Democratic prospects for the election

Thanks to the financial crisis over the past month and a half, the Democrats now have a chance to get a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, so initiatives from the House can finally be passed and progressive objectives have a chance of being accomplished. To grab this 60th Senate seat, the Dems need to pull it through in a red state like Kentucky, Georgia, or Mississippi.

Meanwhile, the Republicans re-toning message to convince voters that there needs to be a "break" against the Democratic influx in Washington, but its the GOP's own fault. There are plenty of examples, even in the south, of congressional seats to be won from conservatives by Democrats thanks to Obama's popularity. As a result of this election, the GOP may be thrown back to pre-1994 days. The good: more can be done in Congress. The bad: less checks within the government (assuming Obama wins).

Meet the next Democratic presidental nominee

Barack Obama!


According to CNN, Obama has passed the threshold of 2,118 delegates required for the nomination (no surprise as many superdelegates switch over). While Hillary Clinton says she will not make a final campaign decision tonight, it is clear her end has come. However, she mentioned recently that she is willing to be Obama's vice presidential candidate.

This should end months of fracture in the Democratic Party between these two heavyweights. Obama will have to immediately jump into the race and Clinton and Obama supporters will have to get over their differences to beat John McCain in November. We cannot have effectively four more years of Bush-like foreign policy.

The South Dakota and Montana primaries are still ongoing, with Clinton looking to win the former while Obama takes Montana.

One more thing: For all those on the far right screeching that Obama is a liberal socialist, he's not. He is, at most, a left-leaning moderate. I only wish he was more liberal; but, alas, in a country like America, "liberal" is a dirty word and the right dominates more than its fair share of the mainstream.

P.S. The timestamp should be 10:14 PM not 9:14. Blogger has issues with DST.

And then there were two...

Only Clinton and Obama remain as Edwards steps down.

Obama is gaining momentum on the Democratic side of the race.
We have lost John Edwards — the major anti-corporation, anti-lobbists, focus-on-poverty campaigner. Sadly, Edwards didn't have a chance (he was a bit too populist for my tastes anyways). It remains thus unclear where Edwards' support goes. In recent debates he sided more with Hillary Clinton, but since his supporters tend to be more left-leaning, it makes sense that a large number of them would go to Obama.

WSJ:

Mr. Edwards, after running as the sunny son of a mill worker in 2004, returned last year as the angry spear carrier of the hard-line left, running on a dark, conspiratorial form of populism and swapping in corporations for Republicans as the villain in his us-versus-them construct. Mr. Obama, on the other hand, has not just been selling possibilities and opportunities, but reconciliation and unity -- and, god forbid, promising to work with Republicans to meet the country's challenges. (Not surprisingly, throughout 2007, Mr. Edwards was the runaway favorite in the regular Kos reader straw poll -- besting Mr. Obama by 21 points as late as Jan. 2, 2008.)

The issue of race in the 2008 campaign has reached its peak with everyone from the news media to the candidates themselves endlessly blabbing about it — especially on the side of the Democrats. It has gotten ridiculous — nobody's focusing on racial issues; the larger focus has been on whether Bill Clinton was the 'first black president' (to answer that, one needs only to look at his skin color; the debate just enforces racial stereotypes and the color divide). Since we're on Bill Clinton, there has also been ample media speculation about the role he has played in his wife's campaign. Yes he was an above-par president, but will he meddle in his wife's affairs and further polarize the base?

Obama has been racking up endorsements, like his fellow up-and-comer on the other side of the aisle, John McCain, notably from most of the Kennedy family. He was also ranked the most liberal senator by the nonpartisan National Journal (which isn't saying much considering the conservatism in American politics). This could be used against him in ridiculous ways like in the case of the right smearing John Kerry in 2004.

And the presidential candidates I agree with most are...

Today I quickly tried out the Washington Post's new interactive candidate quiz to see who my views match up with most — apparantly.

For the Democratic version I got a score of 12 for Edwards, 15 for Clinton, 21 for Obama, 1 for Dodd, and, finally, 4 for Richardson, making my ideal candidate Obama. However many of the options are the same, only phrased with different rhetoric (Iraq was the worst). On some issues, such as affermative action and Iraq, none of the options suited my views. Overall, Democratic standpoints were populist, geared towards middle and working class as they warn of rich elite; there wasn't much moderation, or at least as much as I hoped for.

For the Republican (gasp!) version of the quiz, Giuliani (Mr. 9/11) was my candidate, if only because of social issues. On controversial social issues (e.g. abortion), Giuliani is often the only half-decent choice — but then even he takes much of the weight off his back by doing what many other candidates do: say 'leave it to the states'. My specific results were 6 points for McCain, 8 for Ron Paul, 9 for Huckabee, 5 for Romney, 7 for Thompson, and 20 for Giuliani. There were no options I felt comfortable choosing on such issues as overall priorities, immigration, or wealth/taxes. Like the reality of the GOP presidential front, my results were more evenly spread (almost neck-and-neck) than for the Dems. Some candidates have OK views on climate change, but all focus too much on national security and on cutting 'big government' without recognizing any consequences of such cuts.

An editorial cartoon is worth an entire blog post!

This editorial cartoon about sums up my feelings on the congressional Democrats' amazing lack of guts and logic the case of their rolling over for the Bush administration and (mostly) agreeing with its horrendous NSA domestic wiretapping program.

Another letdown for civil liberties... thanks to the Democrats?

So they fight a largely (purely for some) symbolic, somewhat shallow battle over Iraq, but don't bother to stand up to the Bush administration when American civil liberties are threatened? Whose side are the Democrats on? Dems still seem to be worried more about appearing 'soft' on fighting terror than concerns of basic American freedoms.

Only if one views the 'war on terrorism' as a real war that is serious enough that the US's fighting in it is allowed to chip away at the bedrock of American liberty (i.e. the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution) can one truly not see how troubling the wiretapping expansion promoted by both political parties is.

From today's New York Times:

Two months after insisting that they would roll back broad eavesdropping powers won by the Bush administration, Democrats in Congress appear ready to make concessions that could extend some crucial powers given to the National Security Agency.

Administration officials say they are confident they will win approval of the broadened authority that they secured temporarily in August as Congress rushed toward recess. Some Democratic officials concede that they may not come up with enough votes to stop approval.

As the debate over the eavesdropping powers of the National Security Agency begins anew this week, the emerging measures reflect the reality confronting the Democrats.

Although willing to oppose the White House on the Iraq war, they remain nervous that they will be called soft on terrorism if they insist on strict curbs on gathering intelligence.

A Democratic bill to be proposed on Tuesday in the House would maintain for several years the type of broad, blanket authority for N.S.A. eavesdropping that the administration secured in August for six months.

Because of their fear of being called wimps in the 'war on terrorism', the Democrats are once again caving into supporting a horrible Bush administration program (this same thing happened last summer too with the approval of the then-illegal White House NSA spying program). Great job guys; you've really served the people who gave you the majority in both houses of Congress well!

It's time for oversight over the Bush administration; it's time for government contractors in Iraq as well as at home to admit and rectify their misdeeds; it's time for the US to admit errors and mistakes too; it's time for the transparency a working liberal democracy requires to shine through this White House, this Congress, and the courts. If only one of the two major political parties would fight for what the United States needs.

Congress legalizes Bush's NSA wiretapping program

An inept Congress hands Bush his NSA wiretapping program legalized on a silver platter...
Quiz time! What is the one of the last things Congress did before taking a four-week August recess? Hand more power to the Bush administration and slash away at the US Constitution, of course! Another sting to civil liberties courtesy of the 'war on terrorism' and the American government. Enter the Protect America Act of 2007 (Senate vote info; House votes). All links in this post are, in my opinion, quite important to understanding this complex issue.

Secrecy, spying, and a false 'war'
Why did the United States Congress cave in to (NYT) President George Bush on the expanded wiretapping bill? If this were the Clinton years I might think secret deal or tradeoff (i.e. you pass my stuff and I don't veto yours). However, that system hasn't been as prolific in the relationship between Bush's White House and the majority-Democratic Congress.

One would think this new bill would finally resolve the legality of the Bush administration's controversial domestic surveillance program. How could any self-respecting legislator approve it — let alone a Democrat? The answer appears to be fear, on both sides, especially Democratic, of appearing soft on terrorism.

The Dems have already spent — for better or for worse — so much political energy on symbolic jabs at the Bush administration on the subject of Iraq. But when it comes to something real, impacting, non-symbolic, and relevant, but by no means routine, they give George W. Bush the kind of victory he hoped for. The NSA wiretapping program — revealed in 2005 by The New York Times — has been ruled illegal again and again. It sidesteps an already troubling statute: the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, or FISA, whose secret judges grant secret warrants for secret searches or wiretaps, secretly. The Bush administration was forced to but the NSA program under the domain of FISA in January, resulting in a still-secret ruling that the program was illegal and placed restrictions, or something of the sort.

But the word 'illegal' is not in Bush's dictionary...
This bill, signed into law by Bush this weekend, validates the illegal wiretapping program that he has even admitted exists (in his own special way, plus it gave him a chance to attack the so-called liberal news media). It has a decent reach too. One of the administration's excuses for its until-recently-illegal eavesdropping program was that the current FISA court only deals with old means of communication, not modern ones like email and calls over fiber optic cable. Naturally, instead of requesting the then Republican-controlled Congress update the legislation (especially for the post-9/11 world, for which which the administration claims the illegal secret programs are essential), the White House decided to launch its own secret programs — legal or otherwise.

Extension of power
So what's wrong with this law just updating FISA to keep up with the times? Well, keeping up with technology is not the only changes this law puts into place...

Just as before, the FISA court only issues the search warrant after the search/wiretap is carried out — troubling, I know. But this legislation goes a bit further by removing more power from the courts, albeit secret ones that almost never take issue with clandestine spying on a domestic level. Now the searches can be carried out at the discretion of the attorney general or intelligence director.

That is all the more troubling considering the political yes-men Bush keeps in his cabinet and staff, and the fact that Alberto Gonzales is known for politically-motivated (in)justice. The horror! And as if the fact that Gonzales can now order secret searches, legally this time, isn't enough to make you a bit queasy for the disregard of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, keep in mind that under this new law the AG and head of intelligence have plenty of discretionary leeway when it comes to ordering secret surveillance. Plus, it's all secret; I'd expect nothing less transparent from this administration.

The sorta good news
A positive is that the AG will indeed have his power checked to a certain extent by internal audits, which have proved their worth in the past. That aspect of oversight is one the White House doesn't like.

One sliver of good news is that because of lawsuit threats that only increase under this legislation, telecommunications companies and ISPs are less likely to be bullied into invading their customers' privacy under pressure by the Bush administration. In fact, as I understand it this law removes the shield the White House has desperately tried to use to protect the telcos, which is bad news for the industry. Still, Gonzales has less leeway to invade our phone and internet records, though more to wiretap if the conversation might (emphasis on might) be with someone outside of the United States. Nonetheless, the telcos are as scared as ever of being sued for disclosing private details of their customers, as the Wall Street Journal reported on Monday, as did the NYT (linked above):

The law also gave the administration greater power to force telecommunications companies to cooperate with such spying operations. The companies can now be compelled to cooperate by orders from the attorney general and the director of national intelligence.
...
In fact, pressure from the telecommunications companies on the Bush administration has apparently played a major hidden role in the political battle over the surveillance issue over the past few months.

Worse than FISA
FISA was scary enough — but maybe understandable and, to an extent, justifiable — but putting the secret search rights into Bush's political cronies (yes, that's what Gonzales, among others, is) is going more than a tad overboard. Justifying it with national security is puzzling. The least Congress could do is get rid of Alberto Gonzales, which would take a bipartisan effort; many, many Republicans are on board with the idea and the Democrats have been jabbing at it for months. This new law will last six months or so, ending in early February 2008.

Just to make this more confusing, this all ties back to the legality of the 'war on terror':

With minor exceptions, FISA authorizes electronic surveillance only upon certain specified showings, and only if approved by a court. The statute specifically allows for warrantless wartime domestic electronic surveillance—but only for the first fifteen days of a war. 50 U.S.C. § 1811. It makes criminal any electronic surveillance not authorized by statute, id. § 1809; and it expressly establishes FISA and specified provisions of the federal criminal code (which govern wiretaps for criminal investigation) as the "exclusive means by which electronic surveillance...may be conducted," 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(f) (emphasis added).[2]

The Department of Justice concedes that the NSA program was not authorized by any of the above provisions. It maintains, however, that the program did not violate existing law because Congress implicitly authorized the NSA program when it enacted the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) against al-Qaeda, Pub. L. No. 107-40, 115 Stat. 224 (2001). But the AUMF cannot reasonably be construed to implicitly authorize warrantless electronic surveillance in the United States during wartime, where Congress has expressly and specifically addressed that precise question in FISA and limited any such warrantless surveillance to the first fifteen days of war.

So even under FISA the NSA program is questionable. No wait, the White House says it doesn't follow FISA rules because of the 'war on terror' powers given to the president by Congress. No worries: this new law legalizes all that existing wiretapping junk and then some.


There's balance, it's just all tilted towards the White House, (and the only checks are top secret)
In the war against terrorism there's no need to bother with those pesky courts of Constitutional practice anymore, says the White House. Congress seems to have fallen in line with that logic. And this isn't the first time. Remember the horrendous Military Commissions Act of 2006?

Isn't Congress supposed to oversee the operations of the executive? Has everyone forgotten the fundamental idea of checks and balances? With this law Congress has only given more power to the bloated, unpopular, unitary executive Bush administration that a majority of it claims to hate. It also cuts away further at the notion that Americans have rights guaranteed to them by their constitutional, and that civil liberties come with those rights. Freedom trumps security — or at least it should. But in a police state as well as in a certain way modern America (though nothing near a police state), fear rules all.

Soft on civil liberties
If the Democrats are so afraid of being painted as weak on national security, than actually being weak on civil liberties is not a very good fix. Are they more worried of what their opponents think of them and will paint them as than what they are actually doing? That's just sad.

When it comes to the reaction to national security — GWOT and its consequences — the Democrats have been disappointing. Does what your opponents think of you matter more than doing the right thing? Enjoy your recess, Congress. Hopefully you'll come back to Capitol Hill with more brains and balls.

Balkinization offers brilliant legal analysis and opinion on the 'proposed FISA "fix"', as they call it.

This post is over 1,500 words. Eventually I will probably cut it into shorter, more specific posts then expanding them. So don't be alarmed if you see a post with parts of this essay in the future.

481 days 'til election

The leading Democrat in the 2008 presidential race, Hillary Clinton, has been dwarfed by her husband, former President Bill Clinton, as the pundits go wild on America's biggest political couple. Let the gender role debate commence. The headline best summing all of this up: "Hillary's man trouble", referring not only to Clinton's attention magnet hubby but to male voters who are, well, sexist. It's sad, not just for America but for the state of our civilization, that even in the richest and one of the freest and most educated countries enough people still have problems with a black or a woman running for political office. A homosexual or atheist wouldn't stand a chance.

I've come to the conclusion that an Obama-Richardson would be a good ticket (Dodd is not bad either, but he is all the more less known).

However much Obama is shallow (see post), Hillary Clinton is robotic — a political chameleon of sorts whose policies seem to sometimes veer to the right, though she pleases as many as possible in her target demographics. Why, again, does she draw so much contempt from conservatives?
Obama and Clinton — the Democratic heavyweights in the '08 race — both try to kiss up to the special interests fueling the Democratic Party and Washington as a whole while imposing a sort of populism seen often enough in campaigns (see: the irrational electorate). This race, like any other in the United States, is fueled greatly by money. Money might not be able to buy you love, per se, but it can sure help launch you into political office!

McCain and Romney are practically bending over backwards for the GOP base(s). McCain, the senior-most member of the race, second-place to Giuliani, faces the ire of the religious right; anger from some moderates and liberals over his diehard support for the Iraq war and the Bush administration's war policy; and bad feelings from Republican Party partisans and anti-immigrant xenophobes over his moderate immigration views and ability to be bipartisan. Being able to jump across the isle and work with the other side is not always a good thing in American politics, oddly enough.

Selling out hasn't really helped Sen. McCain, but former Massachusetts governor and multimillionaire Mitt Romney's sharp-right-turn transformation is far, far more extreme than McCain's ass kissing. Romney is behind in the polls, but has loads of money, which is more than McCain can say. Social liberal Giuliani — though he has been trying his best to please both sides on abortion — still leads the Republicans in the polls; McCain follows. Poll ratings haven't swayed much for the Democrats either. Clinton leads, then Obama, then Edwards. See this post for more.

technorati tags: clinton, hillary+clinton, barack+obama, obama, mccain, giuliani, mitt+romney, america, united+states, election, 2008+presidential+election, politics, democrats, polls, fundraising, republicans,

Delayed reaction

According to the New York Times, the White House may be mulling over the options for the (illegal) detention center at Guantanamo Bay after years of pressure from the UN, a plethora other bodies like human rights groups, and individual nations. It was disputed over such a meeting on the fate of Gitmo ever took place, and whether it was canceled by Bush or another administration figure.

Now the NYT is reporting that the Bush administration is rethinking its stubborn troop strategy in Iraq after unprecedented dissent from within its own Republican Party, which has led to one recent case of a congressperson switching to the opposition Democratic Party. President George Bush has denied that even any preliminary planning for a gradual troop withdrawal from the turmoil stricken Mesopotamian nation is taking place in the White House.

The Iraqis and their government seem to not think US forces leaving is a good idea yet. I do agree, but real benchmarks — not the imaginary, temporizing ones that the Bush administration has conjured up — need to be put in place and the military should focus on the 'hearts and minds' effort, which includes reconstruction and social aid, more heavily than the fighting. Winning hearts and minds will make the hard military effort easier and allow a feasible withdrawal plan, like the Polk-McGovern one or the Iraq Study Group's outline, to be carried out. It doesn't look like America will win, per se in a traditional sense (note this is not a traditional struggle), but at least it will come out more ahead than it will if it continues to loose the support of the Iraqis and the international community while depleting its hard power.

At the same time Bush should get off his high horse of poor Iraq policy the Democrats should stop and think about their reactionary, populist plan for withdrawal, or should I say plans: there is still no unity on Iraq except that what is happening now is not acceptable. If the people and their lawmakers really feel that way, then work out a plan, but not some political snowball to hit the other party with. The White House is far ahead of the Democratic-majority Congress. And the polls indicate that every time the Dems get into a nasty political scuffle with the White House, like with Gonzales or the current transparency and subpoena fight, and makes a big deal about the big bad White House their approval numbers tank. Congress is in more trouble than the White House, even if the latter has worse policies and is worse overall. Congress has more hearts and minds to win at home than it thinks — in that sense the Bush administration is fine. It may have low approval but its legislative counterpart is barely hanging on.

Why don't the Democrats cut the political knifing and move on to passing some good, solid legislation? Contrary to what its political advisers have been advising, taking real action usually looks better in the eyes of the public than inflaming an inter-governmental battle. The Dems seem to be carrying out their own battle plans, not the ones they were elected on. By the time the Democrats have their delayed reaction to what the voters want and what is right, it may be too late. Bush's delayed and still sub-sub-par reactions to climate change, Iraq, and Gitmo are bad enough — it's time for the Democrats to step up, even if that doesn't change their lamentable poll numbers.

A great orator, but are his policies (too) shallow?

Several days ago I watched Barack Obama inspire a crowd in Fairfield, a town in Iowa, a so-called bell weather state, on C-SPAN. Iowa serves not only as the site of one of the first party primaries, but also is seen as a measure or standard of support. The role it will play in the 2008 presidential election remains to be seen. It is amazing, though, that a state with such a small population, carrying little significance (sorry Iowa) can attract some of the biggest names in US politics.

Truth be told this special day-before the 4th of July (Independence Day) event was the first time I watched or heard a full Obama speech. What was more covered was Obama's complementing Bill Clinton — which made headlines, tons of them. The junior senator from Illinois is known for his fantastic speeches, after all his claim to fame was his moving address at the 2004 Democratic Convention. That one speech shot him up the ladder of political stardom.

Obama's policies and charisma seemed great... until he started talking about our "globalized economy" — not that I disagree with that point itself — and his Democratic protectionist trade populism (yuck!) set in. (The Dems have their protectionism from trade, the Republicans have theirs in the area of immigration.) Nonetheless that succeeded a few policy winners like the idea of putting solar panels "on every roof"; the globalization talk was followed by Iraq and national security. He is already talking like he is the Democratic choice for president. Obama is a great orator, plain and simple. Here are some more quotes from his 3 July Fairfield speech:
"There is no military solution in Iraq."
"The world still needs America, just like America still needs the world" (sounding somewhat like Madeline Albright, Bill Clinton, Ann-Marie Slaughter, etc.)
He says he can see from the perspective, "viewpoint" of a foreigner.
"This campaign has to become the vehicle for your hopes."

Then Obama — after talking more on foreign policy, which I'll touch upon in a later post (Foreign Affairs is publishing an array of essays from all the candidates on their pledged foreign policy), with power and energy in every syllable — spews into talk of a people-powered candidacy (see last quote). "We want something new", he is really plugging at the progressive-minded members of the audience, as well as those just fed up with the status quo, i.e. Bush. He, however, talks little of drastic reform, keeping with his earlier precedent of a belief in moderate reform [scroll down to February]. He doesn't want to alienate voters more cautious of great change.

After that he talks about civil rights and the Selma march for black voting rights at the height of the civil rights era in the 1960s, further tying in how his African immigrant plus native American (note: not Native American/American Indian) heritage makes him a symbol of America: with it's goods like openness and rights, and it's bads like xenophobia and repressiveness.

More on Obama:

Profile by The Economist

Wikipedia article

Barack Obama for America website

Washington Post profile (with voting record)

I'll leave you with this question: among the other mainstream candidates, none of whom besides Obama have been called "inexperienced", is Obama really as inexperienced as many point out as his most universal flaw? What do you think counts as experience? — Being governor for a term (or more)? Senator or congressperson for a term (or more)? Business leader? Or more than that?

Barack Obama's political report card score for his two-day Iowa run, plus a bit before and after: B. Seeming like a mix of populist-cheesy-progressive at times, which can only be expected; made amazing amounts of money, without an ex-president as spouse; connected with people but failed to touch upon experience factor. So overall above average, but not stunning.

technorati tags: Barack+Obama, Obama, politics, democrats, republicans, 2008+election, presidential+election, america, united+states, news, iowa, populism, trade, foreign+policy

Too much compromise?

When I said the Democrats should work on a subject other than Iraq, in addition to Iraq, which they had less power on than what is ideal, I didn't mean they should compromise with the White House on nearly every issue. That also looks bad to the voters who are fed up with the Iraq policy, and see the Dems as caving into the White House's ever wish just as the Republicans did when they were in power. If only they could have gotten the Bush administration to compromise more, thus making it less powerful than it thinks it is when it comes to managing foreign policy. This can never be emphasized enough: the executive needs to be kept in check.

Positives: the bill required some compromise by the Republicans and the Bush administration too, namely on raising hte minimum wage (finally) from $5.15 to $7.25 an hour and setting real benchmarks for Baghdad security progress rather than the imaginary ones Bush preaches. Just as the Democrats finally fulfill some of their election promises, they backtrack, as it is, on the large issue of Iraq. However, it's not like they had many other options, and most other political wrangling would waste more time.

The emergency war funding bill was signed 109 days after President George Bush presented it to Congress. It passed 80 to 14 in the Senate, 280 to 142 in the House, and includes $120 billion in funding. Bush had promised a prompt veto of any bill containing measures for troop withdrawal, and the Dems didn't (and don't) have a large enough majority to override him.

[Bush] said the 18 benchmarks should signal to the Iraq government that "it needs to show real progress in return for America's continued support and sacrifice." But he added, "We're going to expect heavy fighting in the weeks and months" ahead.

The focus now shifts to September, when the new funding runs out, and when U.S. commanders say they will be able to assess the results of an ongoing troop buildup.
...
The votes yesterday marked a rare moment of bipartisanship in an otherwise contentious and emotional debate. The first Iraq spending bill, which included a withdrawal timetable and was vetoed by Bush on May 1, split lawmakers more or less along party lines.
...
Republican support was nearly unanimous in both chambers. In the Senate, 37 Democrats supported the bill, while 10 opposed it.

This looks for the most part more like a GOP bill than a Democratic one. Nonetheless, I'm sure the Republicans were eager to get off of the Iraq issue, which they have a particular weakness for, and not appear to oppose things like raising the minimum wage, which they had opposed in the past against the popular support in raising it.

Republicans are also getting restless in the search for progress in Iraq — the progress the Bush administration keeps saying is right around the corner. Hopefully these benchmarks will help pressure the Bush administration as much as it pressures the Iraqi government. However, might the Iraq government ignore the benchmarks just to get US troops out? I'm sure the White House won't make it that easy.

In the House, a majority of Democrats rejected the Iraq funding. A separate domestic spending measure that was packed with lawmaker priorities, including a federal minimum wage increase, passed easily by a 348 to 73 vote. In the Senate, the two bills were merged into one package.

"We have moved the ball forward. Far enough? No," said Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (Md.), one of the 86 House Democrats who supported the Iraq bill.

Pelosi was among the 140 House Democrats to oppose it. "This is a token," she said moments before the vote. "This is a small step forward. Instead, we should have a giant step forward."

Pelosi's vote does not surprise me. I wonder, however, if she still needs to face the reality of the current state of US politics; her rhetoric is still to hopeful and ambitious, not that it shouldn't be considering the position she's in. She needs to divert the anti-war Democrats' attention away from the compromise and more towards the fact that the Dems are different and intend to make real change, even on Iraq, whether that's true, or practical, or not is of issue.

In the Senate, the two leading Democratic presidential candidates, Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) and Barack Obama (Ill.), were among the 14 opponents. "This vote is a choice between validating the same failed policy in Iraq that has cost us so many lives and demanding a new one. And I am demanding a new one," Obama said.

It is interesting that Clinton voted a bit more liberally than I expected on this bill. So far she has been unapologetic on the Iraq issue, even more so than many Republican candidates for 2008.

"We are moving backward," said Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.), a war opponent. "Instead of forcing the president to safely redeploy our troops, instead of coming up with a strategy providing assistance to a post-redeployment Iraq, and instead of a renewed focus on the global fight against al-Qaeda, we are faced with a spending bill that kicks the can down the road and buys the administration time."

The final bill includes $17 billion in unrelated domestic spending, a slight reduction from the $21 billion that Congress added to the first package. The minimum-wage increase would bump the hourly rate to $7.25 an hour from the current rate of $5.15 over the next two years. The wage increase was one of the Democrats' 2006 election promises, and was attached to the war bill to guarantee that it would reach Bush's desk.

The bulk of the funding -- around $100 billion -- would continue military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The nonmilitary spending includes $6.4 billion for Gulf Coast hurricane recovery efforts and $3 billion in emergency aid to farmers, for relief from drought and other natural disasters. An additional $1 billion would pay for port and mass-transit security upgrades. Children's health-care funding would increase by $650 million.

It is not uncommon for bills one topic to have amendments on totally different topics. That is one major problem with the American legislative system, in addition to the issue of streamlining, or lack thereof.

Other domestic beneficiaries include state HIV grant programs, mine safety research, youth violence prevention activities, and pandemic flu protection. About $3 billion would fund the conversion of U.S. military bases that are scheduled to close.

technorati tags: democrats, bush, iraq+war, congress, dems+iraq+bill, minimum+wage, politics, USA, united+states, white+house

The Republicans' Iraq war demon

The Financial Times speculates on fears within the GOP over self-defeat at home from the defeat abroad in Iraq; that is, the Republican White House's unpopular Iraq strategy is hurting the party in Congress.

Talking to Fox News, the conservative broadcaster, on his visit to Baghdad on Thursday, Dick Cheney said: “We didn’t get elected to worry just about the fate of the Republican party. Our mission is to do everything we can to prevail ... against one of the most evil opponents we’ve ever faced.”

Back in Washington Mr Cheney’s Republican colleagues are showing growing irritation with the vice-president’s Iraq war logic. On Tuesday 11 moderate Republican lawmakers warned George W. Bush that their support for his Iraq “surge” was rapidly running out. Tom Davis, a congressman from northern Virginia, told the US president that in one portion of his House district just 5 per cent supported his Iraq strategy.

The same growing unease applies with even greater force to Republicans in the Senate, who hold 21 of the 33 Senate seats that will be contested in next year’s congressional elections. Many Democrats believe that they could improve their narrow 51-49 Senate majority next year to a filibuster-proof 60 seats or more.

Such is the Democratic party’s confidence that some Democrats are talking of bringing about the same kind of splits in the Republican party that so damaged their own party’s electoral fortunes following the Vietnam war a generation ago.

Bush's political power is another thing getting hit hard because of his unpopularity. Remember: money can buy elections...

Mr Bush managed to raise $10.5m for his party at the event compared to $17m last year and $38.5m the year before. For the first time in many years both the Democratic presidential field and the Democratic congressional leadership are out-fundraising their Republican opponents by about 50 per cent.

In the next 10 days Mr Bush will have another opportunity to demonstrate his immunity to the US public’s backlash against the Iraq war, when Congress sends him its second version of the Iraq and Afghanistan war funding bill he vetoed in its first incarnation last month.

Some of the presidential candidates for 2008 are already distancing themselves from the Bush administration's Iraq war policy.

Nightmare scenario for the Republicans: Democrats take a much larger majority (enough to filibuster) in both houses of Congress in the 2008 election, as well as the presidency. Disillusioned, the party fractures further and their conservative base breaks into religious right and libertarian camps.

Nightmare scenario for the Democrats: No political gain over Bush and his party's mishandling of the war. Because of power cockiness, scandals occur at a massive rate. Loose public confidence and blamed for failings in current state of the war. Anti-war and more hawkish factions duke it out right before the elections, where their majority is lost.

technorati tags: iraq, republicans, GOP, congress, democrats, politics, united+states, usa, bush, 2008+elections, white+house, party+politics

More spending vetoes in the works?

White House: more spending on education and health care is bad — bad enough to warrant a rarely-used veto. Another great move by the Bush administration... The Democrats in Congress want to increase the federal budget by about $20 billion. Not it's the increase that's good — because it isn't — but what they hope to increase are the same programs the White House wished to decrease in the last budget it proposed: domestic programs like education and healthcare. Neither branch's version of the fiscal year 2008 budget is perfect, and both have their strengths.

The new Iraq war funding compromise bill may also be vetoed by the president. This bill is a revised vision of the funding bill proposed by Congress, and vetoed by the president (in what was only his second veto ever), earlier this month. Both have been locking horns more than ever ever since.

On a related note, largely due to the wrangling over the mess that is Iraq, Congress and the White House both have about the same (low) approval rating by the American public — in the 30%s.

technorati tags: poll+bush+congress+approval+ratings, iraq+war+bill, veto+iraq+bill, bush+veto+budget, democrats, domestic+spending, congress, bush, white+house, funding

Presidential candidates debate

Interesting debate between Democratic candidates for the 2008 election in South Carolina a few days ago. No clear winner, but the consensus is that Democratic front runner Hillary Clinton did well. Near-unknown Gravel and a-bit-more-known Kucinich both represented a more left-wing viewpoint, but less popular, fringe of the party. There was ample Bush bashing and an array of Iraq war criticism.

France’s Royal and Sarkozy (see Sarkozy v. Royal) also dished out fighting words in their presidential debate. This Sunday, the second and final round of the election will take place, and France will choose either Sarkozy or Royal as president. Far-right Le Pen, who was defeated in the first round, urged his voters to abstain from voting in the upcoming polls, which will help the Royal team and hurt center-right Sarkozy.

technorati tags: mike+gravel, dennis+kucinish, hillary+clinton, segolene+royal, nicolas+sarkozy, french+presidential+election+2007, democrats+debate+south+carolina, 2008+US+presidential+election

Democrats wasting time with Iraq politiking?

Good symbolism on an issue (Iraq) the White House thought it was the only American political power in control of, but it's now time for the Democrats to move on...

AP via Guardian:

A defiant Democratic-controlled Senate passed legislation Thursday that would require the start of troop withdrawals from Iraq by Oct. 1, propelling Congress toward a historic veto showdown with President Bush on the war.

At the White House, the president immediately promised a veto.
...
The 51-46 vote was largely along party lines, and like House passage of the same bill a day earlier, fell far short of the two-thirds margin needed to overturn the president's threatened veto. Nevertheless, the legislation is the first binding challenge on the war that Democrats have managed to send to Bush since they reclaimed control of both houses of Congress in January.
...
The $124.2 billion bill requires troop withdrawals to begin Oct. 1, or sooner if the Iraqi government does not meet certain benchmarks. The House passed the measure Wednesday by a 218-208 vote.

The Democrats have already reached enough benchmarks as far as Iraq war political symbolism goes, isn’t it time to call it a day? Everyone knows the bill requiring withdrawal is going to get vetoed by President Bush. Why not work with the president on issues like alternative energy and immigration, issues the Democrats and president can agree on and accomplish things on, instead of just pushing a legislative agenda only to show Bush what he already must know: the Iraq war effort is going badly and many Americans — Republicans included — are now against it. Executive v. legislature isn't going anywhere also.

I like debate, especially on an issue such as Iraq, but an open debate this is not. It has been muddled by partisan politics, as usual, and the Democrats are not acting that much mature than their Republican predecessors.

Pelosi had her 100 hours of progress and political limelight in the House, but the Dems apparently did not plan much else useful after their initial entrance to office with the exception of political maneuvers: challenging the White House on Iraq and investigating the executive branch’s misdeeds. All together neither of those major actions have been very useful, and real progress needs to be made on issues dealing less with political props and more with bettering America, its people, and the world.

Even on issues the White House and Congress do not agree on — health care, climate change, bioresearch, education, judicial reform, etc. — there can still be compromises, and progress, made. I do not think either branch of the government is out to hurt the American people; I doubt Bush has a strong vendetta against blacks and I doubt the Democrats do not 'support the troops'. However I doubt both party’s abilities to accomplish anything other than filling the political vacuum with baseless political rhetoric, and a bunch of symbolic chess moves on Iraq — moves that are, in Congress' case, only symbolic.

While the White House’s power needs to be checked and its behavior put in line, Congress needs reforms of its own: basic ethics, campaign financing, limit on pork-barrel spending, an end to tacking on unrelated amendments to bills in order to affect — or rather, exploit — the process, and the streamlining of the process, making it more transparent to the people so they can not just cluelessly watch on the sidelines but take action. But knowing this is politics, especially American politics, concessions must be made by all sides. I think this administration’s handling of the Iraq war has been despicable, but little good comes from wasting valuable time and political capitol on an issue that Congress can frankly, in the end, do little about.

Thus far, the president runs the war game, and as nice as it is that that status quo seems to be changing (a political surge?), the Democrats could be doing better things with their majority. They were supposedly elected back in November because of Iraq, now it is time to stop rubbing Iraq in the administration’s face, and start taking action on other issues. Of course Iraq is a major issue, but the president, for better or for worse, gets the final say. He has the veto power over Congress and the Democrats do not have nearly enough votes to override that veto. The Dems should either find a new road to fixing Iraq policy — circumventing the White House, in a way — or put the troop matter on the sidelines and focus on something they can accomplish.

Coincidentally, I am not the only one describing this latest string of questionable, if hasty, Congressional moves on Iraq as 'politiking', the Iraqi foreign minister thinks so too.

As far as investigating pre-war intelligence goes (see the recent Congressional subpoena of Condi Rice), there is no use picking open old wounds. The investigation should continue, but there should also be a focus on, as I said, issues on which real progress can be made. The whole Iraq issue might now even bite back at the Democrats in the 2008 election, contrary to what they believe, because the White House does have more popularity with and respect from the people than Congress. No doubt, however, Iraq will play a large role in the election, but that will not be the only issue, which the Democrats need to grasp.

My message to the Democrats: the honeymoon is well over, you’ve proved your point on Iraq, the people get it, the administration gets it; its alright to continue, but focus on more pressing, realistic topics at hand — and stop acting like your majority will last forever. As Congress locks horns with the Bush administration on Iraq, with gridlock galore, other issues are ignored.

Bottom line: Bush will veto this new bill; and then what?

technorati tags: iraq, congress, democrats, bush, congress+iraq+war

Finding, and missing, political targets

The religious right demographic will, as usual, play a large role in this election; the GOP is scrambling to find a good, staunchly socially-conservative god-faring candidate. Right now, the leading Republican candidate is Rudy Giuliani, a perfect example of an enemy of the religious right: not very religious, not very socially conservative, etc. John McCain has been making amends with the religious right; for example, kissing up to extremists like Jerry Falwell.

McCain is still far behind his competitors, but what matters is who gets more votes during the election, not a year and a half before. Nevertheless, polls are good indicators, and McCain needs help if he wants to even have a good chance at the vice-presidency. We have been hearing less and less about him too.

In addition, the Democratic party has fissures of its own with, like the Republicans, the Iraq war dividing members and candidates. Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama are rivals in both poll numbers and fundraising amounts.

There are also plenty of largely unknown candidates from both sides.

technorati tags: hillary+clinton, barak+obama, rudy+giuliani, iraq+war, democrats, republicans, 2008+US+election, united+states, 2008+presidential+election, demographics, politics, religious+right, poll, john+mccain

Who's leading 2008 election polls?

See new December 2007 polls, days before the Iowa primaries!

Source for party primary polling and (averaged) chart data: Polling Report (various polls) for Democratic '08 candidates.
In most primary polls for Democrats, Clinton seems to have a definite lead over her closer rivals (often scoring in the 30s in terms of percentage), Obama and Edwards. Obama bested Edwards.

Sorce for primary polling and (averaged) chart data: Polling Report (various polls) for Republican '08 candidates.
For Republican primaries, Giuliani’s numbers are quite good. His averages in the 20s or 30s (percentage), with McCain lagging behind in the 10s or 20s. Gingrich and Romney often lag behind runner-up McCain and the leader, Giuliani, with high single-digit percentages. However, in some polls Fred Thompson, who has seen a resurgence in popularity, is at third place with percentages as high as 10 (he is not listed on most polls).

Gingrich was also not included in some polls, so I averaged up those both Thompson and Gingrich were in. Overall, the numbers lean towards a clear first-place — for the time being — Giuliani, with McCain in second place and Romney in a more distant third. Like former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Fred Dalton Thompson has not announced his candidacy yet, but his recent admission that he has cancer leads one to suspect he is getting things off his chest that could hurt him later in his campaign.



Edwards has definitely seen a boost in his popularity as of late, but Obama still looks like a runner-up to clear-leader Clinton. Some polls' inclusion of Al Gore as a choice bumped down Edwards and Obama to an extent. I did not use the polls where Al Gore had a standing, although he usually polled third far below Obama and in front of Edwards by a small amount. In GOP polls without Fred Thompson, Giuliani had a solid win over McCain, who had a solid win over Gingrich, who had a minor lead over Romney.

Remember people participating in such primary polls either are registered with the party or support the party. In these polls, a pollster would not ask a Democrat about a Republican candidate, though in head-to-head and general (national) polls that can be the case.

From national polling during various times of March and late February, some results are surprising.
Source: RealClearPolitics averages of various major head-to-head 2008 presidential candidate polls (e.g. Time, Newsweek, Zogby, Rasmussen).
Giuliani beats anyone — Clinton, Obama, or Edwards — in the head-to-head polls. McCain beats Clinton and narrowly beats Obama. Giuliani’s win over Obama is slimmer than that of his wins over Edwards or Clinton. In the RCP average, Edwards beats McCain; Clinton smashes Romney but Edwards and Obama demolish him with a lead of 20 or so percentage points. Romney may be weak but Edwards does have more head-to-head strength than his overall.

Other party nomination data:
For the GOP nomination from highest percentage to lowest: Giuliani, McCain, Thompson, Romney (Gingrich not included). For the Dems: Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Gore. Gore’s run is extremely, extremely unlikely, especially since everyone is already electioneering more than usual. He has not stated his candidacy and pretty much will not.

Money and fundraising are major issues in this election. In the US one needs a massive amount of money to run a campaign, not that that's the only thing a candidate needs. This race has already broken plenty of records.

technorati tags: fred+thompson, john+mccain, hillary+clinton, barak+obama, presidential+primary, usa, united+states, politics, election+2008, john+edwards, rudy+giuliani, al+gore, mitt+romney, polls, polls+president, democrats, republicans

Just for show? Bush invites Dems for Iraq talks

Gridlock was a key word ringing around after the Democrats took both chambers of US Congress last November. Many issues have seen gridlock between Congress and the White House — though the president yields veto power, the Dems have a weak majority and often a lack of will. Iraq is arguably, along with executive power, one of the big issues the Democrats have challenged the president on. It is also a big reason they got elected. The occupation of Iraq recently turned four and American public opinion continues to frown upon the loss of American lives in Iraq — even though the casualties have been relatively few.

American President George Bush offered a meeting on Iraq to members of both parties in Congress. If the Democrats wouldn’t have declined (see below), such a meeting would take place at the White House and would include discussion on the deadlock between Congress and the Bush administration over Iraq policy, specifically US troop pull-out and funding. If this is anything like offers of previous dialog, the discussion would be one-sided. The Bush White House hates any calls contrary to its policy, and doesn’t do well listening to other opinions, even those of experts. They often disregard fact too.

The problem, for the Dems at least, lies in the politics of perception. The White House will accuse the Democrats of being closed and not open to resolving the war between the executive and legislature over Iraq. The Democrats are already facing enough problems: they are split on troop pullout, and their limit on funding in order to instigate withdrawal of American forces from Iraq could greatly backfire and make them look like they are not 'supporting the troops' — which is ridiculous, but is being used well by their political opponents. The anti-Iraq war side accuses the Dems of being soft. That group should not expect results anyways: the president will certainly veto the Congressional bills calling for pullout.

Bush wants control of the debate, and although the Dems are resisting a debate on his terms, it may come back to bite them.

President Bush invited congressional leaders of both parties to the White House next week to talk about legislation to pay for the war in Iraq, but Democrats promptly dismissed his offer because it carried a condition that Congress drop a timetable for withdrawing American forces from Iraq.

"The clock is ticking for our troops in the field," Bush told an American Legion post in this suburb about 20 miles west of the White House. Without quick action by Congress, he said, the military would within months be forced to redirect funds from training and repair work to pay for the war.

The president also complained that the separate war-spending bills passed by the House and Senate included considerable pork-barrel domestic spending as well as about $100 billion for the war. He invited congressional leaders to a White House meeting next week to work on what officials said would be a "clean" measure providing money just for the war.

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada complained that Bush was setting conditions for the White House talks with congressional leaders.

"He wants a clean bill," Reid said after consulting with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco). "That's not negotiating." He said Bush was used to a "rubber-stamp" Congress that approved everything he sought, but that things have changed since Democrats took over control in last November's elections.

Bush said that if Congress does not provide the funds he seeks for the war--without deadlines for ending the troops' deployment--some forces already in Iraq would see their missions extended because there would be insufficient money to train replacements, and other units already trained would see their time at home shortened before being sent back there.
…
The Senate and House have each approved measures that would give the administration about $103 billion in new money for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Each sets timelines for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq.

Bush has repeatedly said he would veto legislation that cut off money to pursue the wars, and although Democrats hold majorities in both houses, their margin is too slim to provide sufficient votes to override a veto.

The Senate bill sets a nonbinding target of all combat troops withdrawn by March 31, 2008, while the House bill sets a deadline of Aug. 31, 2008, for complete withdrawal. Democratic leaders in both chambers are negotiating a compromise version to send back to each chamber for final passage.
…
A White House official, writing an e-mail message on the condition of anonymity, said the session should not be seen as a negotiating meeting.

Bush is playing the Dems` Iraq policy for what its worth, and will end up slapping down a veto nonetheless.

Now, the Democrats will look bad for not accepting an invitation for talks with the White House on such an important, and politically viotile, issue. This will not sit well with many people, I am sure. Although it is interesting how so many can be opposed with Pelosi, a Democrat, talking to Syria, yet not to Republicans talking to Syria, and, at the same time, opposed with Congress not accepting the White House’s probably one-sided invite for talks. Moreover, the conditions are unfair, just like when the White House sets conditions for diplomatic talks. The conditions are unilateral and one-sided, not to mention the administration is often either aggressive or blindsiding in talks.

Of course the Dems have set possibly-unfair conditions of their own for debate on Iraq policy in Congress…

technorati tags: democrats, iraq, reid, pelosi, bush, iraq+troops, united+states, usa, white+house, congress, politics

'08 candidates score high in early fund-raising

Around US$130 million was raised by United States '08 presidential candidates in the first three months of this year — a new, mind-blowing record. In addition, many candidates have their Senate or House campaign finance accounts. Democrat Hillary Clinton still has $10m to transfer from her Senate account, Dodd $5m, and Biden $4m (the latter two are going to need it). Clinton already scored $26m in fund-raising. Her closest rival, Democrat Barak Obama, was only $1m away from matching her (i.e. he got $25m). The Democrats scored a campaign finance victory, but the battle is far from over. Democratic candidates got a total of $78m in this quarter, compared to the Republican $51m.

Republican Mitt Romney’s surprisingly high $23m included $2.35m of his own money. Brownback already transferred over half a million from his Senate account to his meek presidential war chest. It looks like the social ultra-conservative from Kansas will not end up well. John McCain did horribly. There were some high hopes for Huckabee a few months ago, but he failed to build a foundation for his campaign. Out of all the aforementioned candidates, he is least likely to make it.

In American politics, it all comes down to money — and, to an extent, personality. Even to make it past the beginning stages of the primaries candidates need massive amounts of money. A lot of it is a waste. Just think of all the better uses for hundreds of millions of dollars. Also do not forget the massive and oft-ambiguous corporate donors and campaign lobbyists. If a company were to donate a generous amount to a campaign, chances are they get some sort of incentive if that candidate makes it into office. Obama did pretty well, especially considering he doesn’t have a popular former president as a spouse like in Hillary Clinton's case.

Mitt Romney is a former governor of Massachusetts, a Mormon, and has stances both socially liberal and socially conservative. He is defiantly an interesting candidate to watch.

New York Times candidate listing and profiles

BBC News candidate listing and profiles

Washington Post candidate listing and profiles

technorati tags: obama, clinton, democrats, 2008+election, presidential+08, hillary+clinton, barak+obama, huckabee, john+mccain, mccain, republicans, politics, american, united+states, usa, news, campaign+finance, fund-raising

Iraq debate moving forward... slowly

Around a month ago, the House of Representatives finally passed a long-standing nonbinding resolution condemning Bush's Iraq policy. This seemed like a step in the right direction after there had been virtually no action — even symbolic, like with the nonbinding resolution — really taken on Iraq policy debate in Congress since the Democrats came into power at the beginning of 2007.

The day after, however, the Senate blocked debate on the motion.

Washington Post (again):

After weeks of delay, Democratic leaders yesterday managed to bring to the Senate floor for the first time a binding resolution that would bring U.S. troops home from Iraq. But Republicans remained confident that they could kill the proposal, and the White House threatened a veto, raising constitutional concerns.

Democrats want the new proposal to supersede the 2002 resolution that authorized the Iraq invasion. It would restrict troop movements and set March 31, 2008, as a target date for bringing the troops home.

Republicans had blocked previous efforts on new war resolutions, using parliamentary maneuvers. But they allowed the latest version to inch forward, confident that they could still kill the proposal. A final resolution could come later this week, and Democrats acknowledged that it is unlikely to become law. Still, war opponents urged support for the resolution, declaring that the public no longer wants U.S. troops in Iraq and that last November's elections showed that voters wanted Democrats to end the conflict.

The White House veto is of major concern on the unlikely chance this resolution does pass. At least this one is binding though.

Amazing that even most debate in Congress on Iraq policy has been suppressed. And yet pointless statements and grandstanding flies by fine, not to mention symbolic maneuvers purely for personal political gain and, as always, pork-berral spending motions.