A CNN poll released today finds that “opinion about which political party is responsible for the severe economic downturn is shifting.” According to the survey, “38 percent of the public blames Republicans for the country’s current economic problems. That’s down 15 points from May, when 53 percent blamed the GOP. According to the poll 27 percent now blame the Democrats for the recession, up 6 points from May. Twenty-seven percent now say both parties are responsible for the economic mess.”
Similarly, the Gallup tracking poll has President Obama dipping below 50 percent approval for the first time, with 49 percent approving and 44 percent disapproving of the job he’s doing as president.
None of this is surprising, really. While we may technically be out of the recession, unemployment is now in the double digits for the first time in many Americans’ memory and trending upwards. Obama’s sitting in the White House and, rightly or wrongly, he gets the blame.
It’s actually rather remarkable that he’s doing as well as he is. I credit Bush Fatigue. People were so glad to see his predecessor leave office that Obama still seems good by comparison.
But that won’t last forever.
As longtime readers know, I believe presidents get far, far too much credit for good economic circumstances and far, far too much blame for economic downturns. But that’s the nature of the game.
Yesterday, the NYT and other outlets reported that former NYC mayor Rudy Giuliani has decided against running for governor of New York. But the Daily News is reporting that he is instead “very likely” to run in the special election to fill the remaining two years of Hillary Clinton’s U.S. Senate seat.
The Republican heavyweight was considered the GOP’s best shot at reclaiming the governor’s mansion. The only declared candidate on the Republican side is little-known former Long Island Rep. Rick Lazio.
One source said Giuliani is prepared to run for U.S. Senate against Democratic Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand next year to fill out the remaining two years of Hillary Clinton’s term.
Still, a number of sources said no decision has been made and a Giuliani spokeswoman downplayed the reports. “Rudy has a history of making up his own mind and has no problem speaking it,” she said. “When Mayor Giuliani makes a decision about serving in public office, he will inform New Yorkers on his own.”
[...]
Former Staten Island Borough President Guy Molinari, a close Giuliani pal, said the former mayor has shared doubts with him for weeks about running for governor. “What he said to me is that he doesn’t think he’s going to do it,” Molinari said about a conversation earlier this month with the former mayor. “It just didn’t make any sense to him.” Molinari said the ongoing circus in the state Senate, combined with Democratic Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver’s iron grip on Assembly matters, had convinced Giuliani that a Republican governor would have little ability to get things done quickly in Albany. “The big drawback for him was – could I really be effective?” Molinari said. “He saw too many hangups there. He’s not running for the title, that’s for sure.”
That, and the very real possibility he’d lose to popular Democrat Andrew Cuomo.
But it’s not entirely clear what a Senate seat would do for Giuliani, either. He’s used to making decisions, so he’d be an ineffective legislator. And if his goal is to run for president again in 2012, it’s not clear how five minutes in the Senate would bolster his resume — as he’d have to hit the campaign trail almost immediately. He’d be better off going the Newt Gingrich route and simply establishing himself as a Republican Wise Man, doing as many public appearances as possible.
Frankly, 2008 was his best chance and he blew it. He was at the height of his popularity and running against a lackluster field for the nomination. Yet he ran a joke of a campaign — literally — “A noun, a verb, and 9/11.” As he moves further and further away from the 9/11 attacks, his light dims.
He’ll be 68 during the 2012 race — facing, should he make it to the nomination, an incumbent president with superb campaign skills — and 72 for 2016. The latter will be 15 years after his finest hour.
For the second time in a week, Fox News has been caught using old video to give the false impression of larger-than-actual turnout at appearances of politicos they supported. Sufficiently embarrassed at having been caught, Fox executives are promising “serious disciplinary action” for those responsible.
While the incidents add fuel to the fire that Fox is a Republican shill outlet rather than real news — and there’s growing truth to that charge — the real story here is that Fox has joined the larger trend in broadcast journalist of becoming a hype machine.
I was a big fan of Fox News when I first came across it a decade or so ago. Mostly, I just watched Brit Hume’s nightly “Special Report” newscast, although I did occasionally watch some of the talking heads. At the time, I found it a refreshing alternative to the networks and CNN, all of which had a significant leftward bias but pretended otherwise. Fox — or, again, at least the Hume show of that time — had a slight rightward bias but it seemed genuinely interested in being “Fair and Balanced” and more-or-less living up to its “We Report, You Decide” mantra.
Somewhere along the way, it became both more partisan and more shrill. Everything was Breaking News and hype.
The thing is, it’s not just Fox.
As I’ve mentioned perhaps too many times, I’ve long since drifted away from watching television news on a regular basis, finding the Internet a much more efficient and less aggravating means of getting information. But I catch news shows from time-to-time, usually while traveling or because someone else has the television on. And everything from “Good Morning America” to the nightly network news promos to local news radio is in the same hype mode. It’s all crisis this, emergency that, and tragedy the other.
It’s like Jerry Springer is suddenly in charge of all news programming.
Still, Fox is in a special category because it is perceived as the conservative network. Too many of these episodes and it will simply be dismissed as hackery by all but the most die-hard Republicans.
There are already a goodly number of conservative-leaning outlets such as Drudge, WorldNetDaily, and CNS that even unabashed Republicans are embarrassed to cite as sources for their arguments.
Fox isn’t there yet. It would be a shame if it crossed into that territory, however, as there’s no road back.
Amanda Carpenter broke the news Tuesday that “The government Web site that promised to show exactly where the $787 billion in stimulus spending was going to ‘create or save’ jobs is allocating billions of tax dollars to hundreds of congressional districts that don’t exist.”
Researchers at the Franklin Center for Government & Public Integrity found 440 “phantom districts” listed on Recovery.gov, consuming $6.4 billion and creating or saving nearly 30,000 jobs. Their findings are listed HERE.
For example, Recovery.gov shows 12 districts, using up more than $2.7 billion, in Washington, D.C, which only has one congressional district. [Actually, it has none. - jhj]
Recovery.gov also shows 2,893.9 jobs created with $194,537,372 in stimulus funding in New Hampshire’s 00 congressional district. But, there is no such thing.
The site also shows $1,471,518 going to New Hampshire’s 6th congressional district, $1,033,809 to the 4th congressional district and $124,774 to the 27th congressional district. In fact, New Hampshire only has two congressional districts; inviting confusion about where the money listed for the 00, 4th, 6th and 27th districts is going.
After being beat over the head with this on the blogs, Twitter, and the late-night comic shows, the White House admitted error and has said it’ll put out a more accurate list, while muttering something about distractions.
Aside from the obvious 57 states joke (which an Instapundit reader beat me to), I’ve dismissed this story as mildly amusing but no big deal.
It seems, however, that the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee is less than amused and will hold hearings on the matter. Others in Congress were also upset — and not just the usual suspects.
The errors raised the ire of Rep. Dave Obey, D-Wisconsin, and chairman of the House Appropriations Committee. On Monday, he said the mistakes “are outrageous and the administration owes itself, the Congress and every American a commitment to work night and day to correct the ludicrous mistakes.”
“Credibility counts in government, and stupid mistakes like this undermine it. We’ve got too many serious problems in this country to let that happen,” Obey said.
While I agree in principle, the reality is that large bureaucracies continually make incredibly boneheaded mistakes of this variety. The key is transparency, which lets interested parties quickly spot problems and get them corrected — as happened in this case.
It is, however, refreshing to see Congress investigate something that is actually under their purview and to do so with a president of the same political party that controls both Houses. That’s how the system is supposed to work but, alas, frequently doesn’t.
Gail Collins proclaims the first ten years of the new millennium “the Decade of Medical Backtracking.”
Somewhere between the reports that Pap smears and tests for prostate cancer aren’t all they were cracked up to be and the news that a high fiber diet doesn’t do anything to prevent cancer, the health establishment began looking decidedly nonomniscient. Then this week, a federal task force reported that most women don’t need annual mammograms. Even more fascinating, they suggested that doctors stop telling their female patients to self-examine their breasts for lumps.
[...]
Every rational American wants qualified experts to keep re-examining current medical practices. The only thing that bothers me about the mammogram report is all the emphasis on the “anxiety” that might follow a false-positive. We live in a time when we are constantly being reminded that a fellow plane passenger might be trying to smuggle explosives in his sneakers. We can manage anxiety.
I am going out on a limb to say that the real problem with a test that creates a lot of false-positive results is that it leads to a lot of other medical procedures, some involving hospitals. Unless you are genuinely sick, there is no more dangerous place to be hanging around than a hospital.
And let’s not forget the longer-term changes of mind on things like silicon breast implants, artificial sweeteners, and the danger of eating eggs.
Collins is right that we want medical science to constantly challenge prevailing assumptions and give us their best guess as to the truth. I continue to wonder, however, about the rigors of medical scholarship, which seems to frequently draw wide conclusions based on studies of very small, self-selected samples.
Barbara Ann Radnofsky, a Democratic candidate for Texas attorney general, claims a 2005 constitutional amendment designed to ban gay marriages actually bans all marriages.
The amendment, approved by the Legislature and overwhelmingly ratified by voters, declares that “marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.” But the troublemaking phrase, as Radnofsky sees it, is Subsection B, which declares: “This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.”
Architects of the amendment included the clause to ban same-sex civil unions and domestic partnerships. But Radnofsky, who was a member of the powerhouse Vinson & Elkins law firm in Houston for 27 years until retiring in 2006, says the wording of Subsection B effectively “eliminates marriage in Texas,” including common-law marriages.
She calls it a “massive mistake” and blames the current attorney general, Republican Greg Abbott, for allowing the language to become part of the Texas Constitution. Radnofsky called on Abbott to acknowledge the wording as an error and consider an apology. She also said that another constitutional amendment may be necessary to reverse the problem. “You do not have to have a fancy law degree to read this and understand what it plainly says,” said Radnofsky, who will be at Texas Christian University today as part of a five-city tour to kick off her campaign.
While I don’t have any fancy law degrees, it’s pretty clear to me that the amendment does not endanger “marriage” in Texas. The key word in the clause in question is “create.” Given that 1) marriage existed in Texas before the amendment and 2) that the first clause in the amendment reiterates the existence of marriage, merely clarifying its definition, the subsequent clause rather clearly bans only the creation of analogous institutions.
We’ll also be taking calls at (646) 716-7030. Owing to a high trolls to legit callers ratio, however, we’ll be using the BTR chat feature to screen for legit calls.
You can play the show, subscribe to its feed, or share it with your friends via the widget below:
(Note: The playback automatically updates to the most recent show available. Older shows can be accessed at the show archives.)
Tomorrow night, the European Union will have its first-ever president. Time’s Leo Cendrowicz reports that few Europeans much care, perhaps because they have no voice in the selection.
In my New Atlanticist essay “Europe’s President Selected, Not Elected,” I both marvel at the fact that Europeans “not only have no direct voice in choosing the leader but don’t even know who the likely candidates are a day before the announcement is made” and argue that the person who holds the office first will, as with George Washington here, “have enormous power to shape the position.”
My personal favorite would be Tony Blair, although I assess his chances at being selected as virtually nil. Former Latvian president Vaira Vike-Freiberga is a more plausible winner, who would be an excellent choice for reasons Caroline Hammargren outlines.
In my initial posting on the Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Trial, I asserted that “there’s an incredibly good chance that Mohammed and his comrades will go free. The fact that KSM was repeatedly waterboarded would seem to taint any subsequent evidence, including his own confession.”
This was based on the presumption that the whole point of trying KSM in a civilian court was to demonstrate that we’ve changed our evil ways and would allow accused terrorists to avail themselves of the finest justice system in the world.
Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa: “I don’t think you can say that failure to convict is not an option, when we have juries in this country.”
Attorney General Eric Holder: I have thought about that possibility. Congress has passed legislation that would not allow the release of these individuals in this country. If there is not a successful conclusion to this trial, that would not mean that this person would be released into this country…
Grassley: My understanding is that if for some reason he’s not convicted, or a judge lets him off on a technicality, he’ll be an enemy combatant, so you’re right back where you started.
I can’t find the full transcript online elsewhere, so don’t have Holder’s retort. But if the defendants have zero chance of being released, this is a show trial and a sham. That’s frankly much worse than the status quo, much less a military tribunal.
Administration officials say they expect that as many as 40 of the 215 detainees at Guantanamo will be tried in federal court or military commissions. About 90 others have been cleared for repatriation or resettlement in a third country, and about 75 more have been deemed too dangerous to release but cannot be prosecuted because of evidentiary issues and limits on the use of classified material.
He correctly notes that, while Bacon’s piece focuses on the shifting mood of the Senate, the real story is that 75 of 215 Gitmo detainees — that is, more than a third of them — have been deemed “Fifth Category” types who will get neither a hearing nor a release.
This is remarkable, indeed, given the Obama administration’s public position on Gitmo. Obama made it a point to order Guantanamo closed on his first full day in office and campaigned strongly against it. But, once elected, he moderated his policy.
The reality is that we have these people locked up and have no good options as to what to do with them. In many cases, they can’t be expatriated. In others, there’s either not enough evidence to prove them “guilty” beyond reasonable doubt or said evidence is tainted by treatment deemed appropriate for foreign terrorist suspects but not innocent-until-proven-guilty criminal defendants. Releasing them into American cities would not only be dangerous but political suicide.
So moving them to a Gitmo in all but name is the least bad option.
Barack Obama has been president for just under 10 months but he’s added two trillion to the national debt and will double it by the end of the decade. CBS’ Mark Knoller:
This latest milestone in the ever-rising journey of the National Debt comes less than eight months after it hit $11 trillion for the first time. The latest high-point is not unexpected, considering the federal deficit for the just-ended 2009 fiscal year hit an all-time high at $1.42-trillion – more than triple the previous year’s record high.
Much of the increase in the deficit and debt is attributed to government spending outpacing revenue – both exacerbated by the recession and the government response to it – including hundreds of billions in bailouts and stimulus spending and tax cuts along with decreased tax revenues due to rising unemployment.
[...]
The National Debt has increased about $1.6 trillion on Mr. Obama’s watch, though less than $4.9 trillion run up during the presidency of George W. Bush.
But the White House budget review issued in August projects that by the end of the current fiscal year on Sept 30th, the National Debt could top $14 trillion. It gets worse. The same document projects that by the end of the decade, the National Debt will hit $24.5 trillion — exceeding the Gross Domestic Product projected for 2019 of $22.8 trillion.
According to the Treasury Department, the debt stood at $5.727 trillion on January 19, 2001, Bill Clinton’s last day in office, and $10.627 trillion when Bush left office eight years later. That’s $612.5 billion (or $0.6125 trillion) a year, during which we fought two major wars, had the 9/11 attacks, and at least two major bailouts to deal with a global financial crisis.
We’re thus far averaging $1.92 trillion a year under Obama, or a factor of 3.146 more. And the government is projecting that we’ll continue spending at this crisis rate for the next decade, more than doubling the current record level?
That ain’t good.
Presumably, we’d have had another major bailout had Bush stayed in office for a third term (were that Constitutionally or politically possible) or had John McCain been elected. So spending and thus the debt would have escalated substantially regardless. But we likely wouldn’t be talking about adding a massive health care payment on top of the pile.
Newsweek’s choice of cover art for its Sarah Palin issue has managed to generate controversy for three days now, finally prompting a response from the editors. The salient passage:
To note that choosing that particular photograph has ruffled a few feathers is perhaps an understatement. Palin denounced it—and us—to her million-strong Facebook following last night. “The choice of photo for the cover of this week’s Newsweek is unfortunate. When it comes to Sarah Palin, this ‘news’ magazine has relished focusing on the irrelevant rather than the relevant,” she wrote on her fan page, adding, “The out-of-context Newsweek approach is sexist and oh-so-expected by now.” She also told ABC’s Barbara Walters that she found the cover “a wee bit degrading.” Others, like CBN’s David Brody, said our cover was a new low: “biased and sexist at the same time.”
Today, Newsweek’s Editor Jon Meacham has responded to critics. “We chose the most interesting image available to us to illustrate the theme of the cover, which is what we always try to do,” Meacham said. “We apply the same test to photographs of any public figure, male or female: does the image convey what we are saying? That is a gender-neutral standard.”
As with June’s controversy over Sarah Palin’s toenails, the issue here isn’t so much sexism as it is contempt for the erstwhile vice presidential nominee as a serious public figure. Indeed, the “theme of the cover” could not be more clear: Palin’s a buffoon. Why, it’s right there in bold text: “Sarah” (not “Governor Palin” or even “Palin” but “Sarah”) is a “Problem” one must “solve.” Lest one miss that not-so-subtle message, the subhead goes on to inform us that “She’s bad news for the GOP — and for everybody else, too.”
Now, as regular readers are painfully aware, I’m not a big fan of Palin. I thought she was a disastrous choice for the nomination from the instant it was announced and hope very much that her brand of silly populism isn’t the future of the Republican Party.
Then again, OTB is a journal of opinion, not a news magazine. You come here to read the signed analysis of our writers whereas, presumably, you read Newsweek for detached roundups of the week’s most important events.
It’s odd enough for Newsweek to have two opinion pieces on Palin, an out-of-office politician who’s peddling a book she almost certainly didn’t write, in the issue. Let alone that they’re both negative. (”Palin’s Base Appeal” by Christopher Hitchens and “Gone Rogue – How Sarah Palin Hurts the GOP and the Country” by Evan Thomas.) But to add insult to injury by choosing to portray Palin on the cover in a way that they would never use for any other former governor or vice presidential nominee — male or female — is beyond the boundaries of objective journalism.
Yes, Palin posed for those photos. For Runner’s World. What she was thinking when she agreed to pose for the cheesy ones with the flags — which have very little to do with running or fitness — I don’t know. At the time, I wrote that “Palin has crossed the line from politician to pop culture celebrity,” an assertion of which I’m even more confident today. But, again, that’s a fair point for political commentary, not for an outlet purporting to be covering the news.
UPDATE: Until seeing some traffic to it in my referral logs, I’d completely forgotten about the “Newsweek Sarah Palin Cover Outrage!” from October 2008. That one featured a non-airbrushed close-up of Palin’s face and a Jon Meacham cover story titled “She’s One of the Folks (And that’s the problem).” I sense a trend.
“Obama Has Failed the World on Climate Change,” blares a Spiegel op-ed by Christian Schwägerl. The essay is another data point in the growing notion that the new American president’s aura is fading on the other side of the Atlantic.
But, as I argue in my New Atlanticist essay “Obama Disappoints Europe Ahead of Copenhagen,” this was all too predictable. Indeed, Bob Manning and I both predicted it before Obama was inaugurated. Obama is, like George W. Bush before him, president of the United States. Our priorities are simply different from those in Western Europe.
Obama’s personal ideology on climate change and other environmental issues is much closer to that of the European leaders than was his predecessor’s. But there’s simply no way that Obama is going to swim upstream on this one in the midst of two shooting wars, a global recession, and a major fight to reform the healthcare system.
[...]
Obama is a cautious, pragmatic politician. This is a fight he can’t win. He’ll therefore avoid entering the ring.
None of this will prevent Bruce McQuain and others from enjoying some well-deserved Schadenfraude.
Someone with a lot of time on his hands has compiled a 10 minute video purporting to be “A selection of the top 100 quotes from The Wire, the greatest TV show ever made.”
Not surprisingly, virtually all of them contain NSFW language, with the F- and N-words being especially well represented.
From left: Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali, Waleed bin Attash, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Mustafa Ahmad al-Hawsawi and Ramzi Binalshibh. (AP)
Responding to Attorney General Eric Holder’s explanation that Khalid Sheik Mohammed is being tried in civilian courts because the 9/11 victims were mostly civilians and because the attacks took place on U.S. soil whereas his compatriots who attacked the U.S.S. Cole would be tried before military tribunals since the attack was on a military target, Tom Maguire quips “[I]f the next batch of terrorists are clever enough to attack an elementary school will they be tried in juvenile court?”
More seriously, he points us to Pat Buchanan’s column asking “Are We at War — Or Not?”
Is it possible we have done an injustice to this man by keeping him locked up all these years without trial? For that is what this trial implies — that he may not be guilty.
And if we must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that KSM was complicit in mass murder, by what right do we send Predators and Special Forces to kill his al-Qaida comrades wherever we find them? For none of them has been granted a fair trial.
When the Justice Department sets up a task force to wage war on a crime organization like the Mafia or MS-13, no U.S. official has a right to shoot Mafia or gang members on sight. No one has a right to bomb their homes. No one has a right to regard the possible death of their wives and children in an attack as acceptable collateral damage.
Yet that is what we do to al-Qaida, to which KSM belongs.
We conduct those strikes in good conscience because we believe we are at war. But if we are at war, what is KSM doing in a U.S. court?
Buchanan goes on to give several historical examples, some more salient than others. But his overall point about the dichotomy over how we’re dealing with terrorists vice how we deal with criminals is apt. He continues:
Were not KSM’s Miranda rights impinged when he was not only not told he could have a lawyer on capture, but that his family would be killed and he would be water-boarded if he refused to talk?
And if all the evidence against the five defendants comes from other than their own testimony under duress, do not their lawyers have a right to know when, where, how and from whom Justice got the evidence to prosecute them? Does KSM have the right to confront all witnesses against him, even if they are al-Qaida turncoats or U.S. spies still transmitting information to U.S. intelligence?
I am not a lawyer but there are ways around some of these issues. But, for the most part, the Justice Department will be very constrained in what evidence it can present given the need to protect sources and methods.
UPDATE: CIPA link via Adam Serwer. Note, too, that my concern isn’t that classified information will go unprotected but that the need to protect classified information will hamstring the prosecution. Given that we have other, legally sanctioned options, having a civilian show trial strikes me as imprudent.
A CNN poll released today finds that “opinion about which political party is responsible for the severe economic downturn is shifting.” According to the survey, “38 percent of the public blames Republicans for the country’s current economic problems. That’s down 15 points from May, when 53 percent blamed the GOP. According to the poll 27 percent now blame the Democrats for the recession, up 6 points from May. Twenty-seven percent now say both parties are responsible for the economic mess.”
