• Chandra Levy Again
  A compelling mystery before 9/11--and after.
  Mickey Kaus
  posted July 17, 2008
• Jesse Jackson Has A Point!
  Obama's toughlove is off key.
  Mickey Kaus
  posted July 14, 2008
• McCain's Tin Ear
  Happy Fourth of July ... from Mexico!
  Mickey Kaus
  posted July 7, 2008
• Obama's Katrina
  Plus: Does McCain want a convention fight?
  Mickey Kaus
  posted June 30, 2008
• Obama's "Mission Accomplished"
  What his new faux-presidential seal symbolizes.
  Mickey Kaus
  posted June 21, 2008
• Search for more kausfiles articles
• Subscribe to the kausfiles RSS feed
• View our complete kausfiles archive

More Obama Substance!But he still got no Souljah.

According to Tamar Jacoby, the recent arrest of 1,300 suspected illegal workers at six Swift & Co. meat processing plants demonstrates the need for 'comprehensive immigration reform.' I don't understand:

1) "Comprehensive" reform is supposed to be a deal in which amnesty for current illegals (and a guest worker program) is coupled with a tougher workplace enforcement program to block future illegals. Sounds good, but the last such "comprehensive" reform--the1986 amnesty--failed miserably when its workplace enforcement program turned out to be ineffective at stopping employers from hiring illegals. The idea behind the current Bush proposal is that this time workplace enforcement will work. But, as the New York Times notes, Swift & Co. in fact particpated in the

the federal Basic Pilot program, a system of checking Social Security numbers that President Bush has touted as a way to crack down on immigration fraud.

How does it increase our faith in "comprehensive" reform if the sort of "reliable verification system" that President Bush himself touts failed conspicuously to stop so many illegals from getting jobs at Swift that they made up 10% of the company's work force?

2) Jacoby praises Swift for "trying to comply" with workplace enforcement laws. If this is the result that's achieved by a firm "trying to comply," how awful will the results in the future be with firms that are maybe not trying so hard to comply?

3) Jacoby notes that when Swift & Company "tried inquiring" more deeply into the backgrounds of job applicants, it was "sued for discrimination by the Justice Department." Couldn't President Bush--if he cares so much about workplace enforcement--have told the Justice Department to cut it out? If a conservative Republican president won't rule out crying "discrimination" when immigration laws are applied, why do we think a liberal Democratic administration will? And even if the government doesn't sue to block effective inquiries into illegal status, won't the ACLU and other "civil rights" groups? The ACLU just sued a Dallas suburb that passed a law against renting to illegals. Hispanic activists, including big groups like the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) protested the Swift raids themselves.

"This unfortunately reminds me of when Hitler began rounding up the Jews for no reason and locking them up," Democratic Party activist Carla Vela said. "Now they're coming for the Latinos, who will they come for next?" [E.A.] **

Hmm. If enforcing immigration laws at the workplace before the passage of "comprehensive" immigration reform reminds Hispanic activists of Hitler, won't enforcing immigration laws at the workplace after the passage of comprehensive reform still remind them of Hitler?*** In both cases it will presumably be mostly Hispanic illegal immigrants who are caught in the net. Jacoby allows that the Swift raids "could be justified in the context of an immigration overhaul of the kind proposed by the president." But the reaction of Hispanic activists suggests they will continue to fight in the courts and legislatures to make sure that the enforcement mechanisms on which the immigration bill relies are as ineffective as possible.

None of this makes Bush's proposed amnesty-for-enforcement deal more credible. It makes it seem likelier that, as in 1986, the amnesty part will work but the enforcement part won't. Which may or may not be the real idea behind "comprehensive" reform.

P.S.: After the raids, the line of applicants at the Swift & Co. office in Colorado for the now-vacant jobs--jobs that, according to Jacoby, legal immigrants and Americans won't do--stretched out the door.

P.P.S.: Kausfiles--Solution-Oriented! Why doesn't Congress simply pass a moderate increase in the unskilled legal immigrant quota from Mexico (and other Latin American countries) while an effective enforcement system**** is devised and tested. No amnesty, no guest-worker program. Then, once we know we have an enforcement scheme that actually works--and won't be crippled by lawsuits--Congress could revisit a "comprehensive" legislation that includes amnesty.

**--How come she gets to violate the Hitler Rule with impunity? No fair. ...

***--For example, according to the NYT, even the "comprehensive" legislation expected to be proposed in the Senate would deny amnesty to immigrants who "arrived after a certain date, perhaps 2004 ... ." But would it let the feds actually enforce the law against them? They'll be mostly Hispanics. It will look bad!

****--Including, I'd argue, the border fence Congress authorized last year. ... [Some links via The Corner] 12:59 P.M.

Mo' bama: The kf enthusiasts commenting over at MatthewYglesias.com have a point, in that last week's skeptical Obama item conflated two issues:

1) Has Obama grappled seriously and smartly with the big questions of the day; and

2) Has he, in the course of this grappling, told Dems something they don't want to hear, or demonstrated independence from Dem interest groups that enforce the party's line in unfortunate ways (e.g., teacher's unions impeding education reform, seniors unwilling to accept any Social Security cuts, populists who pretend bargaining-down drug prices will largely solve the problem of health-care costs, etc.).

You'd hope that even Dems who don't agree with the DLC-ish sentiments behind #2 would insist on #1. But, yes, Obama could do #1 without #2.

Has he done that? A few weeks ago, Obsidian Wings catalogued Obama's "wonky" efforts.** He's against loose nukes, avian flu and unregulated genetic testing! That's impressive, but follows a standard good-Senator's path of picking off a chewable, discrete problem and pushing a rifle-shot, programmatic solution (typically involving creation of a small new federal office to control nukes, prepare for avian flu, or establish gene-testing standards, etc.). It's not the same thing as confronting deeper, bigger, less easily addressed problems: How to structure the health care system, how to pay for entitlements, how to confront the terror threat, the rise of China, the problems of trade and immigration, the increase in income inequality at the top.

Josh Gerstein of the N.Y. Sun makes a better case: Obama listens to Samantha Power and Susan Rice on human rights, Gerstein reports. He wants to talk to Iran, he discounts the Chinese military threat but surprisingly, for an early Iraq war opponent, he has said he'd favor "launching some missile strikes into Iran" if that was the only way to stop "having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons." (Does Iowa know this?) He's unpredictable as well on trade. What's less clear is whether that unpredictability reflects a developed world-view or ad-hockery that's fine in a Senator but in a president, not so much.

More talk on these issues, please. And no fair "transcending" them!

Unpredictablity of any sort is a plus when it comes to #2, of course. But so far Obama isn't close to meeting the Joe Klein Piss-Someone-Off Test, despite the efforts of his press boosters to claim he has. Tom Maguire points to a comical attempt by the New York Times, where a mini-profile by Jefff Zeleny declared:

He has demonstrated an occasional willingness to break from liberal orthodoxy, including his vote to confirm Condoleezza Rice as secretary of state, which at the time infuriated liberals (13 Democrats opposed her).

Wow! As Maguire notes: "So Obama boldly stood with a mere 86 fellow Senators .... " P.S.: What's the word for trumped-up contrarianism? Sister Fauxjah? ...

**--Thanks to commenter "Trevor" on bloggingheads for the link. 2:08 P.M. link

Sunday, December 24, 2006

On to New Hampshire! The mighty Hillary juggernaut closes its vise-like grip on the post of Senate Majority Leader. A Concord Monitor poll shows the same weakness as last week's survey from Iowa. RCP summarizes:

Just like in Iowa, Hillary loses to Rudy and McCain but beats Romney. And just like in Iowa, Obama beats them all. Edwards doesn't run as strong in New Hampshire as in Iowa - no surprise there - but he still manages a dead heat against McCain and Giuliani and handily beats Romney. So even though Hillary is clinging to a lead at the top of the field, she's once again giving off the "unelectable" vibe in comparison to her two most serious primary challengers. [E.A.]

P.S.: In light of these poll results, doesn't Dick Morris' theory--that if Obama now doesn't run he'll have done Hillary a favor by clearing the field--have a couple of holes: 1) Obama hasn't cleared Edwards out; and 2) If Obama decides not to run early next year, and Hillary's still this weak, there will be plenty of time for new challengers to jump in. ... P.P.S.: Why does Massachusetts' governor Mitt Romney do so poorly in 'neighboring New Hampshire'? 12:32 P.M.

Hollywood Hates Obama? Juan Williams on Fox:

The question now is does Obama have any hope of raising money? I don't think he'll raise it out of the New York people, I don't think he's going to raise it out the Hollywood people, so where's the money going to come from for Barack Obama? [E.A.]

That's right, a charismatic black Iraq war opponent has no appeal out here! As always, the entertainment community demands more policy details! ... P.S.: Hello? Juan? You're making Lawrence O'Donnell look like Edgar Cayce! "Hollywood people" will obviously swoon for Obama at least as easily as any other Democratic constituency. ... P.P.S.: Remember when Joe Lieberman was briefly said to be through, after his primary loss, because he wasn't going to be able to raise money? 12:53 A.M.

kf's First Law of Journalism, Rigorously Applied: If, as Lawrence Kudlow claims, "the Fed has vanquished inflation," why do all the fancy restaurants that used to cost $75 for two now routinely top $100? When the rich-who-are-getting-richer bid up prices, doesn't that count? Just asking. ... P.S.: The food I've gotten for $100 seemed to taste better than the old $75 food. Maybe the statisticians take that into account. ... Update: Alert reader G.J. suggests fancy restaurants are simply victims of Baumol's Disease--they're a labor intensive business that's seen few gains in productivity. But in the rest of the economy productivity improvements could still be driving down prices. Good point. ... 12:15 A.M.

Saturday, December 23, 2006

Clintonoia Breakdown: Isn't Samuel "Sandy" Berger's explanation for why he snuck classified documents out of the National Archives entirely plausible? Haven't you ever been in a library, reading non-circulating material in an uncomfortable chair under harsh lighting--all the while thinking you could just make sense of it if you could take it home and review it in more familiar surroundings? I faced this dilemma quite frequently at college and law school, and on more than one occasion my reaction was to stuff the papers in my backpack and smuggle them back to my dorm.** You never did that? ...

Sure, the Inspector General's report on Berger's misconduct--obtained and released by Pajamas Media--raises lots of potential questions, some of which are listed by the Pajamas editors here and the Powerliners here. And I yield to noone when it comes to paranoia about possible extralegal skullduggery in the Clinton administration! Well, I yield to only a few. (My bona fides.) It could be Berger was trying to destroy all copies of an early 2000 email that said "Al Qaeda, al Schmaeda. What could they ever do to us?" But if you read through the IG report in a non-paranoid mood and look for facts that are at odds with Berger's plausible 'I-wanted-to-sort-out-this-stuff-at-home explanation,' you won't find much.

I did notice one jarring fact: When Berger is given a second copy of an email he's already taken home--#217--he takes that copy home too. That makes it look like he wanted to remove all copies of #217. But it's also consistent with the familiar last-minute-crammer's habit of wanting to make sure you've scooped up every little bit of material to study during the impending all-nighter. As long as you're stealing stuff, you might as well be comprehensive. Maybe Berger (as he apparently claims) wasn't certain the two copies of #217 were identical.

Meanwhile, in Berger's defense, we learn from the report that he read the documents in an office with an archives employee who was doing his own work, and whom Berger was reluctant to bother. Sounds like exactly the sort of arrangement that would stop me from getting any productive thinking done. Bad Feng Shui! Couple that with a) the requirement that Berger couldn't even remove his own notes from this room and b) Berger's almost certain knowledge that many of the documents subject to these maddening regulations probably shouldn't really be classified in the first place, and you might easily conclude that the IG report does more to back up than to cast doubt on Berger's non-sinister explanation.

**--Admittedly, I didn't then cut them up and put them in the trash. But then, unlike Berger, I wasn't caught before I returned them. 10:51 P.M. link

D____ Cab for Cutie: The car that most impressed me, during my recent Gearbox phase, was the Scion Xb, which only recently went out of production. Perfectly-sized for the city, inexpensive, reliable, handles well, holds a lot, leaves a light footprint on the planet. But jeez, before you buy one, take a look at this picture. Grim! [via Autoblog] 5:33 P.M.

Friday, December 22, 2006

Thanks, Iowa? Hillary's big Iowa problem. She's running a strong fourth with 10%! ... P.S.: She can't blame lack of "name recognition." [Time for the contest to write her withdrawal speech?--ed We wouldn't want somebody else to steal that gimmick! But there's one way to guarantee that she won't need a withdrawal speech--if she decides not to risk a run that might end in humiliating primary defeat. She doesn't seem like the type who'd handle that well.] ... Caveat: Hillary can always note that Iowa Democratic voters are proven fools. ... 3:28 P.M.

Thursday, December 21, 2006

Obama--He's no Gary Hart! ... 1:08 A.M

Wednesday, December 20, 2006

Is that a photo of Rick Stengel or the Madame Tussauds installation of Rick Stengel? 12:35 A.M.

Tuesday, December 19, 2006

My Obama Problem: After reading up a bit on Barack Obama for a temporarily-aborted bloggingheads segment, my tentative working thesis is this: He's too damn reflective! And introspective. ... Maybe it's the writers, or the questions they ask, or the audience they think they're writing for, but all the drama in the stories about Obama comes from his "emotional wrestling match with his background," his overcoming of his "angry sense of racial displacement," his wrenching assessments and reassessments of how to live in "a world that is broken apart by class and race and nationality," etc.

One of those reassessments, according to Obama, came when a friend told him "you always think everything's about you." And he doesn't any more? Obama's favorite complexity still seems to be Obama--it was certainly a subtext of his 2004 convention address. ("We worship an awesome God in the blue states"). At the end of his early Obama profile, my boss Jacob Weisberg says Obama "would never be so immodest" as to compare himself to Lincoln. But a dozen paragraphs earlier, Obama had done just that:

"That kind of hunger—desperate to win, please, succeed, dominate—I don't know any politician who doesn't have some of that reptilian side to him. But that's not the dominant part of me. On the other hand, I don't know that it was the dominant part of—" his voice suddenly trails off as he motions behind him to a portrait of Lincoln, the self-invented lawyer, writer, and politician from Illinois. "This guy was pretty reflective," he says, offering a sly smile.

I'm a "character" voter, not an "issues" voter. But the way you reveal your character is by grappling with issues, not by grappling with yourself. Anguish is easy. Isn't it time for Obama to start being ostentatiously reflective about policies? That's what you want from a Harvard Law Review type.

And on the issues, what's Obama done that's original or pathbreaking? I don't know the answer. But compare his big speech on immigration reform with failed Dem Senate candidate Brad Carson's article on immigration reform. Carson says things Democrats (and Republicans) haven't been saying; Obama's speech offers an idiosyncratic veneer of reasonableness over a policy that is utterly party line and conventional, defended with arguments that are party line and conventional.

OK, that's just one example. Maybe I'm an old-fashioned Joe Kleinish Clintonian self-hating Dem. But I'm not swooning until I hear Obama to tell Democrats something they maybe don't want to hear. Did I miss it? 12:21 A.M. link

Monday, December 18, 2006

Shane MacGowan of the Pogues on Kirsty MacColl, who was killed six years ago yesterday, and their song Fairytale of New York, which won a 2004 poll for best Christmas song. [via Gawker] ... My nominee for best Christmas song is something I've only heard once, The Wedding Present's ecstatically noisy version of "Step Into Christmas." ... P.S.: OK, I've now heard it twice. (It's here.) I stand by my position. ... 8:52 P.M.

And Johnson Walks? So Fannie Mae ex-CEO Franklin Raines may have to give back $84 million in bonuses he received from 1998 to 2004, while his predecessor Dem bigshot Jim Johnson--who apparently got a bigger bonus than Raines did in 1998--doesn't have to give back anything? Hardly seems fair. ... P.S.: Johnson at one point had parlayed his position at the head of the Fannie Mae gravy train into the chairmanship of the Kennedy Center and the otherwise-reputable Brookings Institution. ... Yet even the conservative N.Y. Sun seems to have forgotten that Johnson, who also headed John Kerry's vice-presidential search, is involved in this mess. ... P.P.S.: Here's my attempt to assess Raines' relative guilt or innocence. ... In any case, if Raines had taken kausfiles' 2004 advice--'give the money back now!'--he'd be better off, no? He could be the Tara Conner of overpaid CEOs! And he'd still have a political future. ... 7:15 P.M. link

If Judith Regan lawyer Bert Fields' bite were as fearsome as his bark, wouldn't Susan Estrich own the L.A. Times? Just asking! ... 7:14 P.M.

Y.U.: William Beutler, eerily prescient. ... He claims Time magazine is just preternaturally predictable. [via Surber] 4:23 P.M.

Hillary Clinton was asked about a possible troop surge in Iraq:

"I am not in favor of doing that unless it's part of a larger plan," Clinton said. "I am not in favor of sending more troops to continue what our men and women have been told to do with the government of Iraq pulling the rug out from under them when they actually go after some of the bad guys." [E.A.]

Note to WCBS: This does not support the headline "Clinton Opposes U.S. Troop Surge In Iraq." It supports the headline "Clinton Fudges on U.S. Troop Surge in Iraq." On balance, I'd even say it's more supportive than not--any troop surge will clearly be presented as part of a "larger plan," after all. Clinton didn't even say, as Sen. Harry Reid did, that the "plan" has to include "a program to get us out of there ... by this time next year." .... 11:46 P.M.

"Are social conservatives stuck with a pro-golden shower candidate?" Ryan Lizza goes into the hilarious details of Mitt Romney's not-so-long-ago tolerance of Bay State gay activism. ... What's shaping up, Lizza notes, is a battle between cynical inside-the-Beltway conservative pros who are willing to overlook Romney's "pro-gay, pro-abortion record" because "they need an anti-McCain," and actual outside-the-Beltway social conservative voters who might be horrified by state-sponsored fisting seminars and "Transgender Proms." ... P.S.: Instead of trying to persuade social conservatives he's been secretly battling for them all along, wouldn't Romney be better off playing the conversion card? 'Nobody knows the evil of golden showers better than someone who ...,' etc., etc.. I would think it would pack a convincing frisson. ... 11:13 A.M.

Sunday, December 17, 2006

Breast Cancer Rates Fall as Women Abandon Hormone Replacement Therapy. ... Moral: Don't get your medical advice from The New Yorker. ... 11:29 P.M.

Warner rethink: OK, that's enough time with my children! ... And if the need for family time is not the big reason why Mark Warner dropped out, as rumor says it wasn't, what made him change his mind? ... Seems like there must be a story here, though maybe not the kind of story that ever comes out (except in novels). ... [via HuffPo via Goddard] 9:53 P.M.

Mohammed of Iraq the Model is cautiously non-pessimistic about the creation of an anti-Sadr majority coalition in Iraq, but doesn't expect it to move militarily against Sadr. ... Juan Cole, who's been right about Sadr before, argues that any military move will backfire:

The fact is that if provincial elections were held today, the Sadr Movement would sweep to power in all the Shiite provinces (with the possible exception of Najaf itself). It is increasingly the most popular political party among Iraq's Shiite majority. For the US to cut the Sadrists out of power in parliament and then fall on them militarily would just throw Iraq into turmoil. It would increase the popularity of the Sadrists, and ensure that they gain nationalist credentials that will ensconce them for perhaps decades.. ...

Neither thinks al-Maliki will be replaced as prime minister. ... 9:41 P.M.

Saturday, December 16, 2006

First Mark Warner, now Evan Bayh. The solid centrist Dem alternatives to Hillary are dropping out, one by one. Funny how that happens! ... 11:46 P.M.

Friday, December 15, 2006

Malkin and Alterman--Together Again: Lt. Col. Bateman's post on Media Matters ' Altercation--disputing Associated Press in the ongoing controversy over the alleged burning of six Sunnis in Baghdad--seems quite damning. Eric Boehlert's response--'Hey, I'm not defending the AP on this, just attacking the AP's attackers!'--seems quite weak. And Boehlert, while blasting "unhinged" warbloggers, comes unhinged himself, I think, when in his original, near interminable article he writes:

I don't think it's out of bounds to suggest that warbloggers want journalists to venture into exceedingly dangerous sections of Iraq because warbloggers want journalists to get killed.

[via Malkin] ... Update: But see ... 4:44 P.M.

Thursday, December 14, 2006

Fading Reyes? Hmmm. Looks like that big fight over the chairmanship of the House Intelligence committee was a fight over a committee that will soon lose--or at least have to share--a big chunk of its turf. ... It wasn't because of the quiz, was it? ... 1:20 P.M.

Di Bug Bust: That official police report on Diana's death appears to be a bust, as far as alleging spying by the Clinton Administration on Republican magnate Ted Forstmann. Byron York:

[T]he Lord Stevens report contains no mention of Forstmann and no description of anyone like him, nor does it have any evidence that anything like the Forstmann scenario took place. [E.A.]

But the U.S. may have caught Diana talking about hairstyles with her friend Lucia Flecha de Lima! (The report speculates they would have been overheard because we were eavesdropping on the Brazilian embassy in D.C.). ...

P.S.--Keeping Hope Alive: I should also note, at the risk of sounding like a raving conspiracist, that the Stevens report doesn't seem to say anything that would rule out a U.S. a bugging of Forstmann that turned up conversations with or about Diana**--though to be consistent with the NSA's account they would have to be "only short references to Princess Diana in contexts unrelated to the allegations" about her death being the result of a conspiracy. It's just that the Stevens report was what was supposed to substantiate the Forstmann angle, and it doesn't. It's not like there is a lot of other evidence for the Forstmann-bug scenario--unless the credibility-challenged Brit papers can produce some. ...

Still! Diana's apparently famous July 14, 1997 statement to the press--

"You're going to get a big surprise, you'll see, you're going to get a big surprise with the next thing I do"

does seem a lot more consistent with future plans to hook up with a rich U.S. Republican who would run for president than with plans to marry Dodi Al Fayed--whom, the report says, she hadn't yet met "that summer," doesn't it?

**--From WaPo :

[NSA official Louis] Giles said the NSA would not share the documents with investigators on grounds their disclosure could reveal secret intelligence sources and methods. Nor did Giles reveal whose conversations were being targeted by the NSA.

12:07 P.M. link

Wednesday, December 13, 2006

Bloggingheads bring sexy back! ... Plus Matt Yglesias does his best Muqtada al-Sadr impression. ... 5:32 P.M.

The Note writes that Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney is "looking for ways to sharpen his differences with McCain on immigration." That shouldn't be hard! ... Here comes one now. ... 4:58 P.M.

Tuesday, December 12, 2006

Is it possible those British press reports are completely wrong about the bugging of Ted Forstmann and Diana? (See below.) Thursday's publication of the official Scotland Yard report on Diana's death should be near-definitive on the issue, since the Brit papers are supposedly merely offering leaks from that report. But, according to today's New York Daily News, Forstmann thought he was bugged:

A source close to Forstmann told the Daily News yesterday that Diana may have been overheard while traveling with Forstmann on his private plane, which Forstmann believed was bugged by the feds to listen in on his rich and powerful friends. [E.A.]

Note that the Washington Post's Source Close to Forstmann--who seems to know things only Forstmann himself would know--only says that "he had heard rumors that someone had planted listening devices in his plane to listen to the princess," not to listen generally to Forstmann's rich and powerful friends. Of course, targetting the princess is exactly what the Feds are busy denying. Which leaves open ... [via Drudge] 12:44 P.M.

Monday, December 11, 2006

They're restoring the Triforium, mighty symbol of L.A.'s "interdependence" and faith in the future! New York has nothing to match it. ...10:02. P.M.

The Brit papers are breaking the story that the Clinton-administration "secret service"** secretly bugged Princess Diana "over her relationship with a US billionaire" Ted Forstmann. Initial questions: What was the grave high-level concern about Forstmann, a big-deal investor, Republican, and education activist? ... What, were they worried Diana might endorse school choice?*** ... And did they have a warrant? ... Plus, of course: What did the Clintons know, etc.?... Intriguingly, Forstmann once made noises about running against Hillary Clinton in 2000. ... ***KEY UPDATE*** Even better, according to a September 15 , 2006 New York Daily News story [via NEXIS]:

CLAIMS THAT Princess Diana dreamed of moving into the White House as America's First Lady were confirmed yesterday by a source close to the politically minded mogul she hoped would take her there.

"It is true," said a source close to Manhattan financier Teddy Forstmann, who considered running as a Republican in the 2000 Senate race.

In his new book, the late princess' butler said she had hoped to marry a New York billionaire and fantasized he would make her the new Jackie Kennedy.

"Imagine, Paul, me coming to England as First Lady on a state visit with the President and staying at Buckingham Palace," remembered her former butler, Paul Burrell, in a book published this week.

Though Burrell doesn't name the mogul in his book, "The Way We Were," his description of a silver-haired bachelor matches Forstmann, who was linked to the Princess in 1994.

"The late princess was very interested in Ted. She was attracted by his philanthropy and his work with children's charities, and by his political aspirations," the source said."

She was excited at the prospect of going to the White House with him. Exactly what you read [in Burrell's book] is accurate."

Wow. I guess there's no way Hillary and Bill would be interested in what Forstmann and Diana were saying to each other, is there? ... See also. ...[via Drudge] ...

Update: Carefully worded U.S. denials here. ...

More: The NSA is "working on a statement"! ...

**--Alert reader K.M. notes that the British papers do not capitalize "secret service," suggesting that they may be referring not to the actual Secret Service but to any one of a number of secretive U.S. snooping agencies (CIA, NSA, DIA, etc.). That puts the capitalized statement of an unnamed U.S. Homeland Security official--"The Secret Service had nothing to do with it”--into perspective. ...

***--ABC and CBS suggest Diana was of interest to the U.S. because of her campaign against land mines. I'm still pushing the school choice angle. The N.E.A. is a very powerful lobby! ...

More: kf readers are demanding a Ron Burkle angle. There is a connection! Burkle and Forstmann appear to have been principal contributors to the same low-income scholarship fund in the '90s. The rest is all too obvious, don't you think? ... [Thks to reader S.S.] ... Say Anything goes with the "school vouchers" explanation. Yes!

Meanwhile: WaPo's Sullivan and Pincus do their best to calm everyone down, reporting the denials of the NSA (which seems to be restricted to "NSA originated and NSA controlled documents") and the CIA ("rubbish")--denials that are hard to interpret as decisively refuting the "Di-was-bugged" leaks from the British inquest, as reported by at least three British papers. True, they're British papers ... but still! The official British report is scheduled to be made public on Thursday. ... Sullivan and Pincus also assure us there "was never a romantic relationship between" Diana and Forstmann. (So they talked to Forstmann?) And they make it sound as if the "security" problem was simply that the Brits didn't want Diana's sons, the heirs to the throne, staying at a rented house in the Hamptons. But that would seem to explain the bugging only if Diana was its "target," which is exactly what the NSA now denies. Assuming there was bugging, of course! ... Bonus question: Do Sullivan and Pincus have NEXIS? How about Google? You would think they'd at least get their Forstmann "source" to comment on the Sept. 15 Daily News story about Forstmann's White House ambitions (and Diana's ambitions to accompany him) ...

Lucianne: "Could Di and Teddy Forstmann have been looking for mines in the Hampton dunes ..."

Loose End: How did the Brits find out about the decade-old spying, if there was spying? Wouldn't the U.S. government have to tell them? But why would the Bush administration want to possibly make public this info ... oh, right.

Coincidence? In the news this very day: "Hillary delays decision on 2008 bid" .... OK, I agree. Now I am going mad. ...

12/12 Update: Byron York discusses whether, if the Brit stories are true, the Clintonites coulda, shoulda, woulda gotten a warrant--but he notes "British press accounts can be notoriously unreliable." ... 10:27 P.M. link

Did the pessimistic Tom Ricks get it wrong about Ramadi? That's what a less-pessimistic Michael Fumento says, and he seems to have a point (though WaPo's latest piece from Ramadi isn't quite as "upbeat" as I'd expected after reading Fumento's blog.). ... [via Insta] 12:07 A.M.

Sunday, December 10, 2006

Was that such a "dressing down" that Robert Rubin got from the Dobbsy Democratic House caucus? Republican Influence Peddler says it was, echoing hortatory spin from Dem populist David Sirota ("a VERY encouraging sign for progressives") that's so flimsy even Sirota's vaguely embarrassed by it. ... Was an incoming Indiana Democrat with a Delphi plant in his district not going to ask Rubin about outsourcing? That seems like a normal question Rubin has to be prepared to answer. ... If Sirota really is this gullible--impressed with standard Congressional posturing--maybe it will be easier to thwart the resurgent House "progressives" than it seemed a month ago. ... 11:38 P.M.

O.K., everybody gang up on Mookie! A crude summary of the latest Iraq gambit. Makes a certain amount of sense, no? a) Sadr's Mahdi Army seems to be behind much of the anti-Sunni sectarian thuggery; b) the Shiite Badr brigades are Sadr's rivals; and c) perhaps Iran, if it's really worried about Iraqi instability, could help persuade the Badr forces to assist in stopping the anti-Sunni cleansing. ... Add: And of course the U.S. forces are now itching to go after Sadr, according to Bing West. ... But kausfiles awaits the judgment of others who know more. ... 10:37 P.M.

The Case Against Opinion Journalism: Here's the Los Angeles Times' front page headline over Tracy Wilkinson's Dec. 2 story on the Pope's visit to Turkey--

Pontiff strikes right tone

Is that a fact? Isn't there anyone who thinks it was the wrong tone? I always knew that when the LAT finally abandoned objective journalism and started flinging around words like "right" and "wrong" it would be in order to promote only the most pompous, CFR-approved positions. Just because it's opinion journalism doesn't mean it's interesting! ... P.S.: Did I miss something--did Eli Broad buy the paper already? [Tks to reader G.M.] ...

Update--How Much Wood Can a Twit Chop? L.A. Observed has a good example of the dead hand of the LAT's hed writers, compared with Valley rival Daily News. Here are the heds each paper ran after UCLA's stunning football upset of USC:

BRUINED!

--L.A. Daily News

This USC story ends without a title

--L.A. Times

Pathetic. Can the Tribune Company at least lay the guy that wrote that off? ... All the Times is missing is "study says." 9:55 P.M.

Harman: Looking Better and Better I recently thought I was too ignorant to appear on bloggingheads. That could still be true! But I guess I couldn't possibly be too ignorant to chair the House Intelligence Committee. ... [via IP via Captain's Quarters] 9:28 P.M.

I am so not excited about Windows Vista! ... And I was excited about Windows XP, because I thought its sturdier code would stop it from crashing. I was wrong, at least for the early version of XP that I bought. Now I can't see a thing Vista's going to do for me that seems worth braving the inevitable Microsoft early teething problems. [It says you can "spend more time surfing the web"!--ed No I can't.] ... P.S.: Needless to say, if everyone has this attitude Vista (and the need to buy new computers powerful enough to run Vista, etc.) won't provide much of a boost to the economy. ... 9:08 P.M. link

Welcome, Hammer readers! 6:13 P.M.

The Cheese Stands Alone: John Kerry's "open ends" are not like other Dem candidates' open ends. ... 6:00 P.M.

Saturday, December 9, 2006

The Full Kirkpatrick**: Bing West argues the consequence of a failure by the Maliki government won't be partition, as suggested below, but a "power play by a fed-up Iraqi military." In other words, a coup. ... Interestingly, he also argues the practice of embedding U.S. advisers in Iraqi army units might work because:

Currently, the [Iraqi] army has more allegiance to their advisers than to their government. The advisers are the ones who drive to Baghdad and wrest pay and food provisions from recalcitrant government ministries.

So would it be a coup that our advisers (however reluctantly) go along with? (One that they are actively trying to forestall at the moment?) More important, would it really be a non-sectarian coup, on behalf of a unitary Iraq? And would it stick, given Iraq's centrifugal forces? Or would the Iraqi Army become just another side in a many-sided civil war?

**--Named for Jeane Kirkpatrick, defender of "authoritarian" second-best governments, who died Thursday. ... 1:01 P.M.

Looks like the low-turnout, play-to-the-base model of off-year elections--which has failed in the past three Congressional midterms--doesn't work in Iran either! 12:26 P.M.

Friday, December 8, 2006

Moral of the story: Just when Democratic populists have yelled themselves hoarse about how the growing economy isn't raising wages at the bottom, the growing economy starts raising wages at the bottom. It takes a while!** The point for worker-friendly Democrats should be to keep the tight labor market going (by keeping the economy going and avoiding a big influx of immigrant labor). ...

**--As the graphs accompanying the NYT's story makes clear, Clinton's economic boom didn't begin to produce significant wage growth for about three years, until Clinton's second term. The Bush-era lag has maybe been a little longer--but then, the Clinton boom was in part a bubble. One hopes the current semi-boom isn't. 9:54 P.M.

Garance Franke-Ruta discovers John Kerry's secret wellspring of presidential support! ... [via Blogometer] 3:13 P.M.

Thursday, December 7, 2006

Big Woof: Democratic New Mexico Governor (and presidential aspirant) Bill Richardson locks up another important Western state ... the state of Chihuahua!

"The [700-mile border] fence is very unpopular on the border in Texas and New Mexico, in Chihuahua," Richardson, a Democrat, said after meeting Wednesday with leaders from the Mexican state of Chihuahua. "So one of the most significant and constructive acts the U.S. Congress should take is to get rid of it."

[Isn't this the sort of Know-Nothing, xenophobic rhetoric I've warned you about?--ed On most issues American and Mexican interests align. We want Mexico to prosper; it's a non-zero-sum game; Mexico is on balance one of the better neighbors we could have, etc. But that doesn't mean our national interests don't sometimes conflict, and the border fence seems like at least one place they do, at least potentially. It's pretty tin-eared, then, to announce your opposition to the fence from Mexico. Unless, that is, you're trying to appeal to ... What?-ed. Never mind. I just felt some more Know-Nothing, xenophobic rhetoric coming on.] 8:36 P.M.

Here's Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer, commenting on Republican Sen. James Inhofe's Wednesday anti-global warming hearings:

"In a free society in what is the greatest democracy in the world, I don't believe it's proper to put pressure on the media to please a particular Senate committee's view," Boxer said. [E.A.]

Huh? 1) How is Inhofe putting illegitimate "pressure" on the media? How would he do that? Doesn't he lose his chairman's power in the Senate in, like, a minute and a half? 2) Is Boxer saying politicians should never blast what they perceive as unfair media coverage, or single out particular reporters? In a "free society,"--let alone "a free society in what is the greatest democracy in the world"!--isn't the idea that everyone can criticize everyone? Even, you know, Miles O'Brien! ... Two years of Boxer will make Hillary Clinton sound like Will Rogers** ...

**--I'm looking for the opposite of shrill and bombastic here. [Update: Reader S.K. suggests "'The Dude' from 'The Big Lebowski.'" Having never seen The Big Lebowski, I don't know if he's on target.] 8:04 P.M.

Wednesday, December 6, 2006

B & B Review: Brian Williams asks the tough questions about during his newscast's unctuous Iraq Study Group celebration:

"Are we at our best when our best and brightest get together and hammer out a problem like this?"

When did NBC Nightly News become such CW sludge? ... P.S.: Of all the public figures I got to interview (usually as part of a group) when I was an actual MSM journalist, one of the two or three least impressive--and certainly the most disappointing, given his rep--was Lee Hamilton. Maybe he was having a bad day, but even on topics about which he was supposed to be a leading expert, the man was not mentally agile. ... 9:26 P.M.

Checking in with ... visionary CNN leader Jonathan Klein! Who knew, when Klein declared he agreed "wholeheartedly" with Jon Stewart's attack on what Klein called "head-butting debate shows,"--and when he pledged to "report the news" and not "talk about the news"--that what he really meant to give us was Glenn Beck and Nancy Grace! ... Ah, but that's CNN Headline News, you say, not Regular Pure Hard News Opinion-Free CNN itself. They're totally separate!** For the moment that's true. But thanks to Klein's visionary leadership, Regular Pure CNN has gone from being the second place cable network to being the third ... wait, make that occasionally fourth place cable network, behind a surging (opinionated) MSNBC and Head-Buttin' Headline News itself! ... If the "brash" head-butt format keeps delivering, how long before it infiltrates Regular Pure CNN? Sub-question: How much more expensive is it to produce Regular CNN than Headline News? Three times as much? Ten times? ... Bonus question: Whatever happened to storytelling?

**--Didn't they used to be synergistic? ... 9:05 P.M.

One-hour NBC Expense Account Special coming Dec. 26: "Tom Brokaw reports on the real story of illegal immigration" from the

pristine stretch between Aspen and Vail ....

Next summer: The trail of tears from Sag Harbor to Montauk! 5:56 P.M.

Tuesday, December 5, 2006

"If Obama runs, he wins"--1 out of 4 will do? So Markos Moulitsas expects Obama to lose Iowa, lose Nevada, and lose New Hampshire--the first three Dem nominating contests--but he nevertheless declares Obama the "prohibitive favorite," if he runs, because he might win South Carolina? I'm not quite following kos' logic. Does Jerome Armstrong have a new client or something? ... [Thanks to S.S.] 4:35 P.M.

Virtual Fence = Virtual Corruption? Speaker Pelosi's post-Hastings fallback choice to head the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Silvestre Reyes, voted against building the 700 mile border fence. He prefers a system of video surveillance cameras, apparently. And gee, it seems that his daughter works for a firm that won a government contract to provide such surveillance services! What's more, according to WaPo's John Mintz (who broke the story) the firm did a really bad job. TPM Muckraker summarizes:

In 1999, IMC [the firm in question] won the contract, worth over $200 million. And at the advice of the Immigration and Naturalization Service official who was managing the operation, the company hired Reyes' daughter, Rebecca Reyes, to be his liaison at the company, the Post reported.

IMC's performance on the program was so bad it verged on criminal, according to later investigations. Millions of dollars in overcharges were alleged, installation was so bad that some cameras never worked properly, and the entire exercise wasted money and "placed. . . national security at risk," according to a GSA inspector general report. [E.A.]

Those who feel that a CW-endorsed "virtual fence" will be as effective a Bush-era bureaucratic initiative as, say, training a new Iraqi police force or providing Karina relief will not be encouraged by the history of Reyes' project. ... Doesn't an actual, non-virtual fence offer sufficient opportunities for sleazy contracting? Or is it too cheap and effective? It would seem distressingly easy (from an incompetent contractor's point of view) for the press and public to look and see what portions of a non-virtual fence have actually been built (as opposed to which high-tech surveillance devices are actually working). ... P.S.: It would be nice to have some Gates-like oversight hearings at which Reyes could be grilled about this video-surveillance debacle. But of course Reyes is the overseer, not the overseen. ...[via Influence Peddler] 2:02 P.M. link

Friday, December 1, 2006

"Congrats to Donny Deutsch," who "impregnated his ex-girlfriend"! ... That's the sum and substance of a Page Six item in Rupert Murdoch's NY Post (under the headline "Expectant Dad"). ... And to think that Americans in the Heartland are suspicious of New York City values! ... P.S.: "'This was planned,' a pal of Deutsch claims. 'He wanted a kid. She wanted another kid. They said, "Let's do this."'" It's win-win! But somehow I don't think Myron Magnet and Kay Hymowitz and Dr. Dobson will be sending fruit baskets. ... Note to Democratic candidates: Deutsch, an "advertising mogul" and CNBC host, would make a perfect Murphy Brown or Sister Souljah, no? He's rich and defenseless! ... Hillary doesn't need any more Souljahs, of course (she needs whatever the opposite is). But Barack Obama might. ... 3:10 P.M. link

On Beyond Baker: Steve Clemons agrees the Saudis may intervene in Iraq if we withdraw, in order to protect the Sunnis and to counter Iran's influence. ... He also concludes this is not a bad thing, despite the risks. ... P.S.: Will they be fighting against Al Qaeda in Anbar or alongside them? ... [via HuffPo] 12:17 A.M.

Thursday, November 30, 2006

Back to the Ballot: Only "paper BALLOTS for every vote cast" will do, argues leftish Brad Friedman--allying with Instapundit but splitting with the New York Times and liberal Rep. Rush Holt, who support a fancy compromise called "voter-verified paper trails"--which apparently attempt to make a backup record of votes that are actually recorded on touch-screen machines. Friedman:

A so-called "voter-verified paper trail" on Sarasota's touch-screen systems would not have solved the problem [of 18,000 suspiciously non-existent votes] in Florida. ... Paper trails, such as they are used with DRE/Touch-Screen systems do not work. Voters don't verify them, elections officials don't count them, they are not accurate, they can be gamed, they jam the printers which leads to voters being turned away without being able to vote...among just a few of the reasons.

The National Institute of Science and Technology is shifting Friedman's way, and he senses victory. ... [So we just abandon touch-screen machines like 8-track players?--ed More like BMW's fancy I-Drive, which lets you adjust the radio by calling up a computer screen. Impressive, but it's easier and safer to just turn a knob. You are sounding more and more like Bob Packwood's diary-ed Watch it. Henneberger's hiring, you know.] 11:05 P.M.

The Hayden Scenario: Even '60s antiwar leader Tom Hayden is apparently opposed to a quick Murtha-like pullback, seeming to endorse a Sunni-Sadr anti-Malicki backroom alliance that would result in

an immediate public decision to embrace withdrawal within a political solution, perhaps requiring one or two years to carry out. [E.A.]

It looks as if the big difference between Hayden and James Baker is whether or not to have an explicit timetable. ...

P.S.: Two aspects of Hayden's sketchy scenario reek of possible wishful thinking:

1) That Sadr would support "restoration of Baathist professionals and military leaders in Sunni areas, ... the fair distribution of oil revenues, etc." and

2) that Al Qaeda's role would be diminished because "it is unlikely that a continuing jihad would be supported by many Iraqis if the occupiers were withdrawing and lights were turning on."

Wouldn't Sunnis want to keep Al Qaeda around--not to fight the withdrawing U.S. "occupiers," but to fight Shiite sectarians? The recent WaPo story on Anbar province suggests as much. ...

The [Marine] report describes Iraq's Sunni minority as "embroiled in a daily fight for survival," fearful of "pogroms" by the Shiite majority and increasingly dependent on al-Qaeda in Iraq as its only hope against growing Iranian dominance across the capital.

True or not, the memo says, "from the Sunni perspective, their greatest fears have been realized: Iran controls Baghdad and Anbaris have been marginalized." Moreover, most Sunnis now believe it would be unwise to count on or help U.S. forces because they are seen as likely to leave the country before imposing stability. [E.A.]

Of course, there's also the point that if anyone can guarantee Sunni leaders freedom from Shiite attacks, you'd think it would be Sadr, precisely because his army is suspected of carrying out so many of those attacks. So I'm not saying we should dismiss the Hayden Scenario out of hand. ...

P.P.S.: For an account of what it's like living in Baghdad these days, I once again recommend Iraq the Model, specifically this post. It's clear the recent violence has been terrifying and demoralizing. It's also clear that things could still get much worse. ... 11:21 P.M.

Bring back Zarqawi? His successor is a much more effective leader, according to Bill Roggio. ... 1:50 A.M.

My 'Macaca': My attempt at a dramatic vlog reenactment of that Mark Warner rumor turned out a lot more embarrassing than I'd planned. ... Should I ever seek the presidency, they can just play this clip and I'll drop out immediately. ... 1:19 A.M.

Tuesday, November 28, 2006

10 of 11 Ain't Bad: According to the WSJ 's David Wessel [$], here are the policies the incoming Dems are considering to reduce "the gap between winners and losers in the American economy."

1. Raise the minimum wage.

2. "[F]orce companies to provide more and clearer details of CEO pay, devise policies to recapture incentive pay if earnings are later restated, and require shareholder approval of 'golden parachute' payments to dismissed executives."

3. "[S]low the flood of imports and rethink the pacts that President Bush has been negotiating to lower trade barriers."

4. "[R]equire employers to recognize a union after a majority of workers sign cards asking for representation instead of secret-ballot votes."

5. "[L]et at least some of Mr. Bush's income-tax cuts expire in 2010 or roll them back--including "[ r]aising the top two tax rates, now 33% and 35%" and raising the top (15%) capital gains tax rate.

6. Enlarging the earned-income tax credit

7. "[O]ffer eligible dislocated workers up to half the difference between weekly earnings at their old and new jobs, up to $10,000 a year"

8. "Allowing businesses with up to 100 employees tax credits to buy [health] insurance through a government-sponsored pool modeled on the Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan, which gives federal workers a choice of private health insurance plans"

9. A "'universal 401(k)' to which employees, employers and, in some cases, the government would contribute, a cousin to the private accounts Mr. Bush wanted to carve out of Social Security.

10. "[D]oing more to help Americans pay for college, including making up to $12,000 a year in college tuition tax-deductible ... [snip] as well as cutting interest rates on student loans and increasing the maximum Pell Grant for low-income students to $5,100 from $4,050."

11. "[M]ore government support of Pre-K education." [Boldface added]

Does anything on this list seem like a big problem to you? It's surprisingly anodyne. Only one item stands out to me--#4, which could dramatically change the structure of the American economy for the worse, spreading unprodctive, legalistic, Detroit-style union practices (work rules, promotion by seniority, protections for lousy workers, etc.) by subjecting non-union workers to thuggish peer pressure. The others might do little harm, in moderation (#3) or some substantial good (#1, #8, #9). But does anyone think that any of these measures--individually or in concert--is going to reverse the growing gap between the economy's winners and losers? What will the Dems do if they pass their agenda and the public realizes the rich are still getting richer (as they apparently did in the Clinton years)--while the gap between "winners" and "losers" isn't shrinking? ...

P.S.: How does greater immigration by unskilled workers fit into the Dems' inequality-averse agenda? It doesn't, that's how. As Demo-pessimist Thomas Edsall, in today's NYT [$], notes:

The strengthening of the Democrats' protectionist wing is virtually certain to force to the surface [an]internal conflict between the party's pro- and anti-immigration wings. This conflict among Democrats remained submerged while President Bush and the Republican House and Senate majorities fought without resolution over the same issue. [snip] ...

The Democratic Party made major gains in the Mountain West, he says, and many of these voters are ''populist with a lot of nativism,'' firmly opposed to the more liberal immigration policies of key party leaders.

A solid block of Democrats who won this month -- Jon Tester, James Webb, Sherrod Brown and Heath Shuler included -- is inclined to put the brakes on all cross-border activity (otherwise known as globalization): trade, outsourcing and the flow of human labor. Nolan McCarty of Princeton, writing with two colleagues, has provided some empirical data supporting the argument that immigration has led ''to policies that increase economic inequality.'' Significant numbers within the Democratic Party agree with this reasoning.

Update: bhTV has posted a video discussion of this subject, including a bottom line.. ... 9:27 P.M. link

Who's the journalist Michael Kinsley writes about this week--the one who turned into a solipsistic "ego monster" when he started a web site? William Beutler and Wonkette want to know, or at least pretend to want to know. I'm not the accused, I'm pretty sure--the timing and various details are off. Kinsley also writes that this journalist, pre-Web, was "a modest, soft-spoken and self-effacing fellow." So it's not Andrew Sullivan. Beats me. I'll try to find out after I move the laundry from the washer into the dryer. It's the light colors today. 5:01 P.M.

New House Intelligence Chair: Not Alcee Hastings. IP has a roundup. ... WaPo says Reyes, Dicks and Bishop are in the running, and offers yet another reason for Pelosi's dislike of Jane Harman-- Harman's "tough management style ... helped drive Democratic staff away that Pelosi had appointed when she was the ranking Democrat on the intelligence committee." ... "Tough management style" can mean a lot of things, no? ... 4:49 P.M.

Sunday, November 27, 2006

"Analysts say" the failure of incoming Democrats to tackle immigration immediately "carries some risks ... because restless voters may see the new Congress as having no more boldness or or problem-solving skills than the 'do-nothing Congress' denounced in many political ads this fall." But the Dems will be OK "provided something is done before the next election, these observers said," writes WaPo's Charles Babington. [Emphasis added.] Unfortunately no analysts or observers are quoted saying any of these things. ... Hey, I've got analysts too! Many analysts say that "analysts say" pieces are the laziest form of journalism, because the "analysts" usually just happen to say what the journalist himself would say if the rules of journalism permitted him to do so without putting the opinions in the mouths of "analysts." Meanwhile, analysts who might say something else get ignored. But at least "analysts say" pieces, analysts say, should quote some analysts saying the things the analysts are supposed to have said. Otherwise the impression is overhwelming that the journalist who wrote the thing is just spouting off. According to observers. 2:23 A.M.

Now They Tell Us--Tasty Donuts, Part II: With the midterm election safely in the past, the NYT's Robert Pear reveals that the Bush administration delegated the task of saving the Medicare drug plan to ... a competent civil servant, Abby Block:

She solved many problems that plagued the program in its first weeks, when low-income people were often overcharged and some were turned away from drugstores without getting their medications. By September, according to several market research firms, three-fourths of the people receiving drug coverage through Medicare said they were satisfied.

P.S.: The Bushies can't have been so stupid as to only peddle this story now ... can they? This looks more like a source-greaser for Pear. But wouldn't the grease have been as slick a month ago? (Maybe not. Third possibility: Block isn't such a nonpartisan civil servant--and Pear's repeat attempts to describe her as apolitical are the giveaway. Maybe she didn't want to be greased a month ago, when it would have helped the GOPS.) ... 1:09 A.M.

Even the liberal Stephen Kaus thinks Alcee Hastings should be disqualified from heading the House Intelligence Committee. He notes that Hastings, in his recent letter,

believes it is sufficient to state that, "[s]o that complaint [of judicial misconduct] led to the remaining events that are so convoluted, voluminous, complex, and mundane that it would boggle the mind."

I recognize this argument. It is the one a defense attorney makes for a hopelessly guilty client.

12:55 A.M.

Charlie Cook has done the math: I figured Charlie Cook and Amy "Wahine" Walter had been right about Democratic mid-term "wave" until I read Cook's gloating post-mortem:

So when the national popular vote, according to figures compiled by Rhodes Cook for the Pew Research Center, went 52 percent for Democrats, 46 percent for Republicans, and 2 percent for others, no one should have been shocked.

Do the math: ...[snip] ... When the 6-point Democratic popular vote win is measured against the GOP's 5-point win in 2002 and its 3-point win in 2004, it clearly constituted a wave.

Wow. So in 2002, a humdrum, non-wave election, the GOP won by 5 points. But this year, in a "wave election that rivaled the 1994 tsunami," the Dems won by 6 points. See? No wave: 5. Wave: 6! Cook has a powerful way of putting things. ... Note to file: Cook also admits that "over the years" the generic congressional preference poll "has tended to tilt about 5 points too much in the Democrats' favor." ... [Thks to reader M.]12:23 A.M.

Caitlin Flanagan has done the math. 12:03 A.M.

Sunday, November 26, 2006

Note to however many layers of LAT editors are still left: Technically, Jennifer Gratz, the woman who beat Barack Obama and the entire bipartisan establishment of Michigan on the race preference issue, won her 1997 lawsuit against the University of Michigan, John Rosenberg notes. ... P.S.: Don't you think Obama's conspicuous championing of race preferences might be a potential weakness? If he runs for President, and other Dems (playing for the same types of voters who voted in Michigan) successfully attack him on that issue, wouldn't that really be the death knell of affirmative action? ... 7:51 P.M.

Now They Tell Us--Tasty Donut Edition: WaPo, which before the election was running stories about the"'devastating'" effect of the Bush Medicare drug benefit "doughnut hole," now reports that the program "has proven cheaper and more popular than anyone imagined."

The cost of the program has been lower than expected, about $26 billion in 2006, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. The cost was projected to rise to $45 billion next year, but Medicare has received new bids indicating that its average per-person subsidy could drop by 15 percent in 2007, to $79.90 a month.

Urban Institute President Robert D. Reischauer, a former director of the Congressional Budget Office, called that a remarkable record for a new federal program.

Initially, he said, people were worried no private plans would participate. "Then too many plans came forward," Reischauer said. "Then people said it's going to cost a fortune. And the price came in lower than anybody thought. Then people like me said they're low-balling the prices the first year and they'll jack up the rates down the line. And, lo and behold, the prices fell again. And the reaction was, 'We've got to have the government negotiate lower prices.' At some point you have to ask: What are we looking for here?" [Emphasis added]

Reischauer has a deserved reputation for straight-shooting. WaPo couldn't have gotten that paragraph out of him before November 7? 6:44 P.M.

Saturday, November 25, 2006

Alcee Ya': Alcee Hastings has mounted his defense, and it looks like the last-ditch variety. In a "Dear Colleague" letter Hastings writes, "I hope that my fate is not determined by Newt Gingrich, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Michael Barone, Drudge, anonymous bloggers, and other assorted misinformed fools."** Roll Call reports [$] the letter also says Hastings has "requested a 45-minute meeting with Pelosi to discuss his 1983 trial and subsequent events ... " Influence Peddler notes it reflects

weakness to disclose that he's requested a chance to make his case before Pelosi, but hasn't been granted an audience. Has he gone public on this without realizing it makes him look weak, or has Pelosi left him twisting in the wind?

P.S.: Come to think of it, why is everyone (including me) so sure the Congressional Black Caucus really cares about Hastings' promotion? They must care, the argument goes, because if they didn't Pelosi would never have taken the risk of letting it be known that she favored appointing an impeached former judge to head the Intelligence committee. But that's putting what now seems like a lot of faith in Pelosi's good judgment! The CBC is already getting three chairmanships (Rangel, Conyers, Thompson) after all. Could they be simply going through the mandatory motions of advancing Hastings' cause? ... The proposed Bishop gambit (see below) only makes sense if the Black Caucus really will be furious if fallback candidate and Hispanic Caucus ex-chair Silvestre Reyes gets the job. ...

**--PR coup for Malkin! 12:18 P.M.

Friday, November 24, 2006

Finagling the fence: Are the House Democrats and Homeland Security secretary Chertoff planning to wriggle out of the 700 mile border fence--replacing it with "virtual" fencing--without actually amending the Secure Fence Act? It looks like it from this story. Don't tell White House spokesman Tony "'The Fence Is Going to Be Built'" Snow! ... P.S.: It's also possible the House Dems** don't want to take the heat for "revisiting" the Secure Fence Act at the moment--and the suggestion that the fence could be "virtualized" without a new law is a convenient way for incoming committee chair Bennie Thompson to avoid voting on the issue, in the secure knowledge that the Bush administration won't actually get around to building much fencing before the next Congress is elected in 2008. ... P.P.S.: Either way, it smacks of an anti-fence deal. ...

**--The Bush administration presumably doesn't want an actual vote gutting the Secure Fence Act either, since it's counting on the prospect of a fence to placate border-control conservatives while it passes a "comprehensive" semi-amnesty plan. ... 2:50 P.M.

Thursday, November 23, 2006

Today's Jared Paul Stern Special: Highly informative, largely non-scandalous Forbes piece on Ron Burkle's business history. I did notice this paragraph about Burkle's investment-business partner, Bill Clinton:

Burkle and Clinton spend hours flying together onboard Burkle's Boeing 757. ... [snip] ... Burkle figures he accompanies Clinton at least half the time Clinton travels abroad.

"He's invaluable," Burkle says of his idol. President Clinton "is unique, he brands us to people who matter. He got us in with the Teamsters, and that's important for deal flow going forward."

Yucaipa arranged for Clinton to make a speech at a Teamsters conference in 2003, and later Clinton urged Teamsters President James Hoffa Jr. to trust Burkle and present him with possible deals. Result: This spring Yucaipa paid $100 million to buy a controlling stake in Allied Holdings, a trucking outfit in bankruptcy proceedings. "Clinton got it to the point where Hoffa actually helped us with that deal, something I couldn't have gotten on my own," Burkle says. [E.A.]

So Hoffa helps Clinton with a deal that makes Clinton and Burkle money. And if Hoffa needs something in a few years from President Hillary Clinton's White House ... 12:04 P.M.

Wednesday, November 22, 2006

Help Nancy! David Corn outlines Speaker-elect Pelosi's self-made dilemma when it comes to choosing the chairman of the House Intelligence committee. She doesn't want to pick the ranking Democrat, Jane Harman, for reasons the LAT attempts to divine here. Instead, she's led the Congressional Black Caucus to believe she'll instead choose Alcee Hastings, the next-ranking member. But Hastings was impeached and removed from the federal bench for corruption in the 1980s. The Democrats' more conservative "blue dog" faction has written a letter in support of Harman. The CBC has reaffirmed its support for Hastings. What to do?

Corn looks at the evidence and concludes "Hastings past will hobble him as a spokesman for the Democrats on national security." He suggests that Pelosi skip over Harman, and Hastings, and fallback candidate Silvestre Reyes, and instead choose Rush Holt, a liberal Dem from Princeton who worked as a State Department intelligence analyst and hasn't been shy about challenging President Bush. But how does Holt solve Pelosi's political problem? The black caucus will still be furious, and the Blue Dogs won't be too happy either.

Amy Holmes, appearing Tuesday on Hannity and Colmes, came up with a more ingenious solution: Pelosi could reach out and give the job to Rep. Sanford Bishop. Why Bishop? Because CBC's original beef with Harman, according to the LAT, is that when Harman returned to Congress in 2001, after a failed run for governor, she was awarded all the seniority she'd acquired from an earlier stint in the House. As a result, she vaulted over Hastings and bumped another black Congressman off the intelligence committee. The name of the bumped black Congressman: Sanford Bishop. Pelosi would be correcting an old injustice. Bonus factor: Bishop's a Blue Dog!

In short: Choose Bishop, and CBC is happy and the Blue Dogs are happy. And Pelosi is happy (because she's screwed Harman). Harman's not happy, but she must have known she might not be named chairman under Pelosi--anyway, she'll survive. The Latino caucus could be disappointed that Reyes didn't get the job, but Reyes had much less of an expectation of getting it than either Harman or Hastings.

Maybe Bishop has some disqualifying characteristic, though I haven't found one in a quick Web search. He might have to give up his seat on the (powerful) Appropriations Committee, but he's only a low-ranking member there. I can't find any House rule that would stop him from making the shift.

If there's a fatal defect with Holmes' Bishop solution, let me know. If not--why not?

Update: Time's Timothy Burger mentioned a possible Bishop gambit yesterday also. ..

More: Tom Maguire emails to note that judging from his votin