OH, THOSE CIVIL REPUBLICANS

Here's a quip, obviously pre-prepared, that Newt Gingrich delivered (in a fairly competent deadpan) on Jon Stewart's show last night:

No one has suggested -- no one, even the most bitter partisan, has suggested -- that enhanced interrogation should be used on Nancy Pelosi.

Because no one, including Stewart, knew where Gingrich was going when he started that sentence, the line had the element of surprise and got a big laugh. (It was rather breathtaking how he got a punchline, a vicious attack, and phony moral posturing into 22 words.)

And yeah, what he said was true.

Oh, except for...



And...



And...



And...



And, inevitably:



Even though Gingrich's line was meant to get a laugh, and to please any right-wingers who were watching (nearly all of whom would be delighted if liberals were tortured), I actually believe he couldn't resist putting that moral-high-ground part into the joke. It's a weird look into Gingrich's mind: I believe he actually thinks Republicans are more civil than Democrats for (among other things) not suggesting precisely what he was suggesting. I believe he actually holds those two contradictory thoughts in his head at once, and sees no conflict. And, of course, what he said was wrong.

HORNDOG VETTER IDENTIFIED

John McCaslin at Human Events says he knows how John McCain wound up running with Sarah Palin:

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin can thank Washington lobbyist and political consultant Rick Davis, chief executive officer of John McCain's 2008 presidential campaign, for being the ultimate pick to become the Republican vice presidential candidate.

"It was all his doing. He was completely snowed by Palin," a source close to Mr. McCain confided to this columnist over the weekend. "He was totally taken by her."

Um, I think we knew that back in October, as I noted at the time in response to Robert Draper's New York Times Magazine article about the McCain campaign, which included this passage:

After [a] first brief meeting, Davis remained in discreet but frequent contact with Palin and her staff -- gathering tapes of speeches and interviews, as he was doing with all potential vice-presidential candidates. One tape in particular struck Davis as arresting: an interview ... on "The Charlie Rose Show" ... What [Davis] liked was how she stuck to her pet issues -- energy independence and ethics reform -- and thereby refused to let Rose manage the interview. This was the case throughout all of the Palin footage. Consistency. Confidence. And ... well, look at her.

That breathless "well, look at her" isn't a direct quote, but I assume it's an accurate paraphrase ... of, um, an embarrassingly serious love jones (or lust jones, at least).

Admittedly, what follows in the Draper story suggests a bit less fevered interpretation of that passage:

A friend had said to Davis: "The way you pick a vice president is, you get a frame of Time magazine, and you put the pictures of the people in that frame. You look at who fits that frame best -- that’s your V. P."

To Davis, that was Palin? He had it bad.

ACCUSE THE CIA OF LYING? IT'S OK IF YOU DO IT FROM THE RIGHT

Rudy Giuliani is the latest Republican to announce that it's outrageous to accuse the CIA of lying; before that we had Michael Steele, John Boehner, Newt Gingrich, Mike Huckabee (in verse, no less) ... and that's just off the top of my head. But back in 2003, accusing the CIA of lying was apparently just fine -- when the accusers were an ex-Bush speechwriter (David Frum) and a then-current member of Bush's Defense Policy Board (Richard Perle), and their critique was neoconservative.

Back in December '03, Frum and Perle published a book titled An End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror. Some of their sharpest words were reserved for the CIA, which they accused of having (this is not a joke) "liberal instincts" and "ideologically liberal assumptions" that led, in their opinion, to a number of "failures" (some of which were real, like the failure to anticipate the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, others of which were fantasies, primarily the failure to see deep connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda). On page 209 of the book, Frum and Perle wrote:

... because the CIA, like all intelligence organizations, deals in lies, it all too easily crosses the line between lying abroad to protect the nation and lying at home to protect itself -- by, for example, blaming the Department of Defense or the Iraqi opposition for its own failures in Iraq.

If anyone criticized them, or questioned their patriotism, for accusing the CIA of lying, I'm not aware of it.

Perle, as I say, was still in the U.S. government at the time; he resigned as a member of the Defense Policy Board two months after this book was published. There's no evidence that saying the CIA lies was in any way responsible for his resignation.

NICE LITTLE CASH-BACK PROGRAM YOU'VE GOT THERE. SHAME IF ANYTHING HAPPENED TO IT.

Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me that papers like The New York Times used to make a lot more money when industry groups actually had to pay for ad space to publish propaganda telling consumers that a pending piece of progressive legislation was a really, really bad idea -- not for the fat cats behind the propaganda, heaven forfend, but for Joe and Jane America, whose interests are, of course, foremost in the fat cats' minds.

Now I see the Times just puts that kind of propaganda on the front page as a news story, for free:

Credit cards have long been a very good deal for people who pay their bills on time and in full. Even as card companies imposed punitive fees and penalties on those late with their payments, the best customers racked up cash-back rewards, frequent-flier miles and other perks in recent years.

Now Congress is moving to limit the penalties on riskier borrowers, who have become a prime source of billions of dollars in fee revenue for the industry. And to make up for lost income, the card companies are going after those people with sterling credit.

Banks are expected to look at reviving annual fees, curtailing cash-back and other rewards programs and charging interest immediately on a purchase instead of allowing a grace period of weeks, according to bank officials and trade groups.

"It will be a different business," said Edward L. Yingling, the chief executive of the American Bankers Association, which has been lobbying Congress for more lenient legislation on behalf of the nation’s biggest banks. "Those that manage their credit well will in some degree subsidize those that have credit problems."

As they thin their ranks of risky cardholders to deal with an economic downturn, major banks including American Express, Citigroup, Bank of America and a long list of others have already begun to raise interest rates, and some have set their sights on consumers who pay their bills on time....

Are these guys really going to start jacking up charges for well-off customers? Maybe somewhat -- but how far can they go with that without running the risk that consumers will spend less, or flock to cards that don't drastically curb benefits or raise fees, or rediscover the virtues of, y'know, cash? (We're talking, after all, about people who have ready cash.)

The point of this is to derail the credit card bill before it passes, in a variant on the usual Astroturf strategy. Usually fat cats find a few struggling people and put them forth as the real likely victims of legislation they don't like. In this case, it's obvious that curbing the excesses of the Kafkaesque, usurious present-day fee/penalty/interest rate structure is going to help the less well off -- so the potential victims are said to be upmarket ordinary folks. The fat cats want those folks up in arms about this, in order to head this bill off or get it watered down.

Will it work? I don't know, though I see that the propaganda is catching on just where you'd expect it to:



If all else fails, blame it on the black socialist in the White House.

Hey, credit card issuers -- wanna save some money? Why not stop sending my household hundreds of applications a year? We have all the plastic we need, and we used to think that after the first thousand or so applications we didn't fill out and return, you guys might kinda get the message and give up on us -- but you haven't. I know there's exquisitely sensitive software out there that can predict future consumer behavior from past behavior, so why the hell can't you people figure out that we don't want any more of your damn cards from our blatant disregard of your previous offers?

IS THE GOP TRYING TO BE THE NRA OF POLITICAL PARTIES?

This, from Gallup, is nice, but I wish it were having more practical effect:

The decline in Republican Party affiliation among Americans in recent years is well documented, but a Gallup analysis now shows that this movement away from the GOP has occurred among nearly every major demographic subgroup. Since the first year of George W. Bush's presidency in 2001, the Republican Party has maintained its support only among frequent churchgoers, with conservatives and senior citizens showing minimal decline....

Shouldn't this be affecting our day-to-day political life a bit more than it is? Isn't it odd that the only current or former member of the political class who seems to be in any trouble over torture is Nancy Pelosi? Shouldn't the Democratic agenda be sailing through Congress largely uncompromised, not constantly being watered down by a coalition of Republicans and craven Blue Dogs fearful of incurring the anger of GOP talk-show hosts and 527 groups?

You could argue that there's just a lag between reality and the Beltway's perception of that reality, but, as Gallup notes, the GOP losses started in 2005 and the party's status reached its current dire state at the end of 2008. And there've been, y'know, a couple of election cycles in there, with unambiguous results. The pundits and politicians have had ample opportunity to adjust to the new reality.

But I think the GOP is following the National Rifle Association model -- and sometimes, as in the case of Pelosi, it works. The NRA approach is simple: you don't have to be a majority, you just have to get a small, enraged, uncompromising gang together and then bray and bellow and threaten your enemies. Every chance you get, you issue what I believe dog trainers call a "dominance challenge."

And it works. Gun ownership has been declining in this country in recent years (well, maybe until very recently) -- but opposition to gun control is on the increase:



Notice, however, that there's still plurality support for stricter gun laws (and hardly any support for making gun laws less strict, which is what's been happening all over the country in recent years). But it doesn't matter. Gun control laws aren't being seriously considered. Center and left politicians fear the bark and the bite of NRA dominance-challengers.

Is that the GOP's model right now, consciously or unconsciously? And given centrists' politicians timidity and the press's persistent belief that "real" Americans still think like Rush Limbaugh, are we sure it's a blueprint for long-term irrelevance?

PELOSI'S APPROVAL RATINGS: PRETTY MUCH WHAT THEY WERE PRE-GOP FATWA

Wow, the GOP's new war on Pelosi must really be taking its toll, right?

As Nancy Pelosi continues to face a firestorm over what she may have known about aggressive government interrogation techniques, and when, a new survey has more unpleasant news for the House Speaker.

Nearly half of all Americans -- 48 percent -- disapprove of how the California Democrat she is handling her job as Speaker of the House in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll released Monday, while 39 percent approve of her performance....

Except, um, that's pretty much where she stood back in February in a CNN poll:

The poll suggests that 36 percent have a favorable opinion of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, with 43 percent holding an unfavorable opinion, with one out of five unsure.

So her approval's up 3 and her disapproval's up 5. The margin of error in both polls is plus or minus 3. I call that a wash.

MATT DOESN'T KNOW HOW THIS GAME IS PLAYED, DOES HE?

Matt Yglesias, at Think Progress and the Daily Beast, is arguing that the Republicans have committed a tactical blunder by making Nancy Pelosi the issue in the torture debate.

Oh, Matt, wanna buy a bridge? Matt just doesn't get it. I'll explain below.

Here's what he writes:

Various conservative commentators have expressed their hope that gunning for Pelosi will blunt progressive calls for a "truth commission" ... What conservatives are missing here is that this is a fight they were winning before they started gunning for Pelosi. Their best ally in this fight was Barack Obama, whose desire to "move forward" rather than focusing on the past had been the subject of much consternation. Had conservatives simply reached out to grab the hand that was being extended to them, they could have gotten what they wanted.

But in their zeal to score a tactical win, the right has made a truth commission more likely not less likely.... if we're going to be looking backward anyway, thanks to conservatives' insistence on complaining about Pelosi, then the move forward strategy lacks a rationale. And far from forcing a standoff in which Pelosi will abandon her support for an investigation, the right has forced her into a corner from which she can't give in to moderate Democrats' opposition to such a move without looking like she's cravenly attempting to save her own skin.

But the Republicans can easily play this both ways, talking out of both sides of their mouths -- they can denounce Pelosi and fight any truth commission to the death in Congress and the court of public opinion (where, as usual, they'll frame the debate, with the media's help), arguing that an investigation would give aid and comfort to the enemy. This would leave Pelosi twisting in the wind. That's good enough for them.

Or perhaps the Huffington Post is right (emphasis added):

In the midst of arguing that Speaker Nancy Pelosi "stepped in it big time" by insisting she was kept in the dark about the use of waterboarding, RNC Chairman Michael Steele made what could be an important declaration of support for an investigation into the past administration.

"I think you have heard a lot of Republicans call for that," said Steele during an appearance on Meet the Press. "If this is a door that the Democrats and their leaderships, they have the House and Senate and the presidency, and if they want to expose all this, then let's put it all on the table and take a closer look at it."

... Steele's position on investigations is slowly becoming more of a mainstream one within the GOP....

Why wouldn't they be able to maintain their mastery of the news cycle through a truth commission investigation, the way they've done it through recent developments? Crank up the Mighty Wurlitzer anytime a Democrat looks bad. Piously invoke the understandable desire to avenge 9/11 anytime something stings a Republican. Why is Matt so sure this wouldn't continue to work just the way it's worked the past few weeks?

Oh, sorry -- he thinks the public is as logical as he is:

I've seen polling which suggests that the public is reasonably sympathetic to the pro-torture position. But I'm quite certain the public isn’t generally aware of facts that would certainly come out in a truth commission process. For example, that the Bush administration's torture techniques were specifically modeled on techniques employed by Chinese forces during the Korean War for the purpose of extracting false confessions. That the experts in the techniques whose advice was sought in designing the torture program warned interrogators that the methods were illegal and unlikely to produce reliable information. That one principle purpose of the torture program appears to have been to generate false information about links between al-Qaeda and Iraq. Or that abusive detention practices occurred far beyond Abu Ghraib and have led to the deaths of many people.

Matt's faith in the power of reason and facts to sway public opinion on this very emotional issue is touching. I sure wish I shared it.

Look, we already know this was done by a president and vice president we hate, and the best-known images of abuse came from a war we hate. Why hasn't that been enough to fuel widespread public opposition to torture? In fact, what the poll numbers say to me is that torture is one of the most popular policies of the Bush presidency (in that it's one of the few that's not wildly unpopular). Is that really going to turn around if we just give the public a little more backstory?

In any case, it's possible the Republicans don't care. I think they think they can send out two contradictory messages simultaneously -- investigating torture gives aid and comfort to the enemy and it's all Pelosi's fault anyway, as much as anybody's. And they may not care who on their side gets burned -- most of the targets are ex-officeholders anyway -- so long as they get a Democratic pelt.

TEA PARTY 1.1 FAILS

There was never a call for massive anti-Obama protests at Notre Dame, but really, I expected more than this:

While several hundred people attended an anti-abortion Mass, about 100 abortion opponents demonstrated against the president's visit at the edge of campus.... Nearly 40 protesters were arrested trying to enter the campus, Sgt. Bill Redman of the St. Joseph County Police Department said....

That's from the evil liberal New York Times. So what did Fox say about the size of the crowds?

More than 100 protesters demonstrated on Notre Dame's campus Sunday ahead of Obama's commencement address...

About 300 people had arrived at the university's grotto Sunday afternoon for a prayer vigil....

Damn -- there were more people at tea parties just in Houma, Louisiana, on Tax Day.

Ah, but here's a Catholic PR Wire press release under the headline "Notre Dame Switchboard Overwhelmed." So that must have been quite a groundswell of calls, right?

As of late Friday night, hundreds of callers had overwhelmed the switchboard at Notre Dame as news began to circulate that Obama had been invited to give the commencement address at Notre Dame on May 17th.

"Hundreds"? That's it?

Free Republic and Fox Nation were obsessed with this speech over the past month or so. The speech was being discussed as if it was going to be the cause of uncontrollable unrest. It was suggested on the right that Obama would need a face-saving way to withdraw, and that the Vatican might need to step and disinvite him.

A coalition of speech opponents called NDResponse hired a professional PR firm with a client list that includes Verizon and Universal Pictures (plus a lot of religious-right groups) to issue handle media relations. (Boomer lefties, did your scruffy little anti-war group think of that back in '69?)

So what happened? Why did the angry response to Obama turn out to be a big nothing? Why weren't protesters pouring in by the busload? Well, either this was a tempest in a teapot, a controversy only in a small number of wingnuts' minds ... or wingnuts didn't protest because they do what they're told, and they weren't told to protest. Your call.

PAGING DR. FREUD

Politico (emphasis added):

Republican leaders on Sunday backed Dick Cheney’s attacks on President Barack Obama, calling the former vice president a strong asset for the party.

"It doesn't hurt us, it helps us," House Minority Leader John Boehner said on CNN's "State of the Union," calling Cheney a "big member in our party." ...

Yeah, I'd say member size is basically what politics is all about for the GOP.

THE BUNKER, AS OPPOSED TO THE OTHER BUNKER?

First of all, I'm not sure how it compromises the vice president's security to say that in an emergency he might be where he actually lives, but hey, I'm not Fox News:

Biden Reveals Location of Secret VP Bunker

Vice President Joe Biden, well-known for his verbal gaffes, may have finally outdone himself, divulging potentially classified information meant to save the life of a sitting vice president.

According to a report, while recently attending the Gridiron Club dinner in Washington, ... Biden told his dinnermates about the existence of a secret bunker under the old U.S. Naval Observatory, which is now the home of the vice president.

The bunker is believed to be the secure, undisclosed location former Vice President Dick Cheney remained under protection in secret after the 9/11 attacks.

Eleanor Clift, Newsweek magazine's Washington contributing editor, said Biden revealed the location while filling in for President Obama at the dinner...

His bunker was in his house? Then what was the deal with this Drudge story from June 2004?

WHITE HOUSE ANGER AFTER TIME MAGAZINE DETAILS LOCATION OF CHENEY'S 'SECRET BUNKER'

Top White House officials expressed anger after TIME magazine detailed the location of Vice President Dick Cheney's secret bunker, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

In new editions, TIME revealed "Site R," an underground bunker on the Maryland-Pennsylvania border where the Vice President spent much of his time in 2001.

TIME wrote: "Deep under Raven Rock Mountain, Site R is a secret world of five buildings, each three stories tall, computer filled caverns and a subterranean water reservoir. It is just 7 miles from Camp David."

Raven Rock Mountain is easily found using basic geographical maps....

Of course, that bunker's location had already been revealed a week earlier in the New York Post. And the general location of it came out as far back as December 2001.

Or was that "Site R" story meant to throw us off the scent, while also allowing the Bush White to traitor-bait Time in the midst of an election year? Are we going to be told about any more secret bunkers, each of which was the one Cheney ran to after 9/11, all of them revealed by evil liberal traitors?

LOST MY INTERNET CONNECTION ALL DAY

Argh. Returning to normal now. Posts soon.

MORE GLENN BECK THAN YOU CAN POSSIBLY ENDURE

The subscription-only Publishers Lunch is reporting on an effort by the Psycho Muppet to become the King of All Media, with Mary Matalin's help:

NYT bestselling author of AN INCONVENIENT BOOK and THE CHRISTMAS SWEATER Glenn Beck's multi-title co-publishing deal, covering an unlimited number of titles over an undisclosed term, beginning with ARGUING WITH IDIOTS, from Threshold Editions in September 2009, AMERICA'S MARCH TO SOCIALISM, an audio original for publication in May 2009, and GLENN BECK'S COMMON SENSE, "channeling the spirit of Thomas Paine," for publication as an eBook original and then a trade paperback original, in June 2009, also to include picture books and fiction for children and YA [young adult] books, said to be a 50/50 profit-sharing deal....

Yup -- that list did include picture books and fiction for children. Hide the babies! But hey, if Bill Bennett and Bill O'Reilly can crack the juvy market, why not Beck?

Threshold, an imprint of Viacom's Simon & Schuster, is, of course, run by Mary Matalin.

I know none of you actually believe that right-wing books sell, but please note that Beck's weepy novel The Christmas Sweater was #31 on USA Today's list of the bestselling books of 2008, outselling everything published in '08 by Stephen King and James Patterson, not to mention blockbusters such as Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers and Thomas Friedman's Hot, Flat and Crowded. I still say somebody is buying these damn things. The guy does get ratings on radio and TV -- surely some members of his cult are scarfing these ancillary items up as well.

The 50-50 deal (unusual in the publishing biz, although Stephen King and Dr. Phil have similar deals) does suggest that the publishers aren't quite sure this tsunami is product is all going to sell.* "No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people"? I guess this is the ideal test of that proposition.

****

*Sorry, I didn't explain this when I first put this post up. A 50-50 deal gives the author a much high royalty rate per copy sold, but the traditional book deal gives a migher advance against future royalties, which the author gets to keep no matter how well the book does. So Beck's deal means his publisher pays him much less money upfront, and he makes big money only if his books and booklike objects actually sell.

HEY, IT BEATS BEING FRAGGED IN 2012

Conventional wisdom from The Washington Post's Chris Cillizza:

The news that Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. will be the ambassador to China for President Barack Obama almost certainly forecloses the possibility that he will be a candidate for national office in 2012....

Really? I'd say that possibility was foreclosed a while ago. Huntsman doesn't seem stupid, and he had to know that no one is going to be the presidential nominee of the Pitchfork Party in the next election cycle who's spoken in favor of the Obama stimulus plan and who supports gay civil unions. He also knows the Pitchfork Party is the the Southern Jesus Party, which means the most fervent voters think his Mormon faith is an evil cult.

He knows the GOP nominee three years from now is going to make Barry Goldwater look like Olympia Snowe. Unlike Mitt Romney in the '08 primaries and John McCain in the '08 general, he clearly doesn't want to lick the far right's boots in the forlorn hope that his deviations from Correct Thinking will be forgiven. So he's clearly just biding his time and hoping his party will come to its senses by 2016 -- as, I suspect, he would have done even if Obama hadn't offered him this gig.

THAT ABORTION POLL: NOT SURPRISING, OR NECESSARILY SIGNIFICANT

By now you've probably seen it:

A new Gallup Poll, conducted May 7-10, finds 51% of Americans calling themselves "pro-life" on the issue of abortion and 42% "pro-choice." This is the first time a majority of U.S. adults have identified themselves as pro-life since Gallup began asking this question in 1995.

And not only have the pro-choice numbers dropped, they've plummeted -- suddenly:



What's going on? Well, read the analysis in this June 2000 L.A. Times article, which was reporting on a similar perceived drop in support for abortion rights:

Typically when abortion rights are threatened, support for legal abortion rises, according to polling experts.

In the last decade, for example, previous polls show support for Roe peaking at 56% around 1991, when the decision was under attack across the country. Most states had pushed measures through their legislatures that either put strict limits on abortion or even banned it altogether.

In 1992, the Supreme Court issued a decision upholding Roe, with some modifications. The same year, Clinton, an abortion rights supporter, was elected president. Both events appeared to reassure people there would be no dramatic changes in abortion policy. Subsequently, support for Roe began to decline.

In a 1996 poll, 46% of respondents endorsed Roe vs. Wade. By 1999, support had slipped slightly to 43%, the same level as in the current poll.

Gee, what just happened last year? We kicked out an anti-abortion GOP president and elected a pro-choice Democrat. Suddenly the wafflers are feeling squeamish about abortion again.

If you don't believe that perceived political control of the country can have that kind of effect on responses to this kind of question, look at the graph for the Bush years.

I strongly suspect that the next time abortion rights are genuinely threatened, the wafflers will be back in the pro-choice column.

ONE TENTH OF ONE PERCENT OF AMERICANS HAVE NOW SIGNED A PETITION PROTESTING OBAMA'S NOTRE DAME SPEECH!!!!!

That's Fox Nation's idea of a boast.

SECOND THOUGHTS

Are we getting to the point where we can talk seriously about the possibility that opposition to the Bush torture policies might not require support for a maximalist response with regard to prosecutions and transparency?

This morning, Philip Gourevitch was on the public radio show The Takeaway. Gourevitch's bona fides as a torture opponent ought to be unquestioned -- he collaborated with Errol Morris on the film and book Standard Operating Procedure (the book is now known as The Ballad of Abu Ghraib) -- and yet on the radio this morning he saw some sense in President Obama's decision to oppose release of additional photos. Citing the administration's war efforts in Afghanistan-Pakistan region, he echoed the White House:

... [President Obama]'s talking to military advisers, and he's saying, "Look, there is a possibility" -- and this seemed to have been agreed upon by everybody, including most reporters who were in Iraq at the time that the Abu Ghraib photographs came out -- that the release of such photographs would not change or add to our understanding that this was policy, that it was widespread, and that we now more and more and more about the torture, and yet it would have a sensational effect, and a possibly inflammatory effect, that would endanger people.

Gourevitch argues that torture photographs can actually obscure the truth -- we don't always know what we're seeing, and (this seems most important) we focus on the deeds we see rather than the decisions made by people we don't see:

... The only people who've ever been punished for Bush-era torture policies are the soldiers who appeared in and took the photographs at Abu Ghraib. Nobody else.... No commanders, nobody in any other theater, nobody in any other prison in the theater, nobody at any other stage. The photographs became the crime.... I think the notion that we should get so caught up right now in thinking that without these photographs we don't know what happened -- that's not true. Without these photographs or with these photographs, what we need to keep doing is chipping away towards knowing more and more and more and putting that picture together, which, frankly, the Obama administration has led us on, more than the press, more than any advocacy group, in the last few months.

Perhaps this is an unnecessary insult to advocacy groups, but it may be correct with regard to the past few months -- the documents that have been released are what's getting us toward the truth.

****

I'm struck by that, and struck by an e-mail Andrew Sullivan posted last night about the pursuit of torture prosecutions:

... Imagine what such prosecutions would entail: years of courtroom drama, depositions, lawsuits and counter-suits; the long parade of powerful and high ranking ex- and current members of government, including a goodly number of Democrats, being called on the carpet and having to testify against one another; the enormous rancor and bitterness. This would be Watergate on steroids. And imagine the shot in the arm this would give the zombified Limbaugh Right.

The prosecutions you are asking for would simply swallow the Obama presidency whole. It is the kind of energy draining, oxygen consuming drama that is the nightmare of every president. It would come to define his presidency in the same way the Hostage Crisis defined Carter's and there is zero chance he will opt for this.

President Obama is making a realistic, cold, clear-eyed cost-benefit analysis. This is the choice: Does he fix the economy, fix healthcare, get a handle on the two wars he's dealing with, or does he prosecute Bush era war crimes? He has chosen his agenda and is asking us to choose that to.

This echoes something posted yesterday by Joe Klein -- yes, I know, Joe Klein, but, really, he's been saying the right things about Bush and Cheney for a while now, and he says this as an opponent of Bush torture policies:

One of the problems with prosecuting the Bush miscreants, who will argue that they gave a good-faith interpretation of existing treaties and statutes, is that most non-ACLU lawyers believe they are likely to be acquitted--which would probably be seen as a validation of Bush torture policy, a disastrous unintended consequence.

But what about those photos? Isn't there some value in making people more aware of the practices? You could argue--with polling and focus groups to back you up--that most people would see this stuff as (a) tame compared to the things they see in movies and on tv and (b) called for, if the result is actionable intelligence about terrorist acts. (Indeed, the John Kerry campaign conducted such focus groups in 2004, with the result that the candidate never mentioned these outrages during the campaign, not even after the White House link was definitively reported in the Washington Post.)

... I don't think, given the vagaries of the law (i.e. the probability that you can argue that you interpreted the statutes in good faith with a different interpretation of torture than mine), that these will be successful prosecutions. I don't see what officially letting the Bush miscreants off the hook gets us.

****

I haven't posted a lot about the anti-transparency and anti-prosecution steps the Obama administration has taken. I know most of you vehemently disagree with what he's doing. I haven't felt like getting into it.

But sorry -- I share the concerns expressed by Gourevitch and Klein and Sullivan's correspondent. I'd love to live in a country where the public was as outraged by American waterboarding as it was by, say, the crimes of Nixon. I just don't see that we live in that country, and non-Fox, non-Rasmussen polls -- CNN, Pew -- confirm my fears. As I said last night, only one person above the level of enlisted person who's worked in the government has truly had feet held to the fire on this -- and that's Nancy Pelosi. I see no reason to have confidence in the ability of the Good Guys to ensure that punishment is meted out exclusively or even overwhelmingly to the Bad Guys. And I don't know what happens to the Obama agenda, which already seems to get watered down (from within and without) every time I look, if this becomes Priority #1.

(Sullivan link via Steve Benen.)

A LITTLE MORE FOX POLL FUN

How a Fox News story describes a result in Fox's latest poll:

As for judicial philosophy, by 60 percent to 26 percent Americans think the Supreme Court should interpret the U.S. Constitution based on what the Framers meant when they wrote it rather than on what feels appropriate in today's world.

Will it surprise you if I tell you that, in the actual poll question (PDF), there was a bit more to that second choice than the news story tells you?

36. How do you think the Supreme Court should interpret the Constitution? (READ RESPONSES "1" AND "2")
SCALE: 1. No matter what the outcome, the court should follow what the Framers meant when they wrote the Constitution 2. If necessary, the court should ignore what the Framers meant to reach the outcome it feels is appropriate for today 3. (In between/Combination) 4. (Don't know)

(Emphasis added.)

I've looked high and low in the news story and, well, that "ignore what the Framers meant" bit is never mentioned.

Whoops! Must have been an accidental oversight!

****

Oh, and just in case you were worried that Fox somehow forgot to include any questions designed to make America stupider, well, rest easy:



I'm going to go way, way out on a limb here and say that, if the GOP ticket had won in November, I rather doubt that Fox's polling unit would be asking "muzzling" questions about, um, McCain's VP.

THE ELMER FUDD PARTY

Why is Nancy Pelosi the only person who seems to be in trouble over waterboarding?

JAMES PINKERTON TAKES THE BROWN ACID

The former Newsday columnist, who now writes for The American Conservative and comments on Fox News, apparently dabbles in street hallucinogens on the side. Here's the thesis of his latest essay for Fox: God fervently wants us to develop Star Trek technology ... so we can save Israel.

No, I'm not kidding:

What If 'Star Trek' Is a Gift from God?

What if "Star Trek" is a gift from God? We know that "Star Trek," the number one movie in the country right now, is a gift to Paramount Studios, but seriously, what if "Star Trek" is a gift from God?

If all knowledge comes from God, as we are told in Romans 11:33, then that's where all creativity comes from, too. And also science and technological knowhow.

... The new "Star Trek" film shows Captain Kirk's Starship Enterprise making good use of photon torpedoes and force fields. So the question comes to mind: Would Israel be safer if it could shoot down enemy missiles and rockets with such photon torpedoes, or block them altogether with a force field? Of course it would.

... what could a mile-high fence do to safeguard Israel against Qassam rockets fired by terrorists from the Gaza Strip? What could a 20-mile-high fence do to secure Israel against Katyusha rockets from Lebanon? And what could a 200-mile fence do to protect Israel against Shahab missiles from Iran? Such a tall fence wouldn’t have to be physical; it could be virtual, as in a force field.

So back to "Star Trek," and any number of science fiction sagas. Why don’t we have force field technology? ...

This goes on for another 1,919 words. It makes Peggy Noonan sound like Richard Dawkins:

...maybe technology is a miracle we've been longing for, and yet we don't fully recognize it for the blessing that it is, because it has come disguised. Maybe we have been entertaining angels, as in Hebrews 13:2, and yet not seen them for what they were....

And not just for the safety of Israel. Why doesn't the U.S. have such safekeeping, peacekeeping technology? Maybe the answer is that our leaders have not had enough faith. That's right, not enough faith. They didn't see that the futuristic techno-wonders depicted in sci-fi were signs. They didn't see that these wonders were advance indicators of miracles that could be....

... unfortunately, today, some key programs, such as the Airborne Laser (sounds like a proto-photon torpedo to me, which is to say, worth pursuing with warp speed) and the Multiple Kill Vehicle, are being reduced or even eliminated....

The signs are everywhere, folks. And I believe that "Star Trek," and similar shows, are some of these signs....

I'm speechless. Snark fails me. Howard Beale rises from the dead and goes Christian-Zionist, right-wing, and tabloid simultaneously. Bizarre.

THE OTHER LIMBAUGH

I see from Dan Balz of The Washington Post that there's more than one Republican who's deeply unpopular with the general public but is not allowed to be criticized (at least for attribution) by anyone who wants to remain a Republican in good standing:

[Dick Cheney's] high-profile defense of controversial Bush administration policies has caused queasiness among Republican political strategists. But Cheney remains powerful enough that most of his GOP critics are not willing to take him on in public. "The fact that most people want to talk [without attribution] shows what a problem it continues to be," said one Republican strategist who spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to be candid. "Cheney continues to be a force among many members of our base, and while he is entirely unhelpful, no one has the standing to show him the door."

...Another GOP strategist, who also spoke on the condition of anonymity, pointed out the conundrum for Republicans over the former vice president's current role. "Even if he's right, he's absolutely the wrong messenger," this strategist said. His main worry, he added, is that Cheney keeps the public focused on the past, rather than the future. "We want Bush to be a very distant memory in the next election. The more Cheney is on the front burner, the more difficult it's going to be."

I still think Cheney's picked an issue on which the public is still susceptible Republican talking points -- maybe that's part of the reason Cheney's focusing on torture and detention as the central subject of his Nixonian After-the-Fact Self-Defense Tour -- but generally speaking, yeah, I suppose Cheney's not the ideal GOP messenger.

But hey, Republican leaders, if you're afraid to cross the guy, or Rush Limbaugh, that's just chickens coming home to roost. You allowed your party to become a crazy-base, McCarthyite, fearmongering party. Now you're stuck with the crazy fearmongering McCarthyites as your base's sacrosanct folk heroes.

In related news, I see that you guys are trying to recruit electable moderates for 2010 -- which seems like a smart move except for the fact that your base and the base's media heroes (Beck, Malkin, Erickson) hate your moderate Florida Senate candidate.

That link goes to a post by Blue Texan at Firedoglake, who thinks Crist is going to win that battle. Given the fact that Florida is a closed primary state, I'm not sure I agree. Maybe the GOP's non-crazies should beg Dick Cheney to make some campaign appearances for Crist.