Flippant title aside, these numbers from the Washington Post are shocking.
Respondents trust Congressional Democrats to handle the war better than President Bush by a 2-1 margin, 60% to 33%
65% of Americans oppose the McCain-Bush escalation plan, up from 61% when the President announced the plan January 10th
Only two Presidents have had lower approval ratings (President Bush's is 33%) Truman right after firing General MacArthur and Nixon in the middle of the Watergate scandal
Bill Richardson isn't the first candidate to announce he's running for President by posting an online video announcement, but he is the first to do it in English and Spanish. It's worth thinking about how his appeal to Spanish-speaking voters might impact the Democratic primary campaign. As we've written about many time before, Hispanics are the fastest growing demographic group in the country and are increasingly disaffected with conservatives in the wake of the ongoing battle over immigration reform.
Details are few about what the President is going to say about fuel economy in the SOTU address tomorrow, other then that he is going to say the words "fuel economy." It is probably best though to go in with low expectations. After all, Dick Cheney who believes that "conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy" still plays an active role in White House policy-making.
No matter what the President proposes - individual fuel standards for vehicles, increased CAFE standards, etc. - we can all agree that change is long overdue. In fact, NDN has been advocating for increased fuel efficiency for years. Read more in the NDN Agenda and the NYT article.
The President will give the State of the Union Address tomorrow, and the White House has been unusually quiet about the speech. In that spirit, we'll skip right over the substance and go to the style - don't worry we'll be talking about the substance too this week - aptly covered by Sheryl Gay Stolberg in the NYT. Some revealing points:
The President is a very strict editor, or at lease wants the public to think that.
The SOTU speechwriting team is terrified of writing another "mediocre speech that was flat" as David Gergen called the televised Iraq address earlier this month.
The departure of Michael "axis of evil" Gerson, the former head speechwriter is a major loss.
The President is not looking for "flowery language."
This is really incredible. We've written about the Bush Administration's decision to strip foreigners of their Habeas Corpus rights before, and Simon just linked to Glenn Greenwald's excellent analysis. But it is worth reading the actual exchange to see the Attorney General, the highest legal authority in the land, say that he doesn't believe that Habeas Corpus is a guaranteed right, and to see Senator Specter rebuke him. Make sure to read to the end, Specter definitely saves his best critique for last...
SPECTER: Where you have the Constitution having an explicit provision that the writ of habeas corpus cannot be suspended except for rebellion or invasion, and you have the Supreme Court saying that habeas corpus rights apply to Guantanamo detainees — aliens in Guantanamo — after an elaborate discussion as to why, how can the statutory taking of habeas corpus — when there’s an express constitutional provision that it can’t be suspended, and an explicit Supreme Court holding that it applies to Guantanamo alien detainees.
GONZALES: A couple things, Senator. I believe that the Supreme Court case you’re referring to dealt only with the statutory right to habeas, not the constitutional right to habeas.
SPECTER: Well, you’re not right about that. It’s plain on its face they are talking about the constitutional right to habeas corpus. They talk about habeas corpus being guaranteed by the Constitution, except in cases of an invasion or rebellion. They talk about John Runningmeade and the Magna Carta and the doctrine being imbedded in the Constitution.
GONZALES: Well, sir, the fact that they may have talked about the constitutional right to habeas doesn’t mean that the decision dealt with that constitutional right to habeas.
SPECTER: When did you last read the case?
GONZALES: It has been a while, but I’ll be happy to — I will go back and look at it.
SPECTER: I looked at it yesterday and this morning again.
GONZALES: I will go back and look at it. The fact that the Constitution — again, there is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution. There is a prohibition against taking it away. But it’s never been the case, and I’m not a Supreme —
SPECTER: Now, wait a minute. Wait a minute. The constitution says you can’t take it away, except in the case of rebellion or invasion. Doesn’t that mean you have the right of habeas corpus, unless there is an invasion or rebellion?
GONZALES: I meant by that comment, the Constitution doesn’t say, “Every individual in the United States or every citizen is hereby granted or assured the right to habeas.” It doesn’t say that. It simply says the right of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except by —
SPECTER: You may be treading on your interdiction and violating common sense, Mr. Attorney General.
After years of conservative obfuscation and inaction, there are finally signs of progress on climate change. And it can't come too soon, in a week when the "Doomsday Clock" has been moved two minutes closer to midnight, in part because of the catastrophic threat of climate change.
Bob Dylan once sang "you don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows." And you know the winds are changing in Washington when Presidential candidates are sponsoring climate change bills, electrical utility CEOs are appearing at Democratic press conferences on carbon caps, leaders in the scientific and religious communities are committing to "fight the causes of climate change and the public confusion on the subject," and ABC News uses a "breaking news" banner to announce:
"It's as obvious as the sun coming up somewhere in this world that they tried to kill this bill," a furious Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) said last night in an interview. "And all 21 Republican senators up for reelection are going to have to explain how they brought down the most significant reform ever to come before this Congress. They brought this baby down."
If North Korea gives up its nuclear programs, the United States is willing to engage in "a bilateral process" to establish "a normal relationship," the chief U.S. negotiator said here Wednesday after two days of one-on-one talks with his North Korean counterpart.
Reading about the - long neglected in the Bush Administration - use of diplomacy makes a nice break from other foreign policy news, doesn't it?
President Bush has said he'll pursue his goals in the Middle East even when his dog Barney is the only one that still supports him. Based on today's poll by the LA Times, that day appears to be getting ever nearer:
A strong majority of Americans opposes President Bush's decision to send more troops to Iraq, and about half of the country wants Congress to block the deployment, a Times/Bloomberg poll has found.
As he seeks to chart a new course in Iraq, Bush also faces pervasive resistance to and skepticism about the U.S. commitment — more than three-fifths of those surveyed said the war was not worth fighting, and only one-third approved of his handling of the conflict.
As one of the most deadly attacks on Shiites since the summer, it suggested that Sunni insurgents remain unfazed, even brash, in the face of the American military’s newest plan to secure the capital...
...In all, at least 108 people were killed in the capital, an Interior Ministry official said, and 25 more were found dead, many showing signs of torture.
American officials have emphasized that such violence justifies the imminent addition of 20,000 troops to make an immediate push to pacify the country.
Prime Minister Nuri Kamal Al-Maliki, by contrast, issued a statement after the bombings blaming supporters of Iraq’s “buried regime” for the violence, stressing again that Sunnis lay at the heart of the country’s problems. He has repeatedly rejected American efforts to crack down on Shiite militias that attack Sunnis, and has demanded control of the effort to bring peace to the country.
His support for the American plan to add troops and stamp out violence from both sects has been tepid at best. On Tuesday, his office released a statement emphasizing that Iraq would continue to build up its armed forces “to prepare for the withdrawal of the multinational forces from the cities or the withdrawal of 50,000 American soldiers from Iraq.”
“We agree fully with the goals set by the new strategy, which in our view are the goals that — if implemented — would solve the problems that face Iraq,” said Prince Saud al-Faisal, the foreign minister...
...Although Prince Saud’s endorsement of Mr. Bush’s new Iraq plan was lukewarm at best, the prince declined to be drawn into a discussion of potential Saudi actions in the event that Iraq slides into full-blown sectarian civil war.
At home, Senator Hillary Clinton announced her intention to introduce a bill capping US troop levels in Iraq at the 1/1/07 level of 140,000.
And Senators Joe Biden (D-DE), Carl Levin (D-MI), and Chuck Hagel (R-NE) introduced a non-binding resolution today that strongly opposes the Bush-McCain escalation. It will be important to watch the levels of bipartisan support it receives. The full text is here, you can read the press release, and I'll post video of the presser as soon as it's up. In the meantime, enjoy Rep. David Wu's explanation for the White House's foreign policy.
Update 1/18/07 at 10:30am:
Watch Senator Clinton's explanation of her resolution:
Some Rights Reserved 2008 - Present, NDN. 
