Glenn Beck has a plan.  Actually, the Plan.  Which he reveals on his website.

Today, I have stopped looking for a leader to show us the way out because I have come to realize that the only one who can truly save our country…is us. To change America’s course we need to change ourselves, our expectations and our willingness to accept the unacceptable. When we refuse to allow our children to receive a trophy for participation, we are on the road to restoring the meaning of merit in our Republic. When we insist that no one is too big to fail, we will be able to learn from our mistakes, and when we demand that we are self-reliant, we will ensure that others can rely on us, not the government.

[...]

- Education is key, and not just for our children. To that end, we will be conducting a series of conventions. These will be full-day experiences where you will be immersed in learning about topics ranging from self-reliance, community organizing, the economy and how to be a political force in your own neighborhood and country. The first one will be in Orlando at UCF Arena on March 27th. You will also be able to vote to have a convention in your region by clicking here.

- I have begun meeting with some of the best minds in the country that believe in limited government, maximum freedom and the values of our Founders. I am developing a 100 year plan. I know that the bipartisan corruption in Washington that has brought us to this brink and it will not be defeated easily. It will require unconventional thinking and a radical plan to restore our nation to the maximum freedoms we were supposed to have been protecting, using only the battlefield of ideas.

- All of the above will culminate in The Plan, a book that will provide specific policies, principles and, most importantly, action steps that each of us can take to play a role in this Refounding.

- On August 28, 2010, I ask you, your family and neighbors to join me at the feet of Abraham Lincoln on the National Mall for the unveiling of The Plan and the birthday of a new national movement to restore our great country.

The Soviets and Chinese Communists were famous for Five Year Plans that Americans used to make fun of.  Beck, apparently, figures that their flaw wasn’t the hubris of planning the next five years but stopping 95 years short.

Apparently, the plan has yet to be hatched.  It’s intriguing to announce a 100 year plan but tell people they’ll need to wait nine months and a week to get the details.

If nothing else, Beck has intrigued NYT correspondent Brian Seltzer and a few bloggers. Seltzer reports that Beck “emphasized that while candidates may align themselves with the values and principles that he espouses, he would not take the next step to endorse them.”

Mr. Beck is not the only media firebrand trying to mobilize Americans disaffected with a Democratic-controlled government. The radio host Laura Ingraham is inviting candidates to sign a 10-point pledge on her Web site. Sean Hannity, on his afternoon radio show and prime-time Fox News program, is promoting “Conservative Victory 2010,” his name for the map on his site that will spell out questions for candidates. And the former presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, who has a show on Fox News, has steered viewers to his Web site, where they can contribute money to his political action committee in support of conservative candidates.

Pundits have used their media stages to encourage political action before, but people like Mr. Beck and Mr. Hannity are taking on outsize roles now, political experts and conservative commentators say. One reason, they say, is the weakened state of the Republican Party.

Beck’s strangeness aside, the idea of reshaping the American political system from the bottom up is interesting.  But while I rather like the idea of pressuring the Republican Party to get back to its small government roots — even by challenging it with a libertarian oriented third party — there’s precious little evidence that there’s anything close to majority support for that as a style of governance.   Like it or not, the Republicans became a Big Government party in recent years because that’s what the people have demanded.

I still see enthusiastic small government types calling for dismantling the Department of Education and other bits of leftover rhetoric from Ronald Reagan’s 1980 campaign.  But I doubt that even twenty percent of Americans are in favor of such a move.

The two parties and their constituent interest groups have done a superb job of poisoning the well.  Republicans have virtually ensured that we’ll never have anything short of a massive defense budget and we’ll never have the sort of confiscatory tax brackets for high earners that they have in Europe and we had here as recently as John Kennedy’s administration.  And Democrats have made it a virtual certainty that we’ll not only not cut back on the social safety net but that it will incrementally increase and periodically boom.   The “compromise” solution is massive deficit spending.

While we occasionally get Ross Perot types calling attention to the unsustainability of that approach, the excitement quickly fades.  While all of us can find big chunks of the budget we’d pare, there’s not enough overlap to get anywhere close to majority support — let alone the sixty votes necessary to get much of anything through the Senate.  And those who would face cuts to their subsidies care more and are better organized than those who want the cuts.

Dave Schuler likes to point out that things which are unsustainable will not be sustained.  But the nature of the American political system guarantees we won’t do anything until an absolute crisis forces us to.

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.

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.

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.

Regardless, this controversy is amusing.

Story: Memeorandum.  Photo:  FlutterFly Events.

The next episode of OTB Radio, our BlogTalkRadio program, will record and air live from 5:30-6:30 Eastern.

Dave Schuler and I will talk about Sarah Palin’s comeback tour and ensuing controversies and President Obama’s Asia trip.  Alex Knapp will join us to provide his legal expertise on the Khalid Sheikh Mohammed trial and Steve Verdon will stop by to discuss the latest national debt milestone. Other topics will likely come up as well.

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.)

I missed this story last week, but apparently Pfizer is abandoning its New London headquarters, and the land that it used the power of government to steal from Kelo et al. now lays fallow.

Susette Kelo’s little, pink house in New London, Conn. — like the houses of all her neighbors — is now a pile of rubble, overgrown with weeds. But Pfizer, the company that called for the demolition in order to build a new research and development plant, announced Monday it is packing up and leaving town in order to cut costs after its merger with fellow drug-giant Wyeth.

[...]

The Fort Trumbull neighborhood Pfizer had bulldozed today consists only of “weeds, glass, bricks, pieces of pipe and shingle splinters,” according to the Associated Press. Nobody has built the high-rise hotel or the luxury condos the city’s planners had envisioned. The credit crunch and housing collapse took the air of out of that grand plan.

And Pfizer’s sparkling R&D facility that was supposed to anchor the city’s “rejuvenation?” It’s being shuttered as a cost-saving measure following Pfizer’s merger with Wyeth. Some of the 1,400 jobs there will move across the river to Groton. Some will be terminated.

The best-laid plans of central planners, it seems, have once again gone awry-unless you look at it from Pfizer’s perspective.

The Hartford Courant reports Pfizer may sell the building and the land, which it got for nearly nothing. Or it may lease it out. So, the drug giant still gets the profits from the government’s taking. But for New London? No more R&D jobs. No development of Fort Trumbull. Just some rubble where families once lived.

Despicable.

Update: I was on vacation last week, so I totally missed the fact that Steve Verdon covered this already. Still, we can keep being mad, right?

Brookins cartoon courtesy Richmond Times-Dispatch via Doug Mataconis.

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.

Not so much, it seems.   Jim Geraghty:

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.

Marc Ambinder finds a hidden news story in this WaPo report by Perry Bacon:

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.

via Spencer Ackerman

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.

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.

President Obama is refusing to allow serving police, military, or intelligence officials to testify before the Senate investigation into the Fort Hood massacre.

The first public congressional hearing on the Fort Hood attack will not include testimony from any current federal law enforcement, military or intelligence officials because the Obama administration “declined to provide any” such witnesses, according to a Senate committee source.

The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee has released the witness list for its hearing “The Fort Hood Attack: A Preliminary Assessment,” scheduled for Thursday at 10 a.m. ET. The list includes four experts on terrorism and intelligence issues: retired Gen. Jack Keane, the former U.S. Army vice chief of staff; Brian Jenkins, a senior advisor at the Rand Corp.; Mitchell Silber, the director of analysis for the New York City Police Department’s Intelligence Division; and Juan Zarate, a senior advisor for the Transnational Threats Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

But the list does not include anyone actively involved in investigating the Fort Hood attack, or anyone who might have been responsible for decisions made by various government agencies before the attack about whether to investigate the shooting suspect, Nidal Hasan. The Senate committee source said HSGAC Chairman Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) had hoped to have witnesses from the FBI and the U.S. Army, but was rebuffed in his requests.

Asked for comment Monday, White House spokesman Tommy Vietor said: “Tomorrow morning, an inter-agency briefing team will go to the Hill to brief House and Senate leaders and committee chairs and ranking members. This is the latest in a series of engagements with the Hill since the horrific events at Fort Hood, and further evidence of the Administration’s commitment to appropriately inform Congress without interfering in the prosecution of this case.” Vietor did not address the specific question of why witnesses would not be provided for Thursday’s hearing.

President Obama has already ordered a federal review of the circumstances that led up to the Fort Hood attack, and how government agencies handled intelligence related to Hasan. But in his weekly radio and Internet address Saturday, Obama urged caution on Capitol Hill. “I know there will also be inquiries by Congress, and there should,” Obama said. “But all of us should resist the temptation to turn this tragic event into the political theater that sometimes dominates the discussion here in Washington. The stakes are far too high.”

I agree with the president that it would be better for Congress to stay out of this until the internal investigations are complete.  The incident just occurred and there’s no evidence of which I’m aware that the executive agencies in question aren’t doing their job appropriately and expeditiously.  And, let’s face it, these sorts of Congressional hearings usually turn into occasions for grandstanding.

All that said, there’s simply no question but that the Senate has every right to conduct a circus if it so desires.  It’s a co-equal branch of government and has the power to exercise oversight over executive agencies.  The president can deny polite requests.  If it wishes, however, the Senate can simply issue subpoenas and force the testimony of any government employee aside from select members of the president’s personal staff.

The ball’s in Lieberman’s court.

Hat tips:  Dan Spencer and Bill Dupray

I was out of pocket for a few days visiting the folks in Alabama and missed commenting on a few stories.  Most notable among these was Friday’s announcement that five Guantanamo Bay detainees, including 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, would be tried in New York.

This one’s a real head scratcher, in that I see no upside and lots of downside.

First, these men are not citizens of the United States.  Second, they’re accused war criminals.  They simply should not be tried in U.S. civilian courts.  Rather, they should either be held accountable in a Nuremberg-style international forum or treated as war criminals by a U.S. military tribunal under the mechanisms provided by Congress and approved by the Supreme Court.

Aside from the virtual certainty that the trial will devolve into a media circus, 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.* [See update in footer]

As regular readers know, I oppose torture as a means of intelligence gathering on moral, legal, and practical grounds.  Further, I think the Bush administration went too far in refusing to grant even minimal due process rights to the Guantanimo detainees, who at very least were entitled to present evidence that they were falsely imprisoned because of mistaken identity.

We took the mantra that counterterrorism was a matter of war rather than law enforcement too far, overcorrecting for the previous policy which went too far in the other direction.  But the fact remains that KSM and the others  were held under rules based on their status as terrorists rather than ordinary criminals.    To pretend now that they are they equivalent of members of an inner city street gang borders on farce.

See also my follow-up, “Terrorism vs. Crime.”

_______________

* UPDATE:  I’ve clarified this point in subsequent posts but feel I should note here as well that this declaration is wildly incorrect.  It was not fear-mongering but rather a mistaken belief that the fact that KSM has been horribly mistreated and had his rights to due process, speedy trial, and counsel violated for years would lead to a judge throwing the charges out.   Alex Knapp, my colleague and an attorney, and others have assured me that the law does not work this way in practice.  Alex cites the case of Jose Padilla, the American citizen who was illegally held as an enemy combatant for years and nonetheless convicted.

Sarah Palin is kicking off the promotional tour for her book Going Rogue with an appearance today on the “Oprah Winfrey Show” and an interview tomorrow on “Good Morning America.” The book’s already a best seller, so the main benefit of the campaign is a chance for Palin to rebuild her image.

She needs it.  A recent CNN poll showed that, while two-thirds of Americans see her as “a good role model for women” and a strong majority think she’s caring and trustworthy, a mere 23 percent think she’s qualified to be president.  Indeed, 47 percent of Republicans think she’s unqualified.

Politico’s Johanna Blakely thinks Palin’s appearance can be good for both Winfrey, whose ratings have slipped since she inserted herself into the 2008 campaign by stumping for Barack Obama, and the erstwhile Alaska governor.

Palin’s book lays out the trajectory of a self-made woman who rose from humble roots to the national stage, a career description — and cause — that Winfrey has embraced. Palin’s attraction is strongest in the flyover states, where Winfrey’s devoted audience has made her talk show No. 1 in the nation for 23 consecutive seasons. A Lear Center/Zogby survey conducted in August 2008 found that, among 26 celebrities who had publicly endorsed a political candidate, Winfrey was far more likely to be considered “well-informed.”

[...]

[T]he presence of Palin on “Oprah” will most likely produce a ratings blockbuster, which may attract new viewers who stick around to watch future shows.
Will the two women reminisce about beauty pageants past (Winfrey was, after all, Miss Black Tennessee) or bond over their mutual love of Burberry cashmere scarves? Will Palin mention the story about her sister who thought it was awesome that she’d been elected governor of Alaska, because she might get to be on “Oprah”?

The problem, though, is that the book itself could be a problem for Palin.  While it’s getting good reviews in the Wall Street Journal and will likely solidify her support among Republicans unhappy with the moderate direction John McCain was taking the party, it’s rather clear that many parts of the book are self-serving if not outright lies. HuffPo’s Sam Stein has several emails sent during the campaign that directly refute many of Palin’s assertions.

When Palin resigned as governor, she gave away her best chance at rebutting the impression that she was unprepared for the highest office in the land.  Had she worked to enact a bold agenda and then gotten herself re-elected, she could have brought a more impressive resume to the table.  Instead, she decided to double down on her pop culture celebrity.

Right now, people think she’s a lightweight but one who’s likable, charismatic, and decent.  It’s not at all clear how putting out a book that alienates a prominent wing of her own party and calls her integrity into question will help her.