Year: 2005

Floridians are groaning with horror or rubbing hands with delight – depending on who they are – over today’s Washington Post column by E.J. Dionne. He thinks, Lord help us, John McCain and Jeb Bush could run together in 2008.

But McCain made a crucial decision…in 2004. Courted hard by John Kerry as a potential running mate, McCain said no. He decided he wanted to be president and that it was unlikely he would ever get a Democratic nomination – and implausible that he could win as an independent. His one shot was as a Republican.

Once this choice was made, everything else fell into place. McCain joined the Bush crowd. He gave a powerful speech endorsing the president at last year’s Republican National Convention in New York…Unlike the speeches bashing Kerry and the Democrats by Zell Miller, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Rudy Giuliani, McCain’s stuck to policy and praised Bush for his decision to go to war in Iraq.

This allowed McCain to keep his reputation for clinging to the high ground, but it was also important for Bush, whose central policy legacy, for better or worse, will be Iraq.

The standard view of McCain’s choice, especially among Democrats, is that he sold out to Bush for nothing. This assumes that McCain can’t win the 2008 Republican nomination because of the intense opposition he will face from the Republican right, especially from Christian conservatives. It also assumes that Bush will never lift a finger to help McCain.

In Bush’s ideal world, that would probably be true. But the current moment is not ideal for Bush, and the economy, Iraq and the political situation may be even less ideal two and three years from now.

So what about the Jeb part?

Jeb Bush has said he will not run in 2008. But that does not rule him out as a vice presidential candidate. If McCain won, Jeb would be the No. 2 to a president who will turn 72 on Aug. 29, 2008, and might well serve only a single term. If McCain lost, Jeb would have enhanced national recognition for a run in 2012. If picking Jeb is the price of winning over George W., McCain will pay it.

I lost a lot of respect for John McCain during and since the last election. He seems to be the official apologist for everything this administration does wrong, which is a lot of ground to cover. Why would W. need to admit mistakes? He’s got John McCain standing by to explain everything.

I know Jeb isn’t going away but it’s so nice to think of him not being in Florida anymore that I guess I was hoping he would.

The Los Angeles Times has seen additional formerly secret British government documents that “flesh out the background to …the ‘Downing Street memo’ published in the Sunday Times of London last month, which said that top British officials were told eight months before the war began that military action was ‘seen as inevitable.’ President Bush and his main ally in the war, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, have long maintained that they had not made up their minds to go to war at that stage.”

Despite denials from both President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair at a recent joint news conference that war planning was underway in early 2002:

The new documents indicate that top British officials believed that by March 2002, Washington was already leaning heavily toward toppling Hussein by military force. Condoleezza Rice, the current secretary of State who was then Bush’s national security advisor, was described as enthusiastic about “regime change.”

Although British officials said in the documents that they did not think Iraq’s weapons programs posed an immediate threat and that they were dubious of any claimed links between the Iraqi government and Al Qaeda, they indicated that they were willing to join in a campaign to topple Hussein as long as the plan would succeed and was handled with political and legal care.

Unlike the U.S. officials – who were “fed up with the policy of containing Iraq [and] skeptical of the U.N.” – the British officials expressed concern that deposing Hussein was illegal under international law.

“We spent a long time at dinner on Iraq,” wrote Manning, now the British ambassador to the U.S. “It is clear that Bush is grateful for your [Blair’s] support and has registered that you are getting flak. I said that you would not budge in your support for regime change but you had to manage a press, a Parliament and a public opinion that was different from anything in the States. And you would not budge either in your insistence that, if we pursued regime change, it must be very carefully done and produce the right result. Failure was not an option.”

The memo went on to say:

“Condi’s enthusiasm for regime change is undimmed. But there were some signs, since we last spoke, of greater awareness of the practical difficulties and political risks…. From what she said, Bush has yet to find answers to the big questions:

• How to persuade international opinion that military action against Iraq is necessary and justified;

• What value to put on the exiled Iraqi opposition;

• How to coordinate a US/allied military campaign with internal opposition (assuming there is any);

• What happens the morning after?”

Manning told Blair that given Bush’s eagerness for British backing, the prime minister would have “real influence” on the public relations strategy, on the issue of encouraging the United States to go first to the United Nations and on any U.S. military planning.

Manning said it could prove helpful if Hussein refused to allow renewed U.N. weapons inspections.

Another new leaked document is a memo from British ambassador Christopher Meyer to Prime Minister Tony Blair, covering a conversation he had with Paul Wolfowitz, a neo-conservative who was then a deputy Secretary of Defense.

Meyer said in the memo that he had told Wolfowitz that U.N. pressure and weapons inspections could be used to trip up Hussein.

“We backed regime change,” he wrote, “but the plan had to be clever and failure was not an option. It would be a tough sell for us domestically, and probably tougher elsewhere in Europe.”

In a March 22, 2002, memo to British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, Foreign Office political director Peter Ricketts “bluntly stated that the case against Hussein was weak because the Iraqi leader was not accelerating his weapons programs and there was scant proof of links to Al Qaeda.”

“What has changed is not the pace of Saddam Hussein’s WMD programs, but our tolerance of them post-11 September,” Ricketts wrote. “Attempts to claim otherwise publicly will increase skepticism about our case…. “U.S. scrambling to establish a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda is so far frankly unconvincing,” he said.

Because countries like Iran and North Korea were also close to developing nuclear weapons, Ricketts said, “arguing for regime change in Iraq alone ‘does not stack up. It sounds like a grudge between Bush and Saddam.’ That was why the issue of weapons of mass destruction was vital, he said.”

Editor & Publisher quotes an Annenberg poll that found that 40 percent of respondents consider Bill O’Reilly a journalist while only 30 percent consider Bob Woodward a journalist. Blowhard wingnut Rush Limbaugh was considered by 27 percent to be a journalist, and one in five consider right-wing baseball fan George Will one.

The results gave Limbaugh an opportunity to spout more nonsense:

Limbaugh said Monday he was “not really surprised” by the results showing a quarter of Americans would describe him as a journalist. The conservative talk show host said, “I am America’s anchorman, doing news play-by-play 15 hours a week for nearly 17 years now, and this is just more evidence that the old media’s monopoly-like dominance is finished.”

Annenberg also polled journalists, whose responses were quite different:

Only 3% of journalists said Limbaugh was “somewhat close” to being a journalist and 11% said that about O’Reilly, while 93% said Woodward was “somewhat close or very close” to being a journalist.

With masterful understatement, Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center, said the poll results suggest the public defines the word “journalist” far differently than those in the press define it.

Duh!

With its ongoing efforts to define marriage as something that can happen only between a man and a woman, Congress is contributing to an atmosphere of negativity toward any lifestyle outside the “Leave It to Beaver” mode. According to LGBT activists, that is making an already difficult decision — whether to “come out” — all the more difficult for youths.

Besides the legislative effort, there also has been a marked increase of violence and intolerant acts toward lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgendered individuals, according to an article in “WireTap”:

The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force recently found that LGBT hate crimes have gone up 30 percent within the past year. That is in addition to the alarming results found in a national survey of LGBT students conducted by the Office of Public Policy of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) in 2003. The survey found that, “77.9 percent heard remarks such as ‘faggot’ or ‘dyke’ frequently or often at school; 18.8 percent heard similar remarks from faculty or school staff at least some of the time; 82.9 percent reported that faculty or staff never or only sometimes intervened when they were present when such remarks were made; 84 percent personally had been verbally harassed at school because of their sexual orientation; 65.3 percent had been sexually harassed; and 39.1 percent had been physically harassed.”

Newt’s half-sis is on the case:

Candace Gingrich, youth outreach manager at the Human Rights Campaign in Washington D.C. said that we often focus on the anti same-sex initiatives around the country and fail to notice crucial victories. “There were 14 state legislatures that rejected [same-sex] marriage amendments on Election Day. But all we hear about are the 13 that passed them,” said Gingrich. “We need to get these facts out there.”

“The conversation about marriage has really only just begun. We’ve been talking about discrimination, hate crimes, and health issues for 30 or 40 years. We’ve really only been talking about marriage for a second,” Gingrich added.

And finally, the point can be made that:

“In the long run, the U.S. government cannot preach to the rest of the world about freedom and democracy if they are demonstrably not practicing themselves. They cannot legitimately make the claim that U.S. rights can be restricted based on traditional religious grounds, especially as European countries move towards increased rights for LGBTIQ people,” said Christine Johnson, coordinator of TransAdvocate.org based in Olympia, Wash.

But when has hypocrisy ever been a deterrent for the U.S gubmint?

The U.S. Supreme Court today refused to rule on a lower-court judgement that found against the Federal Communications Commission and a Repug-led attempt to ease TV and radio station ownership limits.

The decision was a loss for broadcast and newspaper companies and a victory for critics of media consolidation.

Without comment, the justices let stand a ruling by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that blocked the 2003 rules change.

The Supreme Court’s decision not to intervene sends the rules back to the Federal Communications Commission for revision.

The rules, adopted by the FCC on a 3-to-2 Republican-led party-line vote, aimed to let companies own more TV and radio stations in a single market, and to own a daily newspaper and nearby broadcast station.

FCC: “Curses! Foiled again!”

This part of Dr. (as long as Condo keeps using it, I’ll use it for Howie) Howard Dean’s comments Sunday aren’t getting as much play as his calling Fox News a Republican propaganda machine, but it should.

Chicago Tribune:

Dean…sharply criticized the Republican Party, which he said has yet to support reauthorizing certain provisions of the Voting Rights Act that expire in 2007.

After barely registering a double-digit showing among black voters nationally in last fall’s election, the Republican Party has intensified its efforts to recruit African-American supporters. Chairman Ken Mehlman is engineering the party’s most aggressive outreach to black voters, frequently speaking in churches and to community groups in an effort to improve the party’s performance before the 2006 mid-term elections and the 2008 presidential race.

Dean said Republicans should not “pretend” to be genuinely interested in courting African-Americans until the party makes a clear statement on the Voting Rights Act.

“The chairman of the Republican Party, as you know, has made a big deal about attracting African-American voters,” Dean said to people attending the conference. “And this is a litmus test. If you aren’t going to support the extension of the Voting Rights Act, I don’t know what right you have to go to a black church and show your face.”

But like so many things Republicans have the gall to do, this one appears to be working. More blacks are switching parties, due in large part to the GOP going after members of black churches. Black Christian fundamentalists must not be any better at resisting cynical Republican manipulation than white Christian fundamentalists.

If you don’t think so, check out the comments of Rev. O’Neal Dozier, the White House’s “go-to” African-American, posted earlier.