I hope you'll join us for a joint NDN and New Politics Institute (NPI) presentation and lunch on Thursday, March 8. Simon and Peter Leyden, Director of NPI, will lay out how transformations in technology and media, changing demographics, and new governing challenges are transforming the political landscape.
The Dawn of a New Politics Thursday, March 8 12:00pm Human Rights Campaign 1640 Rhode Island Avenue, NW
Since the 2006 elections, the political terrain for progressives has opened up in unexpected – and very positive – ways. And Peter and Simon's “New Politics” multimedia PowerPoint presentation provides high-level strategic analysis of these changes and what they mean for this emerging “New Politics.”
Their provocative thesis has been presented to various audiences – from elected officials in Congress to the Netroots – and now will be presented in an open public event for any interested individual or progressive group.
The New York Times has a very interesting article on the comments made by Cabinet Secretaries Gutierrez and Chertoff, who testified yesterday before the Senate Judiciary Committee on immigration legislation. Their comments on offering temporary legal status instead of citizenship to illegal immigrants was particularly interesting, as it seemed to represent a shift in thinking on behalf of the White House. As the article points out:
The citizenship measure has been derided by conservatives as amnesty and hailed by some Democrats, Republicans and immigrant advocates as a provision that will encourage millions of illegal immigrants to come forward. In August, President Bush suggested that he supported such proposals, saying they sounded like “a reasonable way to treat people with respect.”
But on Wednesday, Mr. Gutierrez and Mr. Chertoff declined to endorse the measure. Mr. Gutierrez said many illegal immigrants might prefer working here for several years and returning home.
It was unclear whether the officials were simply trying to ease conservative concerns about the citizenship question or whether Mr. Bush had actually shifted his position. Scott Stanzel, a White House spokesman, said Mr. Bush still supported a path to citizenship that would include payments of fines back taxes and a requirement to learn English, among other things. But it seemed unlikely that the two cabinet secretaries would make such remarks without first consulting the White House.
We'd like to hear your thoughts on this one, so please comment below. As always, for more on NDN's work on immigration reform, check our website.
Sam Fox wrote a $50,000 check to the 527 organization that created and aired the noxious and patently false "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" ads. His reward was a cushy appointment to be our next Ambassador to Belgium. But Ambassadorships are Senate confirmable posts, which means Fox had to face Senator John Kerry and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee yesterday. As this article from the WAPO reveals, he offered wishy-washy excuses for his involvement, clearing lacking confidence in his convictions:
The panel did not vote on Fox yesterday, but committee member Kerry got in his say. He walked in a bit late and explained that he did not intend "to play some sort of 'gotcha' game," but he wanted to know: How does the nominee feel about the level of "personal destruction" in politics these days?
Fox replied that he was "very concerned" that politics have become too "mean and destructive," especially with the participation of independent "527" groups such as Swift Boat Veterans. He tried not so subtly to redirect Kerry's line of questioning by saying, "Sir, you're a hero," adding that no 527 group "can take that away from you."
Why then, given Fox's dim views of 527s, did he give such a large chunk of money to help Swift Boat? Kerry asked.
Fox explained that he and his wife donate generously to GOP political causes. "When we're asked, we generally give," he said. He said he could not recall who asked for the Swift Boat donation but explained that he thought it was important to give to a 527 working on behalf of Republicans because a 527 "on the other side" was stooping to such low levels as comparing President Bush to Adolf Hitler.
"So two wrongs make a right?" Kerry asked.
Fox said he thought the dirty work of 527 ads was "disgraceful," but "that's the world we live in."
Colin Powell was a disaster. He never liked the president's policies. He did almost nothing to get them implemented. Condi [former head of the National Security Council and now Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice] was in way over her head from the beginning, and the president gave much too much weight to her views.
I have a hard time accepting the normative judgments of a mastermind of the Iraq War. His stronger point may be the inherent unfairness that the people who made foreign policy in the Bush Administration - Perle, Wolfowitz, Abrams, Cheney, etc - were considered unfit (read: crazy wingnuts) for public consumption. That left comparative "moderates" like Powell, Rice, the President and, hell, Laura Bush in 2004 to go out and sell a dangerous foreign policy based on the neoconservative world view. Perle may finally be fed up with having been the man behind the curtain, destined to be ignored. It appears that in addition to being a terrible wonk, Perle also wanted to be the hack who sold the ideas and received attention and praise attention and praise from the President and the American people in exchange.And it wouldn't be an interview with a bitter, neocon if he didn't brazenly lie about WMD:
Saddam is gone, and I think that is a good thing. He was a menace. It is very popular now to suggest that because we didn't find WMD, he wasn't the threat. What we didn't find in truth was stockpiles of WMDs. He certainly had the capacity to produce chemical and biological weapons again when he wanted to do so, and so I believe he was a threat, and I think we had the right to respond to that threat.You can't operate on the basis of what you know later. You've got to operate on the basis of what you know then.
Reading that, it's almost impossible to believe that Perle, and his illogical defense of the war, have fallen out of favor.
According to the San Jose Mercury News, Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren said that she would work to pass comprehensive immigration reform legislation by the end of the year. At the town hall meeting designed to address the recent ICE raids, she said:
"With your help and your stories, I believe I can help others in the Congress understand,'' said Lofgren, who became chair of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security and International Law when the Democrats took control of Congress in January. "If we are just punitive to those who have started to make a life here, who we will really punish is America.''
For more information on passing comprehensive immigration reform, check our website.
“The president [elected in 2008] will look back and recall a distinct Internet moment that gave the campaign that winning momentum. One or more of the candidates will have a distinct ‘macaca’ or YouTube moment,” Joe Trippi, a longtime Democratic strategist, predicted, referring to the gaffe that derailed then-Sen. George Allen’s (R-Va.) reelection campaign...
“’07 will be a year of massive experimentation. Much more of the advertising is going to be outside the campaigns,” Simon Rosenberg, the president of NDN, a progressive think tank, said...
With so many voters gathering political information online, campaigns will have to be vigilant about shaping their candidate’s Internet image, argued Louis Ubinas, an NDN fellow and a director in the media group at McKinsey & Company, a consulting firm. That includes trolling blogs and aggressively managing what pops up on Google searches for their own candidate’s and their opponents’ names.
“If you’re not buying keywords or managing search optimization, you’re not doing a thing,” he said...
“Anyone can fake it for a 30-second TV ad, but no one can fake it 24 hours a day, seven days a week,” Trippi said. “We’re going to see authentic candidates, warts and all. But even with the warts, we like ’em.”
As we've been writing about for some time, the key to creating stability in Iraq will be creating more regional stability, as the main problem in Iraq - the struggle between Sunnis and Shiites for dominance - has become the source of tension throughout the region.
Thus, we've been an enthusiastic supporter of a regional peace process, one that brings all the main stakeholders in Iraq to the same table. This was a central idea of the Iraq Study Group report. It was also the first idea in the report publically dismissed by the Administration.
WASHINGTON, Feb. 27 — American officials said Tuesday that they had agreed to hold the highest-level contact with the Iranian authorities in more than two years as part of an international meeting on Iraq.
The discussions, scheduled for the next two months, are expected to include Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her Iranian and Syrian counterparts.
The announcement, first made in Baghdad and confirmed by Ms. Rice, that the United States would take part in two sets of meetings among Iraq and its neighbors, including Syria and Iran, is a shift in President Bush’s avoidance of high-level contacts with the governments in Damascus and, especially, Tehran.
Critics of the administration have long said that it should do more to engage its regional rivals on a host of issues, including the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Lebanon. That was the position of the Iraq Study Group, the high level commission that last year urged direct, unconditional talks that would include Iran and Syria.
While the newly scheduled meetings may not include direct negotiations between the United States and Iran, and are to focus strictly on stabilizing Iraq rather than other disputes, they could crack open a door to a diplomatic channel.
Iraqi officials had been pushing for such a meeting for several months, but Bush administration officials refused until the Iraqi government reached agreement on pressing domestic matters, including guidelines for nationwide distribution of oil revenue and foreign investment in the country’s immense oil industry, administration officials said. The new government of Iraq maintains regular ties with Iran.
“I would note that the Iraqi government has invited Syria and Iran to attend both of these regional meetings,” Ms. Rice told a Senate panel on Tuesday, in discussing the talks, which will include Britain, Russia, and a host of international organizations and Middle Eastern countries.
The first meeting — which will include senior Bush administration officials like the State Department Iraq envoy David Satterfield, will be in Baghdad in the first half of March, administration officials said. In early April, Ms. Rice will attend a ministerial level conference, presumably with her Iranian and Syrian counterparts, which will likely be somewhere else in the region, administration officials said.
A year ago, Iranian and American officials announced a planned meeting between the American ambassador to Baghdad and Iranian officials to help stabilize Iraq but the meeting never occurred.
The Iraqi foreign minister, Hoshyar Zebari, called America’s anticipated face-to-face contact with Iran and Syria — two countries that the Bush administration has accused of destabilizing Iraq — “very significant.”
This announcement, a modest step forward, shows further weakening of the hardline, neocon faction inside the Administration. While the ongoing ideological struggle inside the Bush White House between the remaining neocons and a more reasonable group that appears to be led by Sec. Gates wil continue through the end of the Bush term, this modest step is an important one, and should be cheered by leaders on both sides of the aisle.
This is a topic NDN has worked on before, through our Campaign to Get Condi to Come Clean. And while I recognize that Secretary Rice's problems with the truth are neither new, nor surprising, I wanted to share two recent, remarkable examples.
First, on Fox News Sunday,Secretary Rice shared this gem with Chris Wallace:
"…It would be like saying that after Adolf Hitler was overthrown, we needed to change then, the resolution that allowed the United States to do that, so that we could deal with creating a stable environment in Europe after he was overthrown."
Chris Wallace, of Clinton-baiting fame didn't press her on it, of course. Luckily, Keith Olbermann did, in some of his best work to date.
And just a week ago, former Bush Administration National Security Council Member Flynt Leverett called out Secretary Rice on her inconsistencies regarding Iran's 2003 offer of negotiations towards a "Grand Bargain" on WMD, Israel and support for terrorist groups. From The Raw Story:
Former Bush National Security Council official Flynt Leverett, speaking on Wednesday at a forum held by the New America Foundation, told a crowd in a Senate office building that in 2003 then-Secretary of State Colin Powell received a “grand bargain” offer from Iran and was rebuffed by the White House, RAW STORY can reveal.
“The document went over to the NSC” and “it is unthinkable” that it wouldn’t have gone to then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, Leverett asserted. “She owes Congress an apology for saying she had not seen the document.”
"The statements she is making before Congress are not true," Leverett added, noting that Rice almost certainly "knows" they aren't true.
“If you go to the west coast the big issue is not Iraq – as it is in Washington – but global warming,” said Simon Rosenberg, the head of the New Democratic Network, in Washington. “The Oscar ceremonies offered the spectacle of an exuberant repudiation of the Bush years. It is hard to think of a better platform for Mr Gore’s public profile.”