December 3, 2004 PERMALINK
An Open Letter To Harry Reid
(posted Dec. 3 2 AM ET)
As you well know, you're scheduled to be on NBC's Meet The Press this Sunday.
This is very exciting, because it is a chance to close out this past month of unsure messages from uncoordinated Dems, and lay out some firm principles for us to rally around.
You should not enter into this interview in a defensive crouch, hoping just to survive a bloviating Russert.
You should not treat this like a typical Beltway denizen would -- batting around some inside baseball, making foolish prognostications ("I'm cautiously optimistic the intel reform bill will pass"), and repeating a few sound bites in hopes of being quoted in the wire reports.
Instead, you should be talking past the Beltway, to the grassroots, and to the nation.
You should lay the groundwork for the fights ahead, by communicating what we stand for -- the principles that will drive our future actions.
To do that, you need to amp up some of the messages you've been testing out.
For example, in a recent Saturday radio address, you ticked off some basic issue positions, then closed with this:
I met with the President and told him that I will work with him to get things done so that we might actually fulfill the promises we hear so often on the campaign trail.
Achieving our goals will take…ending the partisan rancor that has come to characterize the politics in recent years.
But I believe we can succeed if we roll up our sleeves and abide by the values that have made America great.
This kind of talk may be inoffensive and goody-goody, but it is empty.
It doesn't say what makes us Democrats, what makes us get out of bed every morning on fight on behalf of the American people.
It merely defines us as finding "partisan rancor" distasteful, a party that believes in compromise for compromise's sake.
If we really feel that "partisan rancor" is the problem, well there's a solution for that: let the GOP have their way all the time.
Don't paint yourself in that corner.
Now, LiberalOasis understands the tight spot you're in.
You want to keep the Dem caucus unified, and you have a fair number of really lame and wimpy Dems to deal with.
Surely you read this past Monday's sickening article in "Roll Call," which reported on the mullings of the so-called "centrist" Dems:
...most Democratic centrists pointed out that Democrats in general are less likely to oppose the president as vigorously as they did in the run-up to the 2004 election, having decided that their opposition contributed to their net four-seat loss in the Senate.
"There's an argument going around among Democrats to just give him enough rope to hang himself," said Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), another centrist with a potentially bruising re-election contest in 2006.
"After all, he's got enough votes. There's a real sense that since he won ... you don't want to oppose everything he wants."
You have to find a way to keep such accommodationists in line. LiberalOasis does not envy you.
Clearly, you're right to throw around some "let's work together" rhetoric, so not to ruffle the feathers of the weak-kneed in the caucus.
But you can do it without coming across as a soulless accomodationist.
Try something like this:
"The Democrats will do everything they can to help America prosper during George Bush's second term.
"That's why we're going fight for tax reform that's simple but also fair, Social Security that guarantees enough income for retirees to live on, greater access to affordable health insurance, and other Democratic policies that expand opportunity for Americans.
"If the Republican majority reaches across the aisle and adopts some Democratic policies, we'll gladly work together for the good of the country
"If they try to make it look like they're moderating their views with slick rhetoric, when they're really trying to slip extremist policies past the American people, we're going to call them on it.
"And if they try to ram through a right-wing agenda -- which according to a recent Gallup poll, only 29% of America believes Bush has a mandate to do -- then we'll have a fight on our hands
"And I have no doubt Democrats will win that fight in the end, because we always fight on the side of the people."
If on Sunday, you show us confidence, conviction and fight, you will get the grassroots base of the party excited, which will go a long way in the low-turnout elections coming up in 2006.
And if the broader electorate hears you clearly articulate the principles that drive Democrats, you will strengthen the image of the party and prepare the public for the inevitable fights that lie ahead.
Just in case you think Coleman was being insincere, two weeks ago the Prince of Virtue, Robert Novak, assured us otherwise.
Novak proclaimed that "Coleman is not pursuing a right-wing vendetta against the world organization" and "He had no anti-U.N. mind-set when he embarked on his investigation" of alleged corruption in the UN's Oil-For-Food program.
How does Novak know that? Because, he said, Coleman used to be Democrat until 1996, so he must be on the level.
Coleman says Annan must resign -- even though he has not concluded that Annan is guilty of anything -- because the UN's independent investigation can't succeed as long as Annan is around.
But what Coleman didn't mention in the pages of the WSJ was that he had already received a response from Volcker, saying Coleman could get the docs once Volcker was done with them:
The Right is doing everything it can to dump on Volcker's work, before even seeing it, because they fear it won't do enough damage to the UN.
And they want to put as much pressure on Volcker as possible, though he doesn't seem like a guy who is easily pressured.
Now, liberals want any UN corruption to be rooted out as soon as possible.
We can root it out with an independent investigation, not with the kind of partisan, disingenuous behavior we're getting from Coleman and his comrades.
December 1, 2004 PERMALINK
Farewell To A Hack
(posted Dec. 1 12:30 AM ET)
So who is Tom Ridge, really? A perfect GOP V.P., or just a common hack with good P.R. and great luck?
-- Salon.com, 5/15/00
Four years later, the answer to that question is pretty clear.
It was Ridge's hackiness, and longtime fealty to the Bush clan, which got him picked for the made-up, empty position of Homeland Security Adviser on 9/20/01.
The idea was to have him simply be an "adviser," as opposed to a Cabinet chief, so (like a good hack) he wouldn't have to answer to Congress, just to Dubya.
Of course, that changed after the "Bush Knew" NY Post cover story of 5/16/02 and other similar reports about what we now know was the "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US" memo.
Those reports led to some shaky poll numbers for Bush, prompting him 3 weeks later to change the subject, dramatically backing a Homeland Security Cabinet-level agency that he had been resisting for 8 months.
Once Ridge was installed as the Cabinet head, his hackiness continued, as the front-man for the ridiculous color-coded terror alert system, which he politicized at will.
Another hack move less noticed: the pro-choice Catholic stood idly by while his party attacked John Kerry as "wrong for Catholics" mainly because of his views on abortion and stem cell research.
To sum up, because of his hackery, Ridge transformed himself in a three-year period from possible prez candidate to diminished footnote -- joining the club of Colin Powell and Christine Todd Whitman.
Many talented people are seeing the pattern. As the W. Post reported:
...the White House has found it harder to attract a top-flight team because some candidates are unwilling to give up lucrative posts to come to Washington to be White House cheerleaders...
...some Republican economists say the administration's top economic jobs have been marginalized, while their inhabitants have been publicly humiliated.
"Why would you want to take a job where you have no influence?" asked Bruce Bartlett of the conservative National Center for Policy Analysis. "What's the point?"
Of course, it's not only economic aides who get humiliated, as Ridge, Powell and Whitman show.
When you have to suppress all of your own common sense and simply carry out idiotic orders from the top, you're bound to lose some stature and dignity.
And as more and more recognize that, it will be harder and harder to attract real talent.
Fortunately, there are plenty of hacks who don't have much stature and dignity to start with.
Expect someone like that to take over Homeland Security (calling Frances Townsend).
November 30, 2004 PERMALINK
Go After Bush's Political Capital
(posted Nov. 30 1:30 AM ET)
We are not seeing the Beltway Dems take LiberalOasis' suggestion from last week to attempt to force the intel reform bill onto the House floor with a discharge petition.
This is a shame. Dems need to assert their relevance, not just on this issue, but to set the tone for the next four years.
However, according to CNN's Inside Politics, Dems are looking to keep the pressure on to get the bill passed. That's a possible positive.
But if their moves are strictly bipartisan in nature (as CNN's reporting suggested), they'll be missing a big opportunity.
Because they can't make sharp attacks against Bush if they are coordinating with moderate GOPers.
And there is a pragmatic reason to attack Bush: to sap his cherished "political capital".
We all know that Bush sought to spike the ball on Nov. 4 when he said:
I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it. It is my style.
It is also his style to have a finite list of issues to spend political capital on.
As an old Bush Texas crony, Teel Bivins, once remarked:
[Bush has] said, often times, he doesn't want to waste political capital on issues that he doesn't believe are the top priority.
On Nov. 4, Bush made clear what he considers "top priority":
...I'm going to spend it for what I told the people I'd spend it on, which is...Social Security and tax reform, moving this economy forward, education, fighting and winning the war on terror.
Clearly, Bush's actions to date show he does not consider this intel reform bill to be on his list of top priorities.
Otherwise, he would have spent some capital and twisted a lot more arms before now.
The point is: if he "wastes" some capital now, he may have less to spend on the nasty stuff that comprises his real agenda.
Now, despite the half-hearted effort so far from the Bushies, they appear to be trying to turn lemons into lemonade.
Yesterday, Press Sec. Scott McClellan talked of additional actions the White House will take to get a deal in Congress.
This may be just for show, but it also may be that Bush will try to pass something diluted and pass it off as real reform.
If that happens, he might be hailed for toughing out a compromise without angering his caucus. That could add to his capital.
Dems can prevent this scenario.
If they start now, by overtly calling him out on his claims to political capital.
They should say: if he has political capital, he should spend it and get his party in line.
And if he doesn't, that shows how little capital he really has.
That way, any bill will not necessarily be seen as deft political maneuvering from Bush, but the result of Bush cracking under Dem pressure.
And that may be perceived as "spent" capital (as opposed to "invested" capital, which can lead to additional capital.)
Or, if no bill is passed, the perception that he has much political capital (and the concept of political capital is all about perception) would be destroyed.
If the Beltway Dems haven't noticed, the GOP is not afraid to play hardball even with an issue as serious as intel reform.
It's long past time for Dems to do the same. The rest of Bush's radical right agenda may hang in the balance.
November 29, 2004 PERMALINK
The Sunday Talkshow Breakdown
A weekly feature of LiberalOasis
(posted Nov. 29 12 AM ET)
The intel reform stalemate played out on most of the shows yesterday.
The main obstacles to a bill, Reps. James Sensenbrenner and Rep. Duncan Hunter, were booked to explain their supposed hang-ups.
Sensenbrenner was on ABC's This Week talking about driver's licenses for illegal aliens. Hunter was on Fox News Sunday discussing chain of command issues.
Let's focus on the driver's licenses.
Sensenbrenner had this exchange with Sen. Joe Lieberman on This Week:
SENSENBRENNER: The 9/11 Commission staff recognized that the driver's license problem was at the key of allowing terrorists to travel.
The 19 murderers on September 11th got 63 separate legally issued driver's licenses from 5 states.
They used those to open bank accounts and to get on the plane.
And unless we are able to plug up the vast hole in the driver's licenses, we're not going to be able to provide the type of prevention of a 9/11-type attack in the future...
JOE LIEBERMAN: ...If Jim Sensenbrenner's proposal went into effect, and no state could issue driver's licenses to anybody who was an illegal immigrant, it wouldn't have had any effect on the 19 [hijackers]...
...They got in here either legally or through fraud, and not a single one of them would have been stopped by a request from a state to prove that they lawfully resided here...
SENSENBRENNER: ...Senator, that's not true.
The 9/11 Commission specifically recommended that aliens who are here on temporary visas, which were the 9/11 murderers, have their driver's licenses expire as to the date of the expiration of their visas.
And you and the other Senators rejected that proposal.
Hmm.
Is Sensenbrenner right that the 9/11 Commission concluded "the driver's license problem" is "at the key," and that the Senate rejected a specific driver's license proposal from the Commission?
Let's see what the Commission chairman Tom Kean had to say about it on NBC's Meet The Press:
We've recommended uniform systems and driver's licenses in our recommendations.
We haven't recommended the specific one that Congressman Sensenbrenner wants...
...to hold up every single one of these other provisions to make the American people safer for this one provision or two provisions, to me doesn't make any sense.
He can put it in a separate bill.
We have no position on it under the commission because we didn't consider it.
[Emphasis added]
So Sensenbrenner needs to get his facts straight (and reporters need to challenge him when he cites the Commission as backup).
Lieberman wasn't too bad parrying Sensenbrenner on this issue.
In addition to pointing out how the proposal wouldn't have stopped 9/11 (while other provisions in the bill may well have), he also noted that Senate GOPers opposed Sensenbrenner:
...on the question of Jim Sensenbrenner wanting to prohibit states, 10 or 12 of them do, from issuing driver's licenses to illegal aliens, there was just about unanimous opposition to that...
...conservative Republicans don't want the federal government telling the states who to issue licenses to.
Unfortunately, Lieberman (and Sen. Barbara Boxer on CNN's Late Edition, who talked briefly about licenses) left out some other worthy points.
Like that Dubya is on the record against a federal ban on states giving licenses to undocumented immigrant workers.
And Jeb Bush threw his support to a bill allowing such licenses in FL.
Why -- beyond the obvious, to curry favor with Latinos -- would the Bush brothers support such a thing?
Because there are practical reasons for those states where many undocumented immigrants are employed to grant them access to driver's licenses.
Namely, they drive anyway, to get to their jobs.
And if they don't go through the licensing process, they don't learn the rules of the road, they don't get insurance, and they are more likely to flee accident scenes for fear of deportation.
It's not a reward for illegal behavior, it's a safety measure for everybody on the roadways.
And it works. As Stateline.org reported in July:
New Mexico last year became the latest state to issue driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants, and officials say the change has helped contribute to a drop in the state’s uninsured rate, which in December of 2002 was 33 percent – the highest in the nation – and now is 17 percent.
Insurance premiums also have dropped in that state and fewer people are fleeing accident scenes, according to [Tyler] Moran of the National Immigration Law Center.
There are also ways to solve the safety concerns without giving out actual licenses.
Just three years ago, Tennessee passed a bill letting the undocumented get licenses.
(At the time, one lawmaker said, "I don't know of any organizations except the Klan that's against this bill".)
But a backlash grew post-9/11, so the state came up with an interesting solution: "certificates of driving" that are marked "not valid for ID," which makes the certificates unusable for any other purpose but driving.
Congressional Dems are reluctant to get into all these details because they don't want to shift focus from the "House GOP Holds Up 9/11 Bill" storyline.
(And they saw Gray Davis try to save his governorship by embracing this issue and fail.)
It's sensible in the short-term to stay on message about the intel reform bill, and not move towards Sensenbrenner's turf.
But in all likelihood, this issue isn't going away. We have to get ready to deal with it head on.
And as you can see, there is a way.
