Also Also

Rummy's Epiphany

Although he's definitely one of the more nefarious producer/directors of America: The Hack Space-Age Western Crusade, I must confess to a bit of a soft spot for Donald Rumsfeld. Amongst a group of coarse, blunt and demonstrably simple-minded administrators, Rumsfeld is at least a pleasantly enigmatic diversion. He is a much better speaker than the President, more in line with Cheney, but without the petrifying sneer. He routinely throws up a wall of bullshit in response to a question that would make Scotty McClellan giddy with triumphalism, and does it with none of Scotty's flopsweat.  At times, while in the midst of a series of exaggerations, dodges, irrelevancies and outright falsehoods that some general will contradict two days later, the scariest thing will happen--he will say something eminently sensible.

Those moments are like the one great golf shot you have in a round, bracketed by countless duffs into tall grass and water hazards. As you follow the meandering path of the ball, you keep getting more and more frustrated--but you keep playing, because that next great shot is coming and you have to be prepared. Rumsfeld is like that. Who can forget the immortal poetry forged by Slate writers from his press conferences? The classic:

The Unknown
As we know,
There are known knowns.
There are things we know we know.
We also know
There are known unknowns.
That is to say
We know there are some things
We do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns,
The ones we don't know
We don't know.

or my favorite:

Once in a while,
I'm standing here, doing something.
And I think,
"What in the world am I doing here?"
It's a big surprise.

So it pays to hang around at a Rumsfeld briefing, because that once-a-round shot can come at any time. Like today:

Asked at a Pentagon news conference why he did not think the word insurgency applied to enemy forces in Iraq, Rumsfeld said he had "an epiphany."

"I've thought about it. And, over the weekend, I thought to myself, you know, that gives them a greater legitimacy than they seem to merit," Rumsfeld said.

Rumsfeld instead referred to the guerrillas in Iraq as "the terrorists" and "the enemies of the government." U.S. military statements also have referred to insurgents as "anti-Iraqi forces."

Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary defines an insurgent as "a person who revolts against civil authority or an established government."

Part of the Rumsfeld charm is the Rumsfeld lexicon. Trifling things like the already-extant definitions of words are annoyances to him. So the fact that a mere dictionary would dare characterize as 'insurgent' a defeated ethnic minority fighting the puppet government and their occupying overseers--well, that's just not right.

And what's the word Rummy uses to replace insurgent? Terrorist-which does have some definitional cousins to what is going on, but certainly doesn't jibe with the popular notion of a religious fanatic blowing up civilians. The insurgency is vastly secular, and concentrates on blowing up Iraqi soldiers, police and US troops. What the heck was wrong with "insurgent?" It gives them too much legitimacy, Rummy says. You know what really gives them too much legitimacy? Iraqi leaders agreeing at an Arab conference that they are legitimate--as long as they're firing at us, anyway.

I can just see Rumsfeld shaving before work, thinking about those darn insurgents and their refusal to enter their last throes, before dropping the razor and muttering, "They're not even fit to be called insurgents! From now on I shall call them "Intentional Instability Merchants." Now...what rhymes with 'merchant?'

Finally, I can't let the story go without one last Rumsfeld epigram:

Rumsfeld described the enemy in Iraq as a mixture of "foreign terrorists," Saddam loyalists, Sunni Arab "rejectionists," criminals, and "people that do it for money."

People that do it for money? Does he mean hookers? I need to read Juan Cole more closely.

--TJ

Updated: Alito and OR's Death With Dignity

A little over three weeks ago I posited the idea that the delay of Samuel Alito's Supreme Court hearings could well have a decisive effect on the ruling over our state's Death With Dignity Act, in Gonzales v Oregon. In a nutshell, pushing the hearings into 2006 leaves more time for the ruling to be issued, which means that O'Connor's opinion would be included rather than Alito's--and postulating that O'Connor is more likely to uphold Oregon's side, while Alito would back Gonzales.

I promised that I would try to that opinion by someone who is following the case closely, and a little over a week ago I did. George Eighmey, the Executive Director of Compassion and Choices of Oregon, phoned me and spoke at length about his impressions of the case, and the impact of the Alito delay. I have no direct transcript, but I'll stay faithful to my notes in characterizing his comments. If he doesn't think I represented him properly, I'll print that too. You can also review the national's Gonzales page, which does a nice job linking to timelines and briefs in the case, as well as blog-type news updates. Actually, before I get to Mr. Eighmey's comments, this is a pretty bold update for Nov 1, two days before the hearings were delayed:

Questions from the bench during oral arguments on October 5 convince us the Court is unlikely to uphold the Ashcroft Directive. The Justices appear reluctant to read the Controlled Substances so broadly. Several Justices repeatedly asked how Congress had empowered the Attorney General to preempt Oregon's law. With no sufficient answer, it seems clear the Attorney General exceeded his authority.

Lawyers avoid making a call based on oral arguments the way people at a baseball game avoid talking about a no-hitter, so while it seems like a reasonably educated guess I wouldn't buy stock for it on Intrade. The post goes on to foreshadow exactly the situation I asked Mr. Eighmey about:

President Bush's choice of Samuel Alito increases the chances of a protracted, divisive confirmation battle. Judge Alito has been described as a "conservative activist" and seems likely to attract strong opposition from civil rights and women's rights groups, among others. As we await a ruling in Gonzales v. Oregon, we continue to hope Justice O'Connor remains on the Court to deliberate and vote on this case.

So to the fairly obvious opening question on whether the delay has an effect on the case, Eighmey's answer is that "of course the timing is in our favor; the new nominee has very conservative views," and anything that keeps him from getting a chance to rule on the case is a good thing. As noted above, based on the current structure of the court and the result of the oral argument, C&C is looking for the Oregon law to be upheld, if narrowly. O'Connor is considered the decisive vote in a 5-4 scenario, but interestingly Clarence Thomas is a speculative 6th vote. Alito, replacing O'Connor, would represent a clear 'no' vote in Eighmey's mind.

Back to my own speculation for a moment: If the case is reheard with Alito, then Thomas' previously extraneous 6th vote to uphold the law becomes the decisive 5th. Does Thomas openly buck Scalia and the new head man in black just to be Constitutionally consistent? Is that what the administration would have in mind, to have Thomas go off reservation on one of the first rulings of the "new conservative Court?" Going with Alito, Scalia, Rehnquist and Kennedy  might suddenly seem more appealing  in the New Wave.

Eighmey also took the time to play what-if with me. As I mentioned in the original piece, O'Connor is known as a very quick writer, and assuming the vote has already been taken, could theoretically even have finished the majority opinion already. But the key is that the opinion has to be issued before it takes effect. And Roberts controls when it is issued. Roberts is regarded as a 'no' vote and an 'activist judge*,' based mostly it seems on his reputation and his strong questioning of the lawyer for Oregon. So assuming the vote has been taken and it is in favor of Oregon against Roberts' own view, does he allow the lame duck O'Connor to write the majority ruling as a swan song? Or does he hold out for Alito to arrive and re-hear the case? What if Thomas is indeed on the majority side, and Roberts tasks HIM with writing the opinion, figuring the vote is a lost cause regardless of Alito? Ironically, Thomas' slower production of opinions--how many has he even written for the majority?--might cause a rehearing all by itself.

Here's where I find the intrigue. What if Roberts intended to rehear the case as Miers was under nomination, figuring he could stall long enough to get her seated? When her name was pulled, that would mean that Roberts would have to sit on the opinion a couple months longer. Now that it's been moved back likely to February at the earliest, how long is Roberts comfortable with delaying the case (if that were his hypothetical intention)? Could the realization that O'Connor's going to be around for a lot more cases, be enough to resign him to letting the opinion be issued before Alito? We'll have to wait and see, and it's highly possible we'll never know the answers to some of the behind the scenes questions.

Eighmey had some other interesting things to say while we talked. He swore up and down that he hadn't heard about the manufactured kerfuffle regarding "Scalito" being offensive to Italian-Americans, before he told me he expected the administration to despair of the "smear attempts" on Alito for being Italian. Since he had been out of the country and the source of the Scalito Sensation story was rather quickly exposed as a flack, Eighmey missed it but predicted it anyway.

Eighmey told me something much more important that I confess I wasn't clear on before: even if a majority rules to declare Death With Dignity unlawful, that doesn't technically scratch the law from the books. What it would do is prohibit doctors from using Schedule II drugs to assist the patients. Doctors could legally use other drugs from Schedule III, such as amatriptolyine, but according to Eighmey these raise other ethical questions. The time to death after administration of that drug lasts as much as 15 to 20 minutes, and puts the patient into a deep coma. The suspense and potential trauma for the family, or concerns about same by the patient, could well cause many doctors to refuse to assist the procedure. To quote Eighmey, "there's no question there would be a chilling effect." It's not very valuable to have the procedure be legal if no one will help you undergo it.

I'm grateful to Mr. Eighmey for his call and insight, and if you are passionate about preserving end-of-life dignity for Oregonians I'm sure they are always looking for people like that to help educate people about the issues and what their rights should be.

*not as used by conservatives as thwarting the will of the people, but in the truer sense of striking down more laws passed by Congress.
--TJ

OR Update: M37; House '06; "Clean Money"

A triple shot of news on Oregon issues I care about strongly:

First, a new lawsuit among the many proliferating on Measure 37, the land use compensation initiative passed last year. A judge has reversed the initiative and enjoined progress on claims in the counties where plaintiffs claimed harm from the proposed development waivers of their neighbors. However, the rest of the state waits in a strange limbo caused by a vacuum of rulings on whether stayed initiatives are stayed statewide. (Say that three times fast). All initiatives are brought to court in Marion, which is unusual and different from other lawsuits. So no one appears to know whether a statewide issue overruled in Marion is overruled statewide.

To address this issue, a timber harvester from Polk County who claims development waivers on either side of his forest will ruin the value of his property, is asking to bind the ruling to the entire state. As citizen lawsuits go, this seems like a decent and rational claim of harm--it's pretty hard to deny that you wouldn't really want to buy a forest that was an island between cul de sacs. But because it's an undecided legal issue, it's hard to say what could happen. Let's hope this makes it to the Supreme Court, where the point can be settled and we know the process. In the meantime, the timber owner is filing a separate motion just to enjoin waivers in Polk. Again, smart move--focuses the remedy on a specific case of harm there, and gives a backup. Prediction? No on one, yes on two.

Also in Marion at the seat in Salem, the Oregon House Democrats are continuing to make a vocal push to place the '06 elections at the fore, and are not shying away (at least by this AP piece) from making it in large part about Minnis. Minnis is very well-funded, but her support seems soft, and returning opponent Rob Brading will have much more backing in his quest this time. He will be catered to by leadership, no doubt.

Indeed, you can read for yourself that Jon Isaacs of the Dems is doing the quoting for Brading, who is not interviewed for this article (although neither is Minnis, obviously). But that's what parties are for, and while Minnis is a key touchstone to tie the sins of the past to, the real goal is to make every seat competitive again with a live body, even in the most rural areas. The money will get spread around a little thinner, but Brading will not want, this time. Only a couple seats are necessary, and there are definite opportunities.

Finally, The O's masterful web service didn't carry the next story in its online editions, but it's a nice little milestone. The first candidate for Portland office to submit signatures as part of her pledge to utilize the public campaign finance, claims to have reached the goal of 1,000 $5 donations and signatures. Her name is Amanda Fritz. If her signatures are verified, she gets $30,000 right away, for a total of $150,000 for the primary. In other words, she'll be recognized as a serious candidate right away. If the policy is allowed to continue, the bright line of who the media should and should not cover as candidates, will be who gets their signatures and money approved. I hope to talk to some of the other candidates who have agreed to file under clean money regulations, to find out what if anything connects them. More on that to come.

--TJ

Update on WAGOP's Bogus Voter Challenges

Following up on the manufactured kerfuffle over "illegal" voter registrations in Washington State is WashBlog, who sent an intrepid blogger to the first of the challenge hearings in King County. As was predicted here, there and elsewhere (Horse's Ass, NPI, The Stranger's Slog, et al), things were going to get cravat-tugging uncomfortable for Lori Sotelo, who had the ignominious honor of signing her name to each of the challenges.

To catch you up if you didn't follow the top link, just before the recent general election, the WAGOP brusquely announced they were challenging nearly 2,000 voters--all in King County--for having registered at a place not plausibly considered a residence. Notwithstanding the exceptions made by King for homeless people, students or other residents with no permanent address, or the special conditions of resident managers working and living at the storage facilities they managed, the Republicans also managed to simply get dozens upon dozens of their allegations flat out wrong. As in, calling a long-standing apartment building something other than a legal residence.

Today, the chickens began roosting and at times clucking loudly as Sotelo laid her series of eggs:

Hamilton: Did you fill out all 1,944 of the challenges yourself? Did you fill out the challenge for Mr. Bylsma yourself?
Sotelo: Yes. (ed: this seems a bit questionable, as I observed someone holding two of the challenge forms up to the light together, and her signatures fit over each other perfectly – it’s not natural to sign your name exactly the same 1,944 times in a row!)

Hamilton: What personal knowledge did you have about Mr. Bylsma when you signed the form?
Sotelo: I’m not going to answer that question.

Hamilton: Did you send Mr. Bylsma any letters, make any phone calls, try any other way to contact him personally before you made the challenge?
Sotelo: I’m not going to answer that question.
Diane Tebelius (Sotelo’s GOP hack lawyer): Objection!

Hamilton: Will you name the names of your volunteers who compiled the list for you? Did you pay them?
Sotelo: I’m not going to answer that question.

Hamilton: You don’t know Mr. Bylsma, do you?
Sotelo: I’m not going to answer that question.

Satterberg: How do you know that Mr. Bylsma’s storage facility doesn’t have a residence attached?
Sotelo: I believe it does have a resident manager, but Mr. Bylsma’s PO Box number isn’t the same as the residence.
Satterberg: Couldn’t someone live there and use one of the mailboxes?
Sotelo: That could be reasonable to think, but I don’t believe it so.

Hamilton: Ms. Sotelo, admit it – you didn’t have any personal knowledge or know anything about Mr. Bylsma before you filed this challenge.
Sotelo: The evidence speaks for itself.

Hamilton: Your evidence is an internet search. Is that good enough evidence to disenfranchise someone?
Sotelo: I’m not going to answer that question. The evidence speaks for itself.

You bet it does. Apparently it began speaking to Sotelo and her lawyer, and it told them to begin getting testy, defensive and a little absurd:

Logan: Can you provide us documentation about your methodology for how you produced your list of challenged voters?
Tebelius: Objection!
Logan: Just a reminder to everyone, this isn’t a Court of Law (probably the third or fourth time that Logan had to remind Tebelius about this fact since the hearings have started – at one point Tebelius’ co-council said “if it pleases the Court” – stuff like that cracks me up)

Logan: Do you know that none of the PO Box locations have attached apartments?
Tebelius: Look at the pictures we’ve supplied. Isn’t that good enough for you!
Sotelo: To the best of my knowledge, none of them have residences attached.

Oi. WashBlog reports that KC Elections will attempt to rule on the first batch of challenges next Monday. While most have turkey, Sotelo may spend the weekend thinking more about cooked goose.

Yours in bad pun-ditry,
TJ

Jean Schmidt, One Term Butt of Joke

As a rule, I'm going to guess that if you're going to become world-known for calling another Congressman (and war veteran) a coward, you should wait a few more than one of your first 75 days in office. I really hate the phrase "you don't get a second chance to make a first impression," because that's awfully shallow (and it usually takes me 5-10 impressions minimum), but as far as the media's snap political judgement is concerned, that is cardinal advice.

In being booed into silence before having to ask  everyone to pretend the last two minutes had never happened, uber-rookie Jean Schmidt has made a name for herself-- and it's not really one you can print. On top of that, the guy she used as a hammer to bash Murtha on the head with is denying he ever asked Schmidt to say any such thing, nor did he say it himself.

It didn't take long before the Brown County Chair of the GOP went on local TV and declared her 2006 candidacy dead. According to the report filed, she has gone incommunicado, refusing all interviews and appearances. "The cheap shot heard round the world"--ouch. "Her reputation was destroyed in a day," says the GOP Chair. Ohioans get treated to 30 seconds of why SNL is so bad now, exemplified in a Schmidt parody.

I do agree with the Republican chair who says this is ultimately minor stuff compared to the deaths of men and women in Iraq. Substantively, yes. But if Schmidt already faces a major primary in a district known to be willing to vote for the right kind of Democrat, that minor stuff can have a major impact. We'll have to see About Schmidt, ha ha. Although for the time being we won't be seeing any of Schmidt at all. Happy Thanksgiving recess, Jean! Ya'll come back, maybe!

--TJ

Silent Bob Woodward Doesn't Run Deep

At least, Oregon's own Jane Hamsher doesn't think he does. Her TV review of Bob Woodward's Time With Me on Larry King tonight is highly entertaining, positing the theory that Bob is doing less pernicious covering of the asses of the President's Men, and more covering his access to same so he can keep asking everybody such neat 'inside' stuff.

Hamsher paints a picture of a guy who says he may have casually heard about Plame and then promptly forgot it for two years, except he told Walter Pincus about it a couple months later (something Pincus denies). Woodward's excuse is that he didn't think it was a big deal; he got classified stuff on background all the time, and he was writing a book where that kind of detail would be interesting filler.

Meanwhile, of course, Rove and the rest of the band of skulduggerers were trying to plant seeds into the minds of curious reporters across town, so that they'd start asking the same question back to the administration that they'd heard as proud scuttlebutt from some other reporter they told. Or even that they might write a story on it (although Woody was doing a book, not articles). The journalist's part of the bargain, wittingly or not, is that he's supposed to recycle the information, so that the point of origin becomes functionally meaningless.

Guess whether Woodward's handling of the info was witting or unwitting...ha! Trick question! He never handled the info at all--he swallowed it!

I made the comment yesterday that the leakers had played Bob like a two dollar banjo, but I think it must have been an incredibly frustrating process for them. Because sadly, I don't think Bob did understand the significance of what they were telling him. Matt Cooper tipped to it instantly, but whoever told Woody was just a smidge too "casual" about it and dogged, simple Bob just didn't get what was going down. Still doesn't.

Can you see Cheney picking up the paper every morning, riffling through it and muttering "fucking Woodward, where is the damn thing?"

Hamsher's sad retelling of Woody holding up old WaPo headlines from his apparent journalistic peak 32 years ago, bridges nicely from the absurd commentary I personally need to get through articles about this schmuck who Millerized my beloved Post, to the serious bottom line on Robert Woodward, 2005:

You know, I truly do believe this whole uproar has shocked Woodward. He doesn't get it. He thought he was going to be the hero. Even Larry asked him if he was being "used" by the administration -- Bob just looked befuddled. He seems to believe that whatever price he paid for access to an otherwise impenetrable administration has been worth it, with no notion that he has turned into a complete tool.

We can assume his access to BushCo. for the purpose of finishing his new tome will continue unabated.

And as she concludes, you can view the latest Larry King Presents the Festival of Bob at the now-indispensable Crooks and Liars.   Alas, poor Yorick and all that.

--TJ

As Long As We're Being Foul

Courtesy of Blog Reload via Slog, a White House protest fitting of five years' worth of frustration. I figure since I've already turned off half of Zap's readership with the Murtha headline last night, I might as well rely on Larry David's Double Transgression Theory and reprint this photo for a good laugh:

--TJ

Bad Murtha Fuckers

What an interesting Friday in Congress. Bills of all kinds were flying around--budget in the House, taxes in the Senate, plus Patriot Act manueverings and reconciliation back and forth. And somehow they still found time to organize a political stunt bill vote and in the process set the smear engines on full ahead.

The House today voted 403-3 to defeat a bill calling for a literally immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq. Of course the headlines essentially read what the GOP wanted them to read in a hopeful attempt at jujitsu: that a bill to pull troops--something a majority of Americans now supports in some abstract form--was unanimously rejected by both sides of the aisle. But it might have been helpful to put the bill text closer to the top of these stories:

"It is the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately."

Not heavy on detail, is it? Murtha's own bill gave no such immediacy other than ASAP, but that's not what the GOP had the House vote on. So the bill itself was a sham, quickly recognized as such by Minority leadership and given the heave ho. But the far more controversial event occurred during the debate, as new Rep Jean Schmidt (the winner in the Hackett squeaker) read into the record a statement supposedly from a constituent, calling Murtha a coward. Things devolved quickly from there:

Ms. Schmidt: Yesterday I stood at Arlington National Cemetery attending the funeral of a young marine in my district. He believed in what we were doing is the right thing and had the courage to lay his life on the line to do it. A few minutes ago I received a call from Colonel Danny Bop, Ohio Representative from the 88th district in the House of Representatives. He asked me to send Congress a message: Stay the course. He also asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message, that cowards cut and run, Marines never do. Danny and the rest of America and the world want the assurance from this body - that we will see this through.

[Note by kos -- the whole chamber went nuts at this point, with Democrats shouting and booing Schmidt down]

The Speaker Pro Tempore: The house will be in order. The house will be in order. The house will be in order. The house will be in order. The house will be in order. The gentlelady will suspend. And the clerk will report her words. All members will suspend. The gentleman from Arkansas has demanded that the gentlelady's words be taken down. The clerk will report the gentlelady's words.

The Speaker Pro Tempore: The house will be in order. Members pleas take seats. The gentlelady from Ohio.

Ms. Schmidt: Mr. Speaker, my remarks were not directed at any member of the House and I did not intend to suggest that they applied to any member. Most especially the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania. I therefore ask for unanimous consent that my words be withdrawn.

The Speaker Pro Tempore: Without objection. The gentlelady's words will be withdrawn.

Now there's no doubt that Republicans have been looking to pounce on something, anything, for a couple of weeks now. And GDub gave the signal to begin defending the administration against criticisms of warhandling. Cheney upped the ante this week, and Bush endorsed it. This is a campaign-style assault engineered by Karl Rove, back in the saddle emotionally for now, or perhaps simply throwing himself into his work. (Note to Karl: keep your calendar open for testimony/lawyering up in the Abramoff case--DeLay's former axeman is turning state's evidence). So I'm sure the troops were given the signal to attack whatever the first bold statement on Iraq was from one of the Democrats.

But I don't think this is turning out the way they'd like, so far. The House vote will be used as GOP ammunition, but the bill doesn't stand up under scrutiny and I think that can be communicated.  The smear attempt is definitely coordinated--one of the tactics Rove has developed is asking for an ethics probe of Murtha--but I'm not sure Karl specifically had Jean Schmidt in mind, and not for calling him a coward by proxy of constituent letter. Where the Republicans may have had an advantageous strategy by forcing Democrats to defend Murtha's policy initiative, the Dems seem much more comfortable defending Murtha's character and honor. Chairman Dean weighed in quickly and forcefully:

Shameless Republicans immediately went on the attack. Dick Cheney, who has said that he had "other priorities" and collected 5 deferments while people like Murtha served in Vietnam, called Murtha's comments "irresponsible" and regretted that "the president and I cannot prevent certain politicians from losing their memory, or their backbone." The White House spokesman, who has also never worn the uniform, pronounced himself "baffled" that Murtha, who volunteered for two wars, wanted to "surrender to the terrorists". A Republican Congressman said Murtha and others "basically are giving aid and comfort to the enemy".

Shame on them. Every one of us -- right now -- needs to let Jack Murtha know that we respect his service, respect his leadership, and respect his right to speak the truth. This man has spent his life serving us. The very least each one of us can do is let him know that no matter what dishonorable smear campaign Republicans wage we will be there with him.

Send Congressman Murtha a note telling him that you will not be silent while he is attacked:

http://www.democrats.org/shameonthem

So did John Kerry via email, strikingly bluntly for him (although truthfully I think he's a day late and a dollar short defending Democratic Congressional war veterans):

It disgusts me that a bunch of guys who have never put on the uniform of their country have aimed their venom at a marine who served America heroically in Vietnam and has been serving heroically in Congress ever since. No matter what J.D. Hayworth says, there is no sterner stuff than the backbone and courage that defines Jack Murtha's character and conscience.

Dennis Hastert -- the Speaker of the House who never served -- accused Jack Murtha of being a coward. Well let me tell you, Jack Murtha wasn't a coward when he put himself in harm's way for his country in Vietnam and earned two purple hearts -- he was a patriot then, and he is a patriot today. Jack Murtha's courage in combat earned him a Bronze Star, and his voice should be heard, not silenced by those who still today cut and run from the truth.

Instead of letting his cronies run their mouths, the President for once should stop his allies from doing to Jack Murtha what he set them loose to do to John McCain in South Carolina and Max Cleland in Georgia.

The President should finally find the courage to debate the real issue instead of destroying anyone who speaks truth to power as they see it. It's time for Americans to stand up, fight back, and make it clear it's unacceptable to do this to any leader of any party anywhere in our country.

Murtha shows up on Meet the Press Sunday I believe. Assuming he does well, this may end up backfiring a little on Republicans while they are out in their districts. In any case, it's been a wild week on the House floor.

--TJ

 

Good News on Streetcar to Ruin Jack Bog's Morning

It's certainly not that I don't like Jack; I've never even met him. And he's not without substance or humor. But as a native Portlander who has also spent extended time living in other places, I admit I'm defensive about people who seem to reflexively run down whatever they can about the city. Of course Portland  struggles with serious issues and fails to meet standards of good government at times--and  pointing out these failings can be a worthwhile, even necessary exercise.

But I think some of you people just don't know how good you have it. One of Bogdanski's favorite boondoggles is the Portland Streetcar, an urban light rail system that many cities would kill to be able to develop. Hell, look how much bigger Seattle is, and they can't get more than a token mile or two of Monorail built. But yet the complaints come--it's too slow, it messes up traffic, and it's just way too expensive to justify for any positive benefits.

As I am perhaps still a partial outsider, maybe I recognize the value of objective analysis when it comes to what Portland is or isn't doing right. Chris Smith at Portland Transport highlights an academic look at the impact of the Streetcar, analysed by a student from the University of Calgary. In sum, here's what he found when he asked residents and retailers what their general perception of the Streetcar was:

That's 90% firm approval for residents, 80%+ for retailers, with a few contrarian comments thrown in as well. Is it too noisy? Of course not. Too vibratory? Not unless you live in the basement. Too intrusive? Not really. Does it mess up traffic? If you're in a hurry, maybe. Does it take away parking? Looks neutral, with "park and hide"rs taking up the spaces shoppers used to use.

The analysis has some recommendations, mostly around adding cutouts to allow cars to pass, widening the space between stations, and seeking parking solutions. Some if not all of the problems these recommendations address, are things that Bogdanski has complained about if I recall right. So it's not that his criticisms come out of left field, necessarily.

But why does Jack take addressable issues so much to heart, and declare the idea a failure just as it appears to be connecting the downtown core with Boutique Alley and the Pearl? How does a project with such high neighborhood satisfaction get the indignant thumbs down? Let's let ideas breathe a little, maybe. A 50% increase in ridership since opening four years ago is one indication that people like the utility; this study suggests that people appreciate the overall impact it's had on their community. With the extension to Riverside and next year down Rt. 43 to Moody and Gibbs, the opportunity increases to bring more people north and south to complement Max's moving them west and east, And there's one other reason to look forward hopefully: the money's already been spent, so bitching about it won't help now.

--TJ

GOP Going Higgeldy-Piggeldy

Wow, one would have never expected such a quickly chaotic reaction to last Tuesday's elections, coupled with the most recent polling that shows Bush amazingly continuing to tank--polling which asks some questions seemingly designed to chafe Republicans:

A 53% majority say they trust what Bush says less than they trusted previous presidents while they were in office. In a specific comparison with President Clinton, those surveyed by 48%-36% say they trust Bush less.
...
Fewer than one in 10 adults say they would prefer a congressional candidate who is a Republican and who agrees with Bush on most major issues, according to a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll taken Friday through Sunday. Even among Republicans, seven of 10 are most likely to back a candidate who has at least some disagreements with the president.

The first is nails on slate to anyone who grinded his teeth into dust during the Clinton administration. Think about that one--Clinton has a 12-point edge on Bush in "trustworthy." Either Clinton's already diddled everybody's wife in the US and thus no one is imminently threatened, or The Cigar Store Liar is coming off like Schweitzer compared to Mr. Restore Honor and Integrity.

But the second stat is why Congress has lately looked like a film from the 20's--jerky and hard to follow. ANWR is finally defeated! No wait, it's not, but the budget will finally go through with the $50bil in social service cuts and...oh wait, no that's not going to happen anymore either. But at least the Senate will get those $70bil in tax cut extensions taken care of, right? Well, maybe not.

So today, can I get a witness for the big Graham Amendement yanking habeas corpus from detainees at Gitmo? The one that Ron Wyden was apparently jazzed on Medford blue meth for when he voted Yea? Apparently, no you can't. In a move that would have caused Lindsey Graham to guffaw in his courtly South Carolinian way had you suggested it a mere 12 months ago, he modified HIS OWN amendment with the help of...get ready...Carl LEVIN. And when I say modify, I mean weaken.

Now Jeff Bingaman still has his version of the bill, and he's watered it down to help passage as well--and all three bills hedge in some way from the fairly clear goals of habeas corpus and the right to petition for your cause. But understand, the entire concept of a majority Senator weakening his own bill with the help of a minority Senator is something not seen since perhaps No Child and Kennedy. [By the way, for truly outstanding coverage on what really is a very serious choice being made in Congress right now, check out the nominally Republican site Obsidian Wings.]

And then there's the Iraq timetable amendment. Again, as recently as six months ago, a "why the hell are we there and you'd better tell us when we'll be leaving" amendment from the Republican leadership would have been a preposterous prediction. Now we have Bill Frist and John Warner not only coming to the chamber with some kind of call for a plan, they're coming with an edited version of the Democrats' plan for Iraqi withdrawal. Essentially the GOP writers just took out all the deadline dates. Check out this chutzpah:

The plan stops short of a competing Democratic proposal that moves toward establishing dates for a phased withdrawal of troops from Iraq. But it is built upon the Democratic approach and makes it clear that senators of both parties are increasingly eager for Iraqis to take control of their country in coming months and open the door to removing American troops.

Mr. Warner said the underlying message was, "we really mean business, Iraqis, get on with it." The senator, an influential party voice on military issues, said he did not interpret the wording of his plan as critical of the administration, describing it as a "forward-looking" approach.

"It is not a question of satisfaction or dissatisfaction," he said. "This reflects what has to be done."

Democrats said the plan represented a shift in Republican sentiment on Iraq and was an acknowledgment of growing public unrest with the course of the war and the administration's frequent call for patience. "I think it signals the fact that the American people are demanding change, and the Republicans see that that's something that they have to follow," said Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader.

Note Harry Reid, not looking an amazingly coincidental run to the center gift horse in the mouth. This is primarily what the Democrats have wanted for years--some method of pushback to instigate give and take. I think any opposition party would generally settle for getting compromises that end up favoring the majority--they simply get pissed when there's no compromise at all, and the majority simply takes what it wants and ignores the opposition. Reid will begin turning the screws at some point, but for right now the GOP is doing all the running on its own.

Frankly, I find it amazing the level at which the proverbial rodents are scurrying for political cover. Bush's name is toxic in campaigns all of a sudden, and that Loyal Clone of Bush campaign strategy that worked so well in 2004 and seemed like a lock for extended incumbency, is now looking like a grave mistake for 2006. I think the GOP has every right to begin panicking now for next year, but that's based on the sudden appearance of a Democratic ground game in several states at the very local level--and the real story of Tuesday's small-town revolution is not getting much play in the major media. So although they surely are getting "culture management" updates from the green eyeshade types, most Members of Congress aren't that savvy. So they're panicking based on Tim Kaine, Jon Corzine and the nurse's union of California. And in asking the once-haughty elite of the federal Republican party whether they would fear these men a year after W's triumphant validation, you'd have gotten the biggest laugh of all.

--TJ