush's first term is almost never mentioned in the press anymore. Yet McCain's secret history is simply astonishing. It is no exaggeration to say that, during this crucial period, McCain was the most effective advocate of the Democratic agenda in Washington.
In health care, McCain co-sponsored, with John Edwards and Ted Kennedy, a patients' bill of rights. He joined Chuck Schumer to sponsor one bill allowing the reimportation of prescription drugs and another permitting wider sale of generic alternatives. All these measures were fiercely contested by the health care industry and, consequently, by Bush and the GOP leadership. On the environment, he sponsored with John Kerry a bill raising automobile fuel efficiency standards and another bill with Joe Lieberman imposing a cap-and- trade regime on carbon emissions. He was also one of six Republicans to vote against drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
McCain teamed with Carl Levin on bills closing down tax shelters, forbidding accounting firms from selling products to the firms they audited, and requiring businesses that gave out stock options as compensation to reveal the cost to their stockholders. These measures were bitterly opposed by big business and faced opposition not only from virtually the whole of the GOP but even from many Democrats as well.
McCain voted against the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts. He co-sponsored bills to close the gun-show loophole, expand AmeriCorps, and federalize airport security. All these things set him against nearly the entire Republican Party.
Republicans who fought the legislative battles of those days now regard the prospect that McCain could become their party's standard-bearer with incredulity. These figures are stumbling around in rage and disbelief, like Jimmy Stewart in It’s a Wonderful Life discovering that his beloved hometown has been taken over by Henry Potter. Former Senate Republican Conference chairman Rick Santorum bitterly noted that "almost at every turn, on domestic policy, John McCain was not only against us, but leading the charge on the other side." Former House speaker Dennis Hastert--in what, by his somnolent Midwestern standards, counts as an angry tirade--complained that McCain usually "allied with Democrats."
And, indeed, by 2002 the Arizona senator had transformed himself beyond recognition. McCain was not exactly a conventional liberal. He still opposed abortion (though he could muster little passion on the subject). And he remained a hawk (though, at the time, many Democrats were hawks as well). Yet he was also more willing to fight the business lobby than were most moderate-- and even many liberal--Democrats.
McCain was best described as a progressive--like Teddy Roosevelt, whom he cited constantly. McCain tended to see politics as a contest between the national interest and the selfishness of private agendas, and he favored a role for government in counterbalancing the excesses of organized wealth. In 2002, for instance, he was asked about the Bush administration's view, with regard to the Enron scandal, that "[t]he company had a duty to inform its shareholders and its employees about things that were going on inside the company. That's not a federal government responsibility." McCain thundered in response, "Well, Theodore Roosevelt would not agree with at least that rhetoric. ... We have had regulatory agencies always to curb the abuses or potential abuses of the capitalist system."
Even McCain's most putatively conservative stance, his opposition to pork barrel spending, fell comfortably within the progressive tradition. Pork- barrel programs by definition are those requested by legislators rather than federal agencies. They do not have to justify their effectiveness and usually serve parochial, rather than national, interests. Opposition to pork is in keeping with the reformer's battle against the machine. It hardly signals any general animus toward government. Pork, after all, represents just a sliver of the federal budget. True movement conservatives hope to scale back the federal government to something approximating its pre-New Deal size. They approve of fighting pork, but so do liberals. This is an issue that divides politicians from non-politicians, not left from right.
Roosevelt, as McCain knew full well, abandoned the GOP over what he regarded as its subservience to big business. McCain did not leave his party, but he came close. The Washington Post (at the time) and The Hill (again last year) reported that, in 2001, McCain met with Democratic leaders to ponder a party switch. McCain and his allies deny these accounts, which are obviously devastating to his current prospects, and reporters almost never mention it in their McCain coverage. They also rarely mention how, in 2004, John Kerry wooed him to join his ticket as vice president. The reported half-dozen conversations the two held on the topic are about a half-dozen more than would have been needed if McCain truly was a dyed-in-the-wool conservative Republican.
After the Kerry flirtation ended, McCain obviously decided that his only plausible path to the presidency lay with the Republican Party in 2008. So he set about reingratiating himself with the GOP establishment while maintaining his reputation as an unwavering man of principle.
McCain's overriding priority was to make himself acceptable to the right on taxes. Republican voters may not always care very much about taxes (in 2000, polls showed that a majority of Republicans agreed with McCain that paying down the national debt ranked as a higher priority than tax cuts), but Republican elites care about taxes more than anything else. McCain would never be able to make himself the chosen candidate of the economic right--no amount of penance could wipe away his prior heresies--yet he could at least blunt the opposition of the GOP's money wing.
McCain's first step toward redemption came in 2005, when he stopped blocking repeal of the estate tax. For years, conservatives had been seeking to secure a permanent repeal of the tax but fell just shy of securing the 60 votes needed to overcome a Democratic-led filibuster. In September of that year, McCain told columnist (and fervent supply-sider) Robert Novak that he would oppose future filibusters. McCain insisted he would still vote against repeal if the filibuster was defeated. ("I follow the course of a great Republican, Teddy Roosevelt," he declared, "who talked about the malefactors of great wealth and gave us the estate tax.") Of course, since Republicans already had well more than the 50 votes needed for straightforward passage, this rendered McCain's support for the estate tax utterly inconsequential.
Then, McCain assured conservatives that he would support making permanent the Bush tax cuts, which would otherwise expire during the next president's first term. This was a tricky dance for a straight-talker, given that he had voted against those very tax cuts. McCain explained that his position was perfectly consistent because, while he may have opposed the tax cuts in the first place, letting them expire would amount to a tax hike; and, he said, "I've never voted for a tax increase in twenty-four years ... and I will never vote for a tax increase, nor support a tax increase." In fact, McCain had proposed a tobacco tax increase in 1998. Nor would his position have made sense anyway. (Some economists favor higher tax rates and others prefer lower tax rates, but none would oppose a tax cut and then oppose its repeal simply because it had already been enacted.)
More recently, McCain has begun to insist that he only opposed Bush's tax cuts because they were not accompanied by spending cuts. Unfortunately, this explanation makes even less sense than the others. Bush enacted his first tax cut during a time of surplus--nobody was contemplating a spending cut. And, if the absence of corresponding spending cuts was McCain's reason to oppose the tax cuts, why would he later support those tax cuts given that the spending cuts never happened?
Anyway, at the time he opposed Bush's tax cut, McCain did not say anything about wanting spending cuts to go with it. What he said was, as he put it in one typical comment, "I won't take every last dime of the surplus and spend it on tax cuts that mostly benefit the wealthy." Well, the surplus is long gone, and income inequality has continued to skyrocket (helped along by Bush's tax policies), but McCain says he wants to keep those tax cuts while insisting he hasn't changed his mind.
McCain's most successful gambit has been to tell conservatives that he is submitting himself to the tutelage of Jack Kemp and Phil Gramm. The odd thing is that Kemp and Gramm, while both fervent and longstanding economic conservatives, inhabit opposite poles of right-wing fiscal thought. Kemp is a utopian supply-sider, so utterly convinced that tax cuts cause revenues to rise that he ceaselessly evangelizes to liberals, blacks, and the poor, whom he sees as the GOP's natural constituency. Gramm, on the other hand, is a pitiless spending hawk whose animus toward social programs is so strident that it often bleeds over onto the recipients themselves. (He once suggested that poor people are all fat, and another time advised an elderly widow concerned about Medicare cuts to find a new husband to support her.)
The purpose of bringing in Kemp and Gramm together was no doubt to reassure conservatives that McCain is reliable on, respectively, taxes and spending. But the incongruent combination--at times, McCain declares that tax cuts always cause revenues to rise; at others, he insists spending cuts are needed to reinvigorate the economy--has given McCain's new economic worldview an ungainly, stitched-together feel.
McCain also availed himself of more subtle techniques. The easiest trick was simply to change his emphasis. For years, McCain had kept his distance from the president; but, starting in the summer of 2004, he began to praise Bush effusively. McCain stopped teaming up with Democrats to sponsor legislation detested by Republicans and K Street. And he began to emphasize his support for the Iraq war, one of his few points of unblemished agreement with the Republican right.
The fact that the war was increasingly unpopular with the public at large, paradoxically, made it all the more effective for McCain. His hawkish stance signaled to conservatives his willingness to buck public opinion. And reporters, bizarrely, interpreted his position as more evidence of McCain's probity--here was a man, gushed a string of campaign reports, willing to lose the presidency for the sake of his beliefs. In fact, the war was an issue where McCain's beliefs aligned perfectly with his self-interest, since the constituency he needed to woo, conservative stalwarts, supported Bush.
McCain's emphasis on the war brought another benefit: Since reporters saw his campaign almost entirely through the lens of Iraq, they usually overlooked the fact that he was flip-flopping on other topics quite a bit. For instance, McCain had for years supported the Law of the Sea Treaty, an object of right- wing, anti-internationalist ire. But, on a conference call with conservative bloggers last fall, he assured his audience, "I would probably vote against it in its present form."
In 2005, McCain co-sponsored Bush's immigration bill. At the time, few voters were paying much attention to the bill, and McCain's support seemed like a cost-free way to win favor with the administration and pro-immigration business lobbyists. As conservative grassroots opposition exploded, McCain was forced to announce that he "got the message" and would not press the issue any further. At a recent debate, he said that, if his own immigration bill passed Congress, he would not sign it. This formulation offered the perfect straddle for McCain. He could signal to the press that he favored immigration while still promising conservatives he would side with them.
Determining how McCain would act as president has thus become a highly sophisticated exercise in figuring out whom he's misleading and why. Nearly everyone can find something to like in McCain. Liberals can admire his progressive instincts and hope that he is dishonestly pandering to the right in order to get through the primary. Conservatives can believe he will follow whatever course his conservative advisers set out for him and will feel bound by whatever promises he has made to them. Even the ideological tendency McCain is most strongly identified with--neoconservative foreign policy--is, as John B. Judis explained in The New Republic, a relatively recent development: McCain originally opposed intervention in Bosnia and worried about a bloody ground campaign before the first Gulf war (see "Neo-McCain," October 16, 2006). McCain's advisers include not only neoconservatives but also the likes of Henry Kissinger and Brent Scowcroft. It would hardly be unimaginable for McCain to revert to his old realism, especially if Iraq continues to fail at political reconciliation. He could easily be the president who ends the war.
The amazing thing about McCain is that his reputation for principled consistency has remained completely intact. It is his strongest cudgel against opponents. Wall Street Journal editorial page columnist Kimberley Strassel recently gushed that McCain is "no flip-flopper." "Like or dislike Mr. McCain's views," she added, "Americans know what they are." Then, in the very next paragraph, she wrote that McCain will now be "as pure as the New Hampshire snow on the two core issues of taxes and judges" and that "[t]he key difference between Mr. McCain in 2000 and 2008 is that he ... appears intent on making amends" to conservatives.
It is a truly impressive skill McCain has--the ability to adopt new beliefs and convince his new allies that his conversion is genuine (or, at least, irreversible) while simultaneously strengthening their belief in the immutability of his principles. I suspect that, in the end, it will come to tears for McCain's new allies--just as it has for most of those, including me, who thought they had a bead on him in the past. But, really, who knows?

Mission Impossible

The CIO/AFL commemorates the five-year anniversary of Bush's staged aircraft event. If that failed PR attempt of wishful thinking rather than rational evaluation doesn't portray the complete inability of the Bush Administration to understand what they were doing, nothing does.

At yesterday's daily press conference, they again tried to claim that their only mistake was that the sign should have referred to the completion of the aircraft carrier's mission. This after-the-fact made up reason was skewered by Al Kamen in today's Washington Post:

The problem, sources tell us, is that White House planners couldn't figure out how to get all that on the sign in letters large enough for people to read on television. The sign would have been so big that either the wind would have shredded it or the ship would have drifted erratically while Bush's pilot tried to land on the deck.

Another option would have been to simply put an asterisk after "mission," and then down below, in illegible print, say "just for these sailors on this particular ship on this one mission." Some thought that too tacky and warned it might prompt sailors returning on other ships to demand that Bush fly out to greet them.

So that's why the banner came out the way it did.