Great Clip on Alaska Pork from Talking Points Memo

This is a very good video clip from Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo about the bs that Sarah Palin is putting out about earmarks. The Obama Campaign should make this into a thirty second ad.

Why Using "Win" or "Lose" with Iraq Helps Bubble-Boy

Josh Marshall of www.talkingpointsmemo.com has an excellent post this morning about why using the words "win" or lose" with reference to Iraq plays into Bush's hands. His point is that using such terms obscures the fact that American policy about what would happen in a post-war Iraq was bound to fail because our objectives aren't the same as the Iraqi objectives. He argues that Bush wanted to create an Iraq that would be unified, allied with America, secular, and democratic. The Iraqis seem to want a state that is not necessarily allied with America, not necessarily secular, and one where the Sunni minority is under the control of the Shia majority. His point is that using a "won/lost" dichotomy is artificial and doesn't really describe the problems facing America in Iraq. Click on the link in this entry's title to read Marshall's analysis.

Fired U.S. Attorneys Scandal Shows Why Congressional Oversight is Important

Josh Marshall, creator of the website www.talkingpointsmemo.com had a column in The Hill, a newspaper devoted to covering Capitol Hill pointing out that if the Dems had not taken control of Congress the Bush Administration would have gotten away with firing the seven U.S. Attorneys as political retribution. (You can read the article by clicking on the link in this entry's title).

The only reason why this has become a problem for the Bushies is that with Dems controlling the Congress, investigators with subpoena power were able to get the U.S. Attorneys to testify about what happened. This oversight meant that people like Marshall, who has been covering this scandal on his website, could get someone in power to take their allegations seriously. Without the hearings this scandal, like so many others concerning the Bush Administration, would never have came to the attention of most of the public.

This is what happened with this story: first a group of people, notably Marshall, started writing about the firing of these attorneys. Then, a few reporters at a few news outlets picked it up and ran stories, thus making more people aware of what was happening. After that, Senators and Representatives started talking about it and that led to Congressional hearings. Because of those hearings there was much more news coverage, which feeds on itself and produces more coverage.

If, however, there had not been Dems controlling the Congress, the hearings wouldn't have taken place, and the third and most critical component, the huge expansion of the news coverage, wouldn't have happened. That's why Congressional oversight is important and that's why the last two years of the Bush Administration won't be anything like the first six years, a fact for which most Americans will be thankful.

Cheney's Mid-East Views & U.S. Policy

Reed Hundt, a contributor to Josh Marshall's www.talkingpointsmemo.com, has posted a very interesting article on how Dick Cheney sees the U.S. role in the Mid-East. According to Hundt Cheney believes that for the next 60-80 years America will be dependent on imported oil, mainly from the Mid-East. During that same period America will be at war with Islamic fundamentalists. Therefore, America withdrawing militarily from the Mid-East is dangerous to our economic security and we have to keep on pouring troops and money into that region. Cheney also believes that withdrawing from that region would imperil Israel, a point of view also espoused by Lieberman.

Hundt also argues that at some point Democratic candidates for president have to confront and debate Cheney's views, especially since they are also being articulated by McCain and Romney. All this leads to a another point and that is that while Democrats are very good at challenging Republicans on particular policy choices, we need to do a better job of attacking the philosophy that underlies what Republicans advocate. This means in debates over domestic policy attacking the Republicans' market fundamentalism. It means in debates over foreign policy, attacking the Republicans' belief in a go-it-alone approach to foreign policy. If we don't attack the underlying philosophy, then we are allowing them to set the terms of the debate. Ceding to them the power to set the terms of the debate weakens our ability to win the debate.