How To Pick Presidents

In her victory speech after winning the Ohio primary Hillary Clinton said:

"You know, they call Ohio a bellwether state. It’s a battleground state. It’s a state that knows how to pick a president."

She is correct that Ohio plays a significant role in picking presidents. Ohio picked Bush in 2000 and in 2004 by narrow margins—in both instances Ohio’s Electoral College votes determined the election. Ohio remains a large and diverse state that can go either direction in presidential elections. Our Congressional delegation is a mix of republicans and democrats. Ohio is not as representative of the country as it once was (most significantly because the economic downturn has hit Ohio worse than any other state save Michigan). Nevertheless, any presidential candidate for either party will find it difficult to win the White House without winning Ohio.

The problem with Clinton’s statement is that Ohio chose poorly in the last two presidential elections. In tragic lapses of judgment Ohio chose George W. Bush in both 2000 and 2004. We never would have had to think about hanging chads or thrown the election to the Supreme Court in 2000 if merely 89,000 Ohio voters had chosen differently that year. It is pointless to speculate about how a President Gore would’ve performed as the 43rd President. But given the stunningly poor performance of the current President it is unlikely that Gore would’ve been comparably disastrous. Regardless of how she feels about Gore, it is shocking that Clinton believes Ohio knows how to pick a President.

I think it is proper to view the Clinton primary victory as consistent with Ohio’s recent presidential judgment. If Bush was strike one and two, I think the Hillary vote was a foul ball straight back over home plate. Let us hope that Ohio doesn’t swing and miss with McCain in November.

An Honest Moment?

After touring a genocide memorial in Kigali, Rwanda this week, President Bush said,

"A clear lesson I learned in the museum was that outside forces that tend to divide people up inside their country are unbelievably counterproductive."

Take a moment is snigger at his awkward turn of phrase, but then take a closer look at the substance of his statement. He likely is just saying something he thinks people say after visiting a memorial to genocide. If only it were truly a moment of reflection brought on by an authentic engagement with awfulness of the suffering in Rwanda (and elsewhere). Although Bush boasts about not be reflective or introspective, there were moments in his Africa visit this week when he seemed genuinely moved by the conditions of those in desperate need. So let us hope that his accidental moment marks the first steps toward acknowledging some culpability for the ongoing suffering of Iraqis. But even if President Bush is unable to recognize how "unbelievably counterproductive" his foreign policy is, we can hope that Americans will take Bush's insight to heart in future foreign policy adventures from Iraq and Iran to Cuba and Columbia.

Contemptible

The House of Representatives voted yesterday to hold two high level Bush advisors in contempt for failing to cooperate with a Congressional inquiry into the purge of federal prosecutors in 2006-2007. White House chief of staff Josh Bolten is charged with failing to testify and former White House counsel Harriet Miers is charged with refusing to turn over documents related to the political motivations of the firings.

Republicans staged a walkout because they said the contempt orders were politically motivated. Of course the contempt orders carried a political subtext as did the walkout. But to assert that Congress is political is not an argument. The political posturing is what it is; it should obfuscate an analysis of the substance of the matter.

The republican walkout, however, is designed to avoid the substance of the matter. The democrats are trying to make as much hay as possible, but that is not a reason to ignore the seriousness of Executive branch staffers refusing to cooperate with the Constitutionally mandated oversight responsibility of Congress. The Congress represents We The People and must be vigilant in checking the power of executive branch officials. It is imperative to our judicial system that federal prosecutors serve the law. If the White House puts partisanship over the law it does serious damage to the rule of law. Republicans are failing Congress, the Judiciary, and the country. If Bolten, Meirs, and the White House did nothing unseemly then the move will backfire on the democrats. Open government, the rule of law, and Congressional oversight are far more important than the partisan concerns of the Bush Administration.

Sticky Rice

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice appeared before Senate and House committees yesterday to answer questions about the Administration’s intentions in Iraq. After questions about the future of Iraq (and contradictory White House statements relating to Iraq), some Members of Congress brought up the recent study by the Center on Public Integrity that found Rice made at least 56 false statements about the national security threat posed by Iraq in the two years following September 11, 2001. The report asserts that Rice’s false statements were part of an orchestrated PR campaign designed to sway public opinion in favor of the invasion. The success of the PR campaign was essential to leading the nation to war. Rice, Cheney, Bush might’ve convinced themselves they were telling a Noble Lie in service of neoconservative dreams, but the fact is, Rice et al led the republic into an unnecessary war under decidedly false pretenses.

When confronted with findings of the report, Rice grew indignant and responded, “I did not at any time make a statement that I knew to be false or that I thought to be false.”

This is a shockingly low standard. The U.S. went to war because Rice wasn’t certain that WMD claims were false?! When a republic is considering war, its leaders should make every effort to find out what is wise and true. Presidential advisors should have higher standards than repeating information they “do not know to be false.” And it is downright despicable to knowingly deploy a glitzy marketing campaign on such dubious pretenses. This Administration has repeatedly dragged out the (incorrect) trope that because there is some doubt (about global warming, biology, smoking causing cancer), we should not act. To go to war with lower evidentiary standards than is required for public health policy verges on evil.

And why didn’t Rice say that her statements were true? Or, that she believed them to be true? Her clever and vigorous protestations are acknowledgments that she now knows her statements were untrue; that she should’ve known they were false at the time.

But she should be truthful, not merely avoid saying things she knows are false. She knows now, and she knew then, that she was not being truthful. “Know to be false”? She knew it wasn’t true, but she couldn’t prove it false. Rice is playing clever with her words. She is defensive because she knows she failed to do the right thing. Maybe she didn’t know it was false. It is logically impossible for Saddam Hussein to prove that he does not have WMD; therefore it is impossible for Rice to know with certainty that she was saying falsehoods. She merely misled and misrepresented. She avoided speaking truthfully and now gets indignant when she is held a little accountable.

Secretary Rice’s doth protest too much, methinks.

pardon me

In his column in today's paper, Frank Rich essentially agrees with my position that Scooter Libby will certainly be pardoned sometime after election day 2008. There is no reason to think that President Bush will err on the side of the Rule of Law thereby allowing Libby to serve his debt to society. But the Rule of Law is the citizenry's protection against the capriciousness of rulers. Far too often President Bush has used Fear itself to coerce the result he desires instead of allowing the processes of the democracy. The Republic is ill served when leaders the law into their own hands--a pardon is nothing if not vigilantism. Although Libby's crime was against the Institution of the Judiciary, the subtext is deeply political. The President will give Libby a get-out-jail card because political calculations are more important to him than upholding the principles of due process and the rule of law. That the President will wait until December 2008 to pardon merely Libby betrays the White House lack of principle.

An Inconvenient Truth

When asked whether he would watch "An Inconvenient Truth" President Bush said he had no intention to do so because there was a "fundamental debate" about whether global warming was "manmade or natural." It was a willfully ignorant statement in contradiction of scientific consensus. Now the White says, "President Bush has consistently acknowledged climate change is occurring and humans are contributing to the problem." The White House revisionism is a reaction to a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change which said that there is a 90 percent certainty that greenhouse gases are heating up the planet.

We should have started years ago working to stabilize carbon-dioxide in the atmosphere, but it is certainly progress to have the Administration's head out of the sand. The difficulty is now with climate-change legislation. Only toothless bills have much of a chance getting past a republican filibuster in the Senate. The best bill right now is sponsored by McCain, Lieberman, and Obama. It has no chance of passing, but Congress should embrace truly meaningful action and force a White House to veto or a Senate filibuster as a way to raise public awareness for 2008 elections.

SOTU answers Iraq questions

President Bush waited more than thirty minutes into the SOTU to mention in the elephant in the room—Iraq. Probably a good oratory strategy since the “surge” and the President’s larger Iraq plan needed further explanation and I with anxious anticipation to hear a clear and honest account of the administration’s plan for Iraq. It was not worth the wait. President Bush added nothing to the discourse on Iraq. In fact, he only further muddled the situation.

Bush seems intent on viewing the world in black and white—he shows little interest in nuance even when the situation in Iraq obviously demands a sophisticated response. He seems not to understand the mess in Iraq and continues to insist that it is simply a battle between Good and Evil. In the SOTU Bush says "[t]he Shia and Sunni extremists are different faces of the same totalitarian threat.” "Whatever slogans they chant ... they have the same wicked purpose. They want to kill Americans, kill democracy in the Middle East and gain the weapons to kill on an even more horrific scale." The escalating violence in Iraq is more complicated than the armies of Freedom battling the forces of Tyranny. Does Bush really believe that the Shiites and Sunnis are the same? And that totalitarian best describes their sameness? Does he distinguish the small minority of al-Qaida in Iraq from Shiites and Sunnis?

I must conclude that the President does not fully comprehend the situation in Iraq and that he is unwilling to honestly examine the dire complexities of the war.

Swearing

In his eulogy for Gerald Ford, President Bush said, "when he put his hand on his family Bible to take the presidential oath of office, he brought grace to a moment of great doubt." This comment was of course intended to draw attention to Representative the recent use of a Koran in a swearing in ceremony to the House of Representatives. This coded provocative language is unfortunate in a eulogy for a US president by a sitting president. The only explanation for the lack of diplomacy is that that Bush is trying to score points with those who would erode the wall of separation between church and state. Sad.