Steve Benen

Happy 4th of July Weekend

Happy 4th of July Weekend

My time’s just about up filling in for the venerable Alex Koppelman this week. Alex will be out again next week, but the estimable Ed Kilgore, managing editor of the Democratic Strategist, will be here on Monday.

Before I go, I wanted to take a moment to thank Alex and Salon’s team of editors for their support and assistance. They do great work day in and day out, and I was delighted to be a temporary part of the team.

Thanks also to War Room readers for the support and encouragement. Feel free to stop by my regular digs anytime.

I hope everyone has a safe and enjoyable Fourth of July weekend.

Obama will “continue to refine” Iraq policy

In North Dakota, Obama reiterates his support for a flexible withdrawal timetable in Iraq.

Barack Obama’s comments on Iraq in Fargo, N.D., are drawing quite a bit of attention, but if the news accounts are an accurate reflection of what he said, I’m not sure if there’s anything especially unusual about his remarks.

“I’ve always said that the pace of withdrawal would be dictated by the safety and security of our troops and the need to maintain stability. That assessment has not changed,” he said. “And when I go to Iraq and have a chance to talk to some of the commanders on the ground, I’m sure I’ll have more information and will continue to refine my policies.”

As he arrived for a campaign stop in North Dakota, Mr. Obama told reporters on Thursday that he intended to conduct “a thorough assessment” of his Iraq policy during a forthcoming trip to the country.

“My 16-month timeline, if you examine everything that I’ve said, was always premised on making sure that our troops were safe,” he said. “I said that based on the information that we had received from our commanders that one to two brigades a month could be pulled out safely, from a logistical perspective. My guiding approach continues to be that we’ve got to make sure that our troops are safe and that Iraq is stable.”

Some are interpreting these comments as either a reversal or evidence of a looming reversal. I don’t see it that way. In fact, if you’d told me that these exact same remarks came from Obama in February, I’d believe you.

As the Democratic primary process unfolded, the Clinton campaign tried to get out in front of this issue by saying that she was committed to her withdrawal plan — no matter what. When Clinton’s communications director was pressed on whether Clinton would proceed with a withdrawal regardless of conditions on the ground, he said, “Yes.”

Obama was never actually willing to make a similar vow and, as far as I can tell, has always given himself some flexibility on troop withdrawal. Nearly four months ago, one of Obama’s top foreign policy advisors said Obama is committed to withdrawing “one to two brigades a month,” but also to going slower if that pace would threaten the safety of U.S. personnel.

That, in a nutshell, is what Obama said today, too. In fact, Samantha Power argued in March that the next president would have to consider conditions on the ground when implementing a withdrawal plan. For that matter, I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve heard Obama say that he wants to be as careful getting out as Bush was reckless going in.

In terms of “refining” his policy, that, too, is consistent with Obama’s general approach — he crafted a withdrawal policy nearly two years ago. Of course it’s going to be refined based on changing conditions.

With that in mind, Greg Sargent raises a good point about the context:

These strike me as less a signal of a coming change in his position on withdrawal and more like a combined effort to defuse the charge that he’ll withdraw recklessly and to preserve flexibility as commander in chief.

Quite right. The McCain campaign wants desperately to argue that Obama supports an immediate, “precipitous” withdrawal that would disregard conditions and/or the wishes of commanders. Given this, Obama’s point is pretty straightforward — he wants to give the Pentagon a new mission (getting out safely), based on a flexible timetable. Nothing he said today changes that formulation at all. I understand concerns about Obama “moving to the middle,” but his remarks in Fargo aren’t evidence of a shift.

I should note that Obama’s position, of course, stands in stark contrast to the McCain Iraq policy, which is effectively, “Keep doing what we’ve been doing, hope the war eventually ends, and then hope Iraq won’t mind if we stick around for a generation or five.”

Continue Reading Close

The drilling myth that just won’t die

Republicans keep arguing, falsely, that China is drilling for oil in Cuban waters.

About a month ago, as the debate over coastal drilling began in earnest, Dick Cheney pushed the rhetorical envelope a bit, telling the U.S. Chamber of Commerce that “oil is being drilled right now 60 miles off the coast of Florida. We’re not doing it. The Chinese are in cooperation with the Cuban government … Even the communists have figured out that a good answer to high prices is more supply. Yet Congress has said … no to drilling off Florida.”

It has been a common Republican talking point, but it’s patently false — the Chinese are not drilling off Cuba’s coasts. The day after Cheney made the bogus claim, the V.P.’s office acknowledged that he was mistaken.

And yet, for some reason, high-profile Republicans can’t stop repeating the claim that’s already been debunked. Maybe conservatives have decided that they can’t win a debate on energy policy on the merits, so misleading people about communists stealing our oil is the better strategy. Here’s failed presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani talking to CNN’s resident right-winger, Glenn Beck, Wednesday night:

Maybe it’s my imagination, but it almost seems as if high-profile Republicans have been repeating the false claim more now that it has been debunked.

Talking Points Memo has been keeping track of all the examples, and there are some real doozies in there. Some Republicans have altered the myth a little — I think Giuliani is the first to suggest that the Cubans and the Chinese are taking our oil — but they’re all repeating a charge that isn’t remotely true. Either they don’t know what they’re talking about, or they know the claim is false and repeat it anyway. At this point, it’s hard to know which is the case.

Continue Reading Close

Fox News stoops to digital graffiti

While complaining about a hit piece, the controversial network manipulates the images of New York Times journalists.

It’s pretty common for children to take pictures of people they don’t like and manipulate them, perhaps with crayons. They’ll black-out a tooth, draw a mustache, add glasses, draw earrings, etc.

What’s breathtaking, however, is when a major news outlet acts the exact same way, only instead of children with crayons, we have Fox News using Photoshop. If you haven’t seen this video, by way of Media Matters, be sure to take a look.

You’ll notice in the clip that the hosts of Fox News’ “Fox & Friends,” Steve Doocy and Brian Kilmeade, are complaining about an alleged “hit piece” on the Republican network, published in the New York Times by Jacques Steinberg and Steven Reddicliffe. They showed pictures of both Times journalists.

However, Fox News digitally altered the images of both, yellowing teeth, exaggerating noses, darkening eyes and eliminating hair. (Take a minute to go to Media Matters’ piece on this, so you can see the actual pictures of the Times’ journalists and what Fox News did to manipulate them.)

According to a report in E&P, Times culture editor Sam Sifton called FNC’s photo alterations “disgusting” and the criticism of the paper’s reporting “a specious and meritless claim.” Asked if the paper planned to respond to Fox News’ actions, Sifton said the Times would not: “It is fighting with a pig, everyone gets dirty and the pig likes it.”

And what does Fox News have to say about this? In a striking display of cowardice, the network hasn’t responded to requests for comment, and “Fox & Friends” did not mention the incident Thursday morning.

In just the past few weeks, Fox News has been forced to apologize repeatedly for its on-air antics. I appreciate the fact that Fox News doesn’t care about or respect journalistic standards, but yet another apology is obviously in order.

Continue Reading Close

The religious right warms up to McCain

Evangelical leaders swallow hard and embrace the Republican they vowed to oppose.

It’s hard to overstate the extent to which the religious-right movement and its leaders have not gotten along with John McCain. It’s not just that they preferred other candidates during the Republican primaries; it’s that they actively and publicly hated the guy.

Consider an example. In October, the Family Research Council hosted a “Values Voter Summit,” and nearly all Republican candidates showed up to kiss the movement’s ring, touting their faith and their commitment to religious-right issues. At the end of the conference, organizers held a straw poll — and McCain came in dead last with just 1.4 percent support. McCain did even worse than Rudy Giuliani, who supports abortion rights and gay rights.

Not enough? How about this — James Dobson issued a statement in February, insisting he would not vote for McCain in the general election and would stay home if McCain was the GOP nominee. For that matter, Pat Robertson has said he would not vote for McCain “under any circumstances.” Dobson and Robertson, of course, are the movement’s two biggest, most well-known leaders.

The whole “agents of intolerance” thing was apparently tough to get over. It’s hard for a candidate to “Sister Souljah” conservative evangelical activists, and then seek their support two cycles later. The religious right may be crazy, but it’s a movement with a long memory.

That, however, was before Barack Obama won the Democratic nomination, and started earning enough support to possibly split the evangelical vote. All of a sudden, McCain doesn’t look so bad anymore.

Conservative evangelical leaders met privately this week to discuss putting aside their misgivings about John McCain and coalescing around the Republican’s presidential bid while urging him to consider social conservative favorite Mike Huckabee as a running mate.

About 90 of the movement’s leading activists gathered Tuesday night in Denver for a meeting convened by Mathew Staver, who heads the Florida-based legal advocacy group Liberty Counsel.

Many evangelical leaders backed other GOP candidates early on and remain wary of McCain’s commitment to their causes and his previous criticisms of movement leaders. But with the presidential field now set, many evangelical leaders are taking a more pragmatic view, realizing also that the Democratic candidate, Barack Obama, is making a strong play for evangelical voters and talking freely about his faith.

Christian conservative leaders? Choosing pragmatism over principles? You don’t say.

What’s striking, though, is that the religious right looks like a cheap date. McCain has barely done any real outreach to the movement at all — indeed, McCain had two people devoted to courting evangelical Christians and he fired both — and while he has made all kinds of far-right assurances to the GOP’s business and neocon factions, the religious right hasn’t won much in the way of concessions. He even threw John Hagee and Rod Parsley under the bus — after months of cultivating their support — once they became inconvenient.

Apparently, that no longer matters. For most religious-right leaders, the prospect of Obama winning 40 percent of the evangelical vote, as Mark DeMoss recently predicted, is enough to send shivers down their spine. If that means cozying up to McCain, so be it.

I’d add, though, that this doesn’t exactly point to a thriving, vibrant political movement. The religious right couldn’t stop McCain from easily winning the Republican nomination, can’t stop Obama from making inroads with evangelical voters, and couldn’t even win any major concessions from McCain before rolling over and embracing him.

The religious right’s obituary has been written before, but I can’t remember the last time the movement seemed this irrelevant.

Continue Reading Close

Thursday’s campaign roundup

Today's installment of campaign-related news items.

Today’s installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn’t generate a post of their own but may be of interest to political observers:

* Barack Obama unveiled his policy on national service Wednesday at an event in Colorado.

* In a new Time magazine poll of U.S. Roman Catholics, John McCain enjoys the narrowest of leads, 45 percent to 44 percent.

* An “independent” arm of the Republican National Committee will spend $3 million on TV ads in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, starting Sunday. The ads will focus on energy policy.

* McCain’s allies have found another loophole in the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, and will funnel funds through the Republican Governors Association.

* Elizabeth Edwards will head up Health Care for America Now, which intends to invest $40 million over the next several months, promoting universal healthcare in a national TV ad campaign.

* The Democratic National Convention probably won’t be shortened to three nights instead of four.

* The McCain campaign is worried about Virginia.

* Rasmussen shows Obama leading McCain in New York by 31 points, 60 percent to 29 percent.

* An AP/Yahoo poll shows that more Americans would rather have Barack Obama than John McCain at their summer cookout.

* And despite widespread reports to the contrary, Obama did not deny a fist bump to a child in Ohio this week.

Continue Reading Close

Page 1 of 25 in Steve Benen