October 30, 2007

Good News for Cheney and Hillary on Iran

Here's some good news for Dick Cheney. Pollster John Zogby reports:

A majority of likely voters--52%--would support a U.S. military strike to prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon, and 53% believe it is likely that the U.S. will be involved in a military strike against Iran before the next presidential election, a new Zogby America telephone poll shows....

Democrats (63%) are most likely to believe a U.S. military strike against Iran could take place in the relatively near future, but independents (51%) and Republicans (44%) are less likely to agree. Republicans, however, are much more likely to be supportive of a strike (71%), than Democrats (41%) or independents (44%). Younger likely voters are more likely than those who are older to say a strike is likely to happen before the election and women (58%) are more likely than men (48%) to say the same--but there is little difference in support for a U.S. strike against Iran among these groups.

It's interesting that more Dems than Republicans suspect George W. Bush and Cheney are about to bomb Iran. Obviously, they're thinking wag-the-dog.

My hunch is that Cheney and the Cheney-bots in the administration want to take care of Iran--so to speak--before January 20, 2009. And I doubt that polling means much to the veep and his henchmen and henchwomen. Cheney probably cares little about public opinion and likely believes he will be judged favorably by historians down the road. (Otherwise, how can he get up in the mornings?) But if Bush et. al. are contemplating a strike against Iran, polls such as these certainly don't make the decision any tougher.

There was also good news in the poll for Hillary Clinton:

When asked which presidential candidate would be best equipped to deal with Iran--regardless of whether or not they expected the U.S. to attack Iran --21% would most like to see New York U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton leading the country, while 15% would prefer former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani and 14% would want Arizona U.S. Sen. John McCain in charge. Another 10% said Illinois Sen. Barack Obama would be best equipped to deal with Iran, while Republican Fred Thompson (5%), Democrat John Edwards (4%) and Republican Mitt Romney (3%) were less likely to be viewed as the best leaders to help the U.S. deal with Iran....

Clinton leads strongly among Democrats on the issue, with 35% saying she is best equipped to deal with Iran, while 17% would prefer Obama and 7% view John Edwards as the best choice. Giuliani is the top choice of Republicans (28%), followed by McCain (21%) and Fred Thompson (9%). One in five independents chose Clinton (21%) over McCain (16%) and Giuliani (11%).

Clinton better able to handle Iran than Giuliani? Now, that's reassuring for the Clinton campaign and discouraging for the Obama campaign. If this poll is a reliable indicator, it seems that Clinton is projecting strength as a candidate. That's indeed what the first serious female presidential candidate must do. Judging from this poll, much of the public might be happy to see Cheney (and Bush) hit Iran--and then want to see Clinton come in to clean up the mess. Talk about a new take on the cliche that the Republicans are the Daddy Party and the Democrats are the Mommy Party.

HEAD'S UP. If all goes as planned, this blog tomorrow will become part of the new-and-improved CQ.com site. Watch this space for details.

Posted by David Corn at 10:13 AM

October 29, 2007

Edwards, How Sleazy is Hillary?/Thompson, Go to Iraq

John Edwards is giving what his campaign bills as a "major thematic speech" at noon today in New Hampshire. Judging from the excerpts the campaign has passed out in advance, the address will be nothing he hasn't said before. Edwards will bash the Washington political system for being ridden with institutional corruption and perverted by campaign donations from corporate interests. Edwards certainly has a (fundamental) point. But will such a critique help him beat Hillary Clinton (or Barack Obama, who makes a similar case)? Here are some excerpts of the excerpts:

It's time to tell the truth. And, the truth is the system in Washington is corrupt. It is rigged by the powerful special interests to benefit they very few at the expense of the many. And, as a result, the American people have lost faith in our broken system in Washington, and believe it no longer works for ordinary Americans. They're right.

Being called president while powerful interests really run things is not the same as being free to lead this nation as president of a government of the people, by the people, and for the people....

It is not an accident that the government of the United States cannot function on behalf of its people--because it is no longer our people's government and we the people know it.

This corruption did not begin yesterday -- and it did not even begin with George Bush--it has been building for decades--until it now threatens literally the life of our democracy....

The long slow slide of our democracy into the corporate abyss continues unabated regardless of party, regardless of the best interests of America. We have a duty -- a duty to end this.

I believe you cannot be for change and take money from the lobbyists who prevent change. You cannot take on the entrenched interests in Washington if you choose to defend the broken system. It will not work. And I believe that, if Americans have a choice, any candidate who takes their money--Democrat or Republican--will lose this election.

Edwards is obviously talking about Clinton, whose campaign is fueled by lobbyist money and is run by political strategists who also work for corporate clients. (See Mark Penn.) But the question is whether Edwards' attack on the system can serve (in political terms) as an effective attack on Hillary Clinton. There are indeed progressive Democratic voters who see HRC as an establishment-friendly Democrat and harbor suspicions of her. But that meme hasn't yet--as far as I can discern--come to infect the Democratic body politic. It is, I'm afraid to say, a boutique critique of Clinton.

So my hunch is that Edwards will have to be more explicit in tying Clinton to the sleaze of Washington to have any chance with this line of attack. Ditto for Obama. (And I'll get to his new anti-Hillary initiative soon.) So when the full text of Edwards speech is publicly available, here's what to look for: a direct slam on Clinton. If it's not there, Edwards might be spinning his wheels.

MORE ON THOMSPON'S DISTORTED VIEW OF 20-SOMETHINGS IN IRAQ. As I noted several weeks ago, Thompson has a stump speech line about Iraq that is...well, pretty dumb. He likes to say

Every day, our troops in Iraq demonstrate a heroic resolve to win. I wish Democrats in Washington would dedicate as much time and energy to winning as they do on how to surrender the fight. The average 20 year-old serving in Iraq apparently knows more about national security than many of the 20 year-political veterans serving in Congress.

So what does Thompson think when he reads pieces like the The Washington Post front-pager on Saturday that notes that the experience of soldiers in Iraq

has left many of them deeply discouraged, by both the unabated hatred between rival sectarian fighters and the questionable will of the Iraqi government to work toward peaceful solutions.

Asked if the American endeavor here was worth their sacrifice -- 20 soldiers from [his] battalion have been killed in Baghdad -- [Sgt. Victor] Alarcon said no: "I don't think this place is worth another soldier's life."

The article focused on Alarcon's battalion's efforts in Sadiyah, a neighborhood in Baghdad and noted he mission there has been a flop:

American soldiers estimate that since violence intensified this year, half of the families in Sadiyah have fled, leaving approximately 100,000 people. After they left, insurgents and militiamen used their abandoned homes to hold meetings and store weapons. The neighborhood deteriorated so quickly that many residents came to believe neither U.S. nor Iraqi security forces could stop it happening.

The descent of Sadiyah followed a now-familiar pattern in Baghdad. In response to suicide bombings blamed on Sunni insurgent groups such as al-Qaeda in Iraq, the Shiite militias, particularly the Mahdi Army, went from house to house killing and intimidating Sunni families. In many formerly mixed neighborhoods of Baghdad, such as al-Amil and Bayaa, Shiites have become the dominant sect, with their militias the most powerful force.

"It's just a slow, somewhat government-supported sectarian cleansing," said Maj. Eric Timmerman, the battalion's operations officer.

That sure doesn't sound like the progress George W. Bush and David Petraeus hail. According to the Post, the battalion commander, Lt. Col. George Glaze, says that

his soldiers are playing the role of a bouncer caught between brawling customers. Alone, they can restrain the fighters, keep them off balance, but they cannot stop the melee until the house lights come on -- that is, until the Iraqi government steps in.

"They're either going to turn the lights on or we're all going to realize they've moved the switch," he said.

"I'm frustrated. After 14 months, I've got a lot of thoughts in my head. Do they fundamentally get giving up individual rights and power for the greater good?" Glaze said. "I'm going to leave here being skeptical of everything."

And the piece ends:

The American people don't fully realize what's going on, said Staff Sgt. Richard McClary, 27, a section leader from Buffalo.

"They just know back there what the higher-ups here tell them. But the higher-ups don't go anywhere, and actually they only go to the safe places, places with a little bit of gunfire," he said. "They don't ever [expletive] see what we see on the ground."

So it seems to me that Thompson ought to get his backside over to Iraq and spend two weeks with the 20-something soldiers of 1st Battalion, 18th Infantry Regiment, 1st Infantry Division, before he says anything else about this war.

Posted by David Corn at 09:45 AM

October 26, 2007

A Simple Man/Elvis Sings for Hillary/Rockies Lose, Where's God?

Is Fred Thompson a serious fellow? A few months ago, as I've previously noted, he joined the ranks of global warming deniers. On Wednesday, while campaigning, he described the conflict in Iraq in rather simplistic terms. Discussing why it was necessary for the United States to remain in Iraq, he referred to the Iraqi insurgency as "a bunch of kids with improvised explosive devices." And he noted that if the United States couldn't defeat such an enemy, it would look weak.

Is that what Iraq is about? The mighty American military versus kids with IEDs? Such a view leaves out all the sectarian and geopolitical rivalries and complexities driving the conflict. Thompson fans like to say that he has a bit of Reagan in him when it comes to details--meaning, he's a big picture guy who can articulate larger themes without getting bogged down in policy wonkery. But at least Ronald Reagan read Reader's Digest. Thompson just seems to pop off. For instance, he talks about reforming Social Security without knowing the specifics of the last policy debate on Social Security.

Given the demands that will be placed on the next president (thanks to the actions of this president), a candidate who can tell you what he thinks about policy matters (in folksy fashion, of course) without being able to talk about the details might not be the appropriate fella for the job.

WHAT'S SO FUNNY? Last night, Elvis Costello played at the birthday-bash-fundraiser for Hillary Clinton, and one number he chose to feature was "(What's So Funny About) Peace, Love and Understanding?" This for a woman who voted to give George W. Bush the authority to invade Iraq on his own say-so, and who then stuck by the war...until she saw that her potential competitors in the Democratic presidential contest could run as antiwar candidates against her. She then slowly changed her position, from resisting timetables for disengagement to vowing to the end the war ASAP. In the strategic play of the campaign, she managed to make sure there was little daylight between her and Barack Obama or John Edwards on the number-one issue of the election. What's so funny about that? Not much.

WATCHING THE WATCHDOG. In her take on BloggingHeads.tv hitting it big with The New York Times, Huffington Post's Rachel Sklar writes of the PinkerCorn diavlog featured by the Times,

Fun fact: Today's vid is billed as "A Discussion of Baseball, Politics and God" which Corn launches by inveighing against sportswriters who invoke God to explain the outcome of athletic events--which is ironic, because I, too, have mocked a sportswriter in print for so wondering "how else to explain" the White Sox victory two years ago. Where is the irony, you ask? In the sportswriter: It was Tyler Kepner...of the New York Times! What a coincidence! God must totally have made it happen.

A correction, if I may. I never inveighed against sportswriters for citing divine intervention. I inveighed against the general manager of the Colorado Rockies for telling USA Today--in all seriousness--that God had a hand in the Rockies' success on the playing field. I thought I was clear on that point.

Meanwhile, in our continuing God Is Great feature, let us note that last night the Red Sox beat the God-is-on-our-side Rockies, 2 to 1, and took a 2 to 0 lead in the World Series. I know, I know--this is all a setup for the coming Rockies' resurrection. God likes a good show.

Posted by David Corn at 09:20 AM

October 25, 2007

By the Way....

I forgot to mention that in the latest PinkerCorn diavlog mentioned below, Pinkerton suggested--in all seriousness--posting a police officer in front of every mosque in the United States. To do what? To keep an eye on them, Pinkerton replied. A police state for Christendom? Well, kind of.

You can see it for yourself here, at 12:40 or so.

Posted by David Corn at 10:48 AM

Is Fred Thomspon Chicken, Part Three?

I've asked a few times in recent weeks, Is Fred Thompson chicken? He seems to have a penchant for softball interviews with conservative talk-show hosts. Well, this just in from his campaign:

Fred Thompson will discuss immigration on The Laura Ingraham Show this morning, Thursday, October 25th.

Bill Bennett, Sean Hannity (with no Alan Colmes), Laura Ingraham--Thompson is obviously not afraid to tangle with the hard-hitting media.  

Posted by David Corn at 10:10 AM

God Is Great...But Can S/He Pitch a Shutout?

The Pinkerton & Corn Show on Bloggingheads.tv is back--and it's gone big time. BHTV has cut a deal with The New York Times to feature segments of BHTV conversations regularly, and first at the plate is the PinkerCorn pairing. Watch it here.

The Times' editors chose a slice of our most recent taping during which we considered this critical question: is God backing the Colorado Rockies in the World Series? Several of the Rockies wear their Christianity on their baseball gloves and have suggested that their impressive success on the field is payback for their faith. We teed off on a remark that the team's general manager, Dan O'Dowd, made to USA Today:

You look at some of the moves we made and didn't make. You look at some of the games we're winning. Those aren't just a coincidence. God has definitely had a hand in this.

I observed that such statements strike me as arrogant. Does God--if there is a God--really care about strikes and balls in sports stadiums across the country? Pinkerton poked at atheists and agnostics for being peeved by the Rockies' public display of Christianity. I pressed Pinkerton: do you believe God controls pitches in baseball games? He could if he wanted to, Pinkerton replied. "Well, I would hope so," I replied. "Otherwise, what's the good of God?" We then proceeded with a theologically minded discussion of religious and politics.

Unfortunately, New York Times visitors missed the setup to this conversation. Earlier in our diavlog, Pinkerton and I had a fierce debate over an article he has in The American Conservative--a magazine founded by Pat Buchanan and other paleocons--in which he argues that the West should adopt as a guiding principle the revival of "Christendom." By this he means, we gotta stop the Islamic hordes that are poised and eager to overrun Western civilization. Literally. They will destroy us, unless we keep them back. I was surprised by Pinkerton's pro-Christendom extremism and his equation of all Islam with Islamic fundamentalism. To see that debate over fundamentals, you can watch our entire diavlog here.

By the way, the Boston Red Sox clobbered the Rockies in the first game of the World Series last night, 13 to 1. I'm sure God arranged that loss only to make the Rockies' inevitable comeback even more glorious. After all, wouldn't you expect God to have a sense of the dramatic?

Posted by David Corn at 09:56 AM

October 24, 2007

Bush's Careless Road to World War III

In the good ol' days--that is, before the age of the Internet, daily blogging and 24-second-long news cycles--you could chew on a news event for a few days and then comment upon it. Such punditing no longer seems to be in fashion. Still, I've been pondering since last Thursday a remark George W. Bush made at a press conference that morning:

So I've told people that if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from have the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon.

The remark got some attention--mostly for Bush's reference to World War III. Appearing on NPR's The Diane Rehm Show the following day, Tony Blankley, the conservative columnist who until recently ran the editorial page of The Washington Times, noted that it was inadvisable for a president ever to refer to a possible Third World War.

But what struck me was how Bush appeared to lower the bar for an attack on Iran. He asserted that Iran had to be prevented from obtaining the knowledge needed to build nuclear weapons--not the capacity to produce such weapons. Yet that knowledge is already freely available and presumably already in the hands of scientists and engineers in Iran--as well as in most countries of the world. Remember that in 1979, The Progressive magazine published the design for a hydrogen bomb. So if Bush wants to make knowledge the standard for blasting Iran, Iran is toast.

Of course, Bush probably did not mean what he said, and he has no intention of attacking Iran if he can prove that a yellowing copy of The Progressive is in a government filing cabinet somewhere. But, in a way, this makes his statement worse. It shows how sloppy Bush can be. And if he wants to convince the world he is a serious and somber-minded leader--particularly when it comes to matters of war--this is not the way to do so.

Careless rhetoric can be read as an indicator of careless thinking or careless policy. Bush has already persuaded much of the globe that he is not to be trusted, that he prefers war to diplomacy, that he does not understand (or care about) the complexities of the world. Saying that he is willing to attack Iran if it has the "knowledge" to build nuclear weapons (and he said it twice at the press conference) was an act of profound neglect. It showed the U.S. commander in chief is willing to rattle a saber without paying mindful attention to the facts. Bush is lucky the U.S. media quickly moved on. Imagine if a remark such as this one was truly allowed to sink in.

Posted by David Corn at 11:35 AM