JustOneMinute

Kerry's Shifts: Nuanced Ideas or Flip-Flops?

This is the headline, just above the fold, in the Saturday NY Times. Now, the Times just endorsed Kerry over Edwards, and there is a chance they will tap Kerry over Bush this fall. OTOH, they are running this "think-piece" in the little-noted Saturday edition, rather than waiting for Sunday.

Read for yourself to find the answer, but my guess - the Times has delivered what will become a treasured comedy classic. I will pick one gem:

"Clearly he is trying to walk a very fine line on extremely divisive social issues like gay marriage and the Patriot Act," said Ron Klain, another Gore adviser in 2000. "These are issues where the political terrain is changing very rapidly, and he is trying to stay in the middle. And I think he's walking the tightrope on those issues, and doing a pretty good job of navigating it so far."

This is someone's idea of leadership? I oil my weathervane to improve its sensitivity and accuracy, too!

A "Benedict Arnold" Wife?

Tall John Kerry:

On receiving an endorsement from the AFL-CIO last month, Kerry said: “When I am president, and with your help, we’re going to repeal every benefit, every loophole, every reward that entices any Benedict Arnold company or CEO to take the money and the jobs overseas and stick the American people with the bill.”

From the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News on Feb 19, 2004:

Officials said Heinz has continued to squeeze out costs with initiatives such as installing better software capable of sourcing purchases online and outsourcing some functions in the United Sates. The latter includes a portion of its information technology work done in Pittsburgh, Canada and Europe to an international unit of IBM.

Heinz spokesman Robin Teets yesterday said the move will affect about 105 employees, including approximately 35 Pittsburgh -- roughly a third of the local information technology staff. Heinz employees have until next week to decide whether to take jobs offered by IBM Global Services, which Teets said is offering employment to affected Heinz workers for a "short term."

The work transfer to IBM Global, which operates development centers around the world including India, is to be completed by April.

And an example of domestic outsourcing from October 2003:

Heinz in distribution pact, transferring 3 facilities

Three Heinz North America facilities will change hands and a fourth will close as the result of a decision by the company to outsource some of its warehousing and distribution functions to a third party provider.

...As a result, Heinz North America will transfer over the next six to nine months its distribution centers in Fremont, Ohio; Muscatine, Iowa; and Tracy, Calif., to ES3, a logistics and distribution company based in Keene, N.H. Heinz North America employees at those facilities will begin working for ES3.

Heinz added that it would begin to use an ES3 facility in York, Pa., as its distribution center for products destined for customers in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic regions.

But a fourth Heinz North America distribution center, in Grand Prairie, Texas, will close, the company said, resulting in the loss of 12 jobs.

More For The Reading Pile

RISE OF THE VULCANS
The History of Bush's War Cabinet
By James Mann

Reviewed by MICHIKO KAKUTANI:

The Vulcans in James Mann's compelling new book are not the ultra-logical pointy-eared beings from "Star Trek," but the Pentagon-trained pro-military foreign policy advisers who surround President Bush. Their nickname, which they coined during the 2000 campaign, came from the Roman god of fire and the forge, and was meant, Mr. Mann says, to convey a sense of "power, toughness, resilience and durability."

Mr. Mann's real subject in this book is the United States' evolving relationship with the world over the past three decades, as American power rose from a nadir at the end of the Vietnam War to a position of military supremacy. The prism he uses to examine this subject consists of the beliefs and experiences of six leading Vulcans: Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage and the national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice.

The resulting book is lucid, shrewd and, after so many high-decibel screeds from both the right and left, blessedly level-headed. It is necessary reading for anyone interested in understanding the back story of how and why America came to deal with the rest of the world the way it is doing under the Bush administration.

More from Amazon.

Waiting For Chirac

Support grows for Kerry.

MORE.

UPDATE: My idea of a joke is Kerry's idea of of campaign boast:

Without naming anybody, Kerry said he had received words of encouragement from leaders abroad who were eager to see him defeat Bush on Nov. 2.

"I've met foreign leaders who can't go out and say this publicly, but boy they look at you and say, 'You've got to win this, you've got to beat this guy, we need a new policy,' things like that," he said.

I guess we are, uhh, waiting for Chirac. Happily.

VPW - Newsday On WH Subpoenas

Newsday has interesting background on the subpoenas received by the White House in the Valerie Plame Wilson investigation. I have found that links to Newsday die quickly, so a "fair-use" excerpt will appear in the extension. Briefly, however:

WASHINGTON -- The federal grand jury probing the leak of a covert CIA officer's identity has subpoenaed records of Air Force One telephone calls in the week before the officer's name was published in a column in July, according to documents obtained by Newsday.

Exhale - the subpoenas were issued in January, and the WH has already complied with them [Note: mostly complied, and still working on it, from the WaPo]; Newsday is just building suspense here.

Also sought in the wide-ranging document requests contained in three grand jury subpoenas to the Executive Office of President George W. Bush are records created in July by the White House Iraq Group, a little-known internal task force established in August 2002 to create a strategy to publicize the threat posed by Saddam Hussein.

And the subpoenas asked for a transcript of a White House spokesman's press briefing in Nigeria, a list of those attending a birthday reception for a former president, and, casting a much wider net than previously reported, records of White House contacts with more than two dozen journalists and news media outlets.

The three subpoenas were issued to the White House on Jan. 22, three weeks after Patrick Fitzgerald, the U.S. attorney in Chicago, was appointed special counsel in the probe and during the first wave of appearances by White House staffers before the grand jury.

...That subpoena also sought a complete transcript of a July 12 press "gaggle," or informal briefing, by then-White House press secretary Ari Fleischer while at the National Hospital in Abuja, Nigeria. That transcript is missing from the White House Web site containing transcripts of other press briefings. In a transcript the White House released at the time to Federal News Service, Fleischer discusses Wilson and his CIA report.

Well, here is a version of the July 12 transcript; here is another at the White House website, but not where one might normally look for it [Mini-Update: The you don't see it, now you do. Seems to have been added on Friday afternoon]. Very careful and coordinated cover-up!

As to content, no obvious smoking gun.

Newsday also says this:

The subpoena with the second production deadline sought all documents from July 6 to July 30 of the White House Iraq Group. In August, the Washington Post published the only account of the group's existence.

So they did, and we were there!

We must reflect to find the deeper meaning here.

UPDATE: Some good comments.

MORE: Headscratching at the NY Times:

...Some lawyers involved in the case said on Friday that the request for additional documents may also indicate that, at least as of late January, prosecutors had not obtained concrete evidence that clearly identified who provided Ms. Plame's name to Mr. Novak. Otherwise, the lawyers said, prosecutors might not have needed to summon witnesses who were known to have testified before the grand jury in February.

...the precise significance of the subpoenas remains unclear. Of five lawyers interviewed this week about the case, none said that they understood the overall status of the investigation or whether the prosecutors had a working theory of how Mr. Novak had obtained Ms. Plame's name.

The lawyers said that they believed, however, that the prosecutors were nearing a turning point when they would decide whether to charge anyone with a crime or drop the case.

MORE: We paste in the list of those subpoenaed, and note (with a prompt from Mark Kleiman) the absence of Clifford May of the NRO. Is he not big media, do they accept his statement of non-White House sources, or was he overlooked?

The Greatest Trick The Devil Ever Pulled...

Andrew Sullivan posts an e-mail touting an interesting Vice-Presidential pick:

"There's been a lot of speculation in the news media the past few weeks about a possible Kerry/Edwards ticket, but the Dems need to put all this foolishness aside, get real, and run Kerry/Satan this year....

He has his reasons. And Satan has been in the news, if I saw this headline flicker by correctly from Reuters:

Satan Leads... Upset Win Over Senators

They don't mention what bill was being voted.

Homo Economicus / Homo Politicus

From the Brother Judd:

...Research from fMRIs and other machines bears all this out. Gerald Zaltman, a professor at Harvard University, says 95% of consumer decision making occurs subconsciously. Read Montague, a professor at the Baylor College of Medicine, gave subjects the "Pepsi Challenge" in an fMRI scanner. Result: people found Pepsi more pleasing to the palate — their reward center lit up — but Coke's branding hit literally at the core of their sense of self, a much stronger bond. This affirms what we all suspected: brands are so powerful that we are sometimes more likely to buy something we identify with than something we like better or that is better for us.

Let's repeat the experiment, substituting "Kerry" and "Bush" for "Pepsi" and "Coke".

On To The Vice-Presidency!

Kerry wins everything important, Edwards is out, and political pundits peer at the bottom of the barrel, check the calendar, and wonder how to get to July.

Speculation swirls around whether Dick Cheney will remain on the ticket, and this forceful "denial" won't help:

"Obviously, if a health question came up or something like that, clearly if I thought that I couldn't do what he needs to have done, then I'd be the first to recommend that he gets somebody else."

I'm coming, Condi, I'm coming!

And huge props to the chap who had the idea that caused people all over America to spit out their coffee - Clinton for Vice President. No, BILL Clinton. But wait, isn't that against the rules? It depends on what the meaning of "elected" is, and Steve Gillers makes the point that everyone who enjoys watching Clinton pull a fast one will enjoy this. Kerry would be totally eclipsed and forgotten, which works for me but might not wholly suit him. From the Rep side the campaign would become "Kill Bill Two" (or three, or four... whatever), but it sure is a provocative idea.

Kerry himself seized the spotlight with the news that he is contemplating a race change, declaring that he hopes to become the second black President. But what will Theresa Heinz do when Sen. Kerry follows through on his (weirdly under-reported) follow-up pledge to become the first gay President? Enough with the pandering already - no mas!

Have the conventions started yet?

UPDATE: Eugene Volokh opines; Steve Gillers defends his original position.

The Most Liberal Senator?

A few days ago we laughed at the news that the Dems were about to nominate the most liberal member of the Senate to lead them to crushing defeat in November. Today, in an uncharacteristic fit of something or other, we feel obliged to point out that Sen. Kerry may not be so liberal after all.

Here are links to Dr. Poole's non-parametric rankings for the 107th and 108th Senate. In each case, Senator Kerry is roughly in the middle of the Dem herd - 27th of 51, then 24th out of 48. Now, this ranking methodology does not really produce a "liberal/conservative" ranking, although Dr. Poole is evidently comfortable with the analogy; "reliably Democratic/reliably Republican" strikes me as better description. The method is objective, based on all recorded roll call votes (I quibble below), and produced by a leader in the field.

By this method, Sen. Kerry is darn close to Sen. Edwards (38th of 51, 19th of 48), but to "the right" of stalwarts such as Kennedy and Clinton. And we should note that Edwards is the less stable, over these two terms anyway, so who is the malleable, finger-in-the-wind waffler?

QUIBBLE: Any fool can ask a question that ten wise men cannot answer: Dr. Poole bases his rankings on all recorded roll call votes, including the straight party-line organizational votes - for example, all Republicans voted for Bill Frist as Leader, and for the various Republican committee chairpersons. My suspicion is that the results give a good ranking within parties (so Kerry is really a centrist Dem), but the border between Republican and Democrat on substantive votes is blurrier than these results suggest. Objectivity and simplicity might suffer, but has this been looked at?

UPDATE: Nothing like the power of an idea whose time is coming - Dan Drezner has many links on this.

The Best Of Bob Dole

Life after losing. OK, one excerpt:

...his [CNN election] commentary is laconic, droll and unflinchingly pragmatic.

Asked by Mr. King on Feb. 3 what he thought of Howard Dean's saying he would stay in the race "all the way to Florida" (which has a March 9 primary) even though he had not won a single state, Mr. Dole replied: "Well, I used to say that, too, and I didn't really mean it. Now he may mean it, but if you don't have any money, and don't have a state where you can win to pick up a little momentum, after a while it's like W. C. Fields said one time: Try, try again, but then give up. Don't make a damn fool of yourself." (Dr. Dean ended his campaign Feb. 18.)

There's more.

Where Are The Kerr-Bears?

The Deaniacs were famous for firing off letters to wayward editors and returning them to the path of truth; the Clarkoholics were also pretty well organized, and even tracked me down in my remote corner of the Blogosphere.

But where are the Kerr-bears to rally for their man John (uhh, the taller, much older looking John)? Plenty of mainstream Dem bloggers seem happier bashing Bush than they do cheering their soon-to-be annointed one. However, loathing the other guy is not at all the same as liking your own. And I know the feeling, since, around here, Kerry bashing is a delightful break from the worries of the day, while defending Bush is a bit of a burdensome chore. Not to say I won't do it - I floss lots of days, too - but I am sort of wincing while I try to make a bit of progress. Defending Bush, that is.

So, I wonder about the depth of support amongst Kerry "supporters". Where are the Kerr-bears, and why don't they seem to Care-a-lot?

MORE: No, "Kerr-ydiots" won't do. But we invite suggestions.

UPDATE: The Mysterious Beldar suggests "KerryKazis".

Volokh Joins Taranto And Ponnuru

I have been calling it the "Ponnuru Amendment", cleverly based on the date I noticed it, and it seems to be the gay-marriage compromise of choice. James Taranto of the WSJ is here, and references his proposal from last September, with suggested language; Prof. Volokh suggests this:

No part of this Constitution shall be interpreted as requiring any state, or the federal government, to recognize or allow same-sex marriages.

Andrew Sullivan suggested something similar:

If all legal precedent fails, if DOMA is struck down, if one single civil marriage in Massachusetts is deemed valid in another state, without that other state's consent, I will support a federal constitutional amendment that would solely say that no state is required to recognize a civil marriage from another state.

The conservative compromise coalesces!

Could language like this actually emerge from the Congress? It doesn't go nearly far enough for the hard core anti-gay marriage crowd, but it may be the best they can achieve, and it does provide the protection they claim to want from activist judges. Half a loaf?

And we wonder about Mr. Sullivan's point that there is simply no Federal issue at hand. Surely someone has considered the following scenario, which strikes this layman as painfully possible:

(1) California State Courts strike down Mayor Newsom's bold interpretation of the California constitution;

(2) Having failed in the California Supreme Court, Mayor Mewsom appeals to the federal courts for relief on fourteenth amendment grounds of equal protection;

(3) The Ninth Circuit, not always a model of judicial restraint, takes inspiration from Loving v. Virginia and finds that restrictions against gay marriage fail;

(4) On to the Supreme Court!

Is this at all plausible? I don't mind guessing that the Ninth Circuit would find for the pro-gay marriage side; I would also be inclined to guess that the current Supreme Court would overturn them. But I am curious to learn whether some heavy talent has grappled with this.

Kerry On The Couch

Mickey ponders the question of John "Coin-toss" Kerry's political courage. Here is the LA Weekly; here is Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Globe:

At the age of 25, John Kerry's courage was indisputable. Now, at age 60, it is more or less undetectable. Ouch.

And Christopher Hitchens, appearing on MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews, bared his claws when discussing Kerry's position on gay marriage:

MATTHEWS: ...Can you grasp—I tried to—John Kerry‘s position on this issue.

HITCHENS: No, I don‘t get his position at all.

But, I mean, I think he—he looks like a dog being washed when this subject comes up, as you know.

Meow.

More On Gay Marriage

Ms. Bumiller of the Times thinks Bush has said his piece, and wants out.  Since that matches our guess, we will seize on it gleefully.

Both Sides Court Black Churches in the Debate Over Gay Marriage:

...As debate escalates around same-sex marriage, advocates on both sides are busily seeking support from the same source: black clergy members. Though their pitches are polar opposites, their motives are largely the same. Each seeks the perceived moral authority and the sheen of civil rights that black religious leaders could lend to each cause.

But the aggressive outreach is rife with complications. Neither white conservatives nor gay-rights advocates have had great success in sustaining broad alliances with black churches in the past.

The fact that many black Christians are both politically liberal and socially conservative makes them frustratingly difficult to pigeonhole in a political environment in which, many pundits contend, voters are cleanly split along ideological lines. Many blacks opposed to gay marriage, for example, support equal benefits for gays as a matter of economic justice.

And here is a guy who can deliver a quotable quote:

"If the K.K.K. opposes gay marriage, I would ride with them," said the Rev. Gregory Daniels, organizer of the Chicago event, taking a far more provocative stance than the vast majority of black — or white — clergy members speaking out on the issue.

We assume that he is black.  Or about to resign in disgrace.

The story also mentions the black ministers in Boston, noted earlier.

Senators Kerry and Edwards were asked about this at the Democratic candidates debate on Sunday.  We excerpt the transcript below:

Academy Awards - We Loved Them, But...

-- The formal tribute to Bob Hope was great. But I got a special kick out of Billy Crystal's opening monlogue and songs, which could have been written for and performed by Bob Hope. I know it's Billy Crystal's thing, too - maybe that's why they are the two longest running hosts.

-- Putting Catherine Zeta Jones up as the first presenter was genius - every subsequent woman looked like a frump, and the viewers who went to bed early missed nothing! OK, we will relent and endorse Nicole Kidman and Charlize Theron. My wife thought Julia Roberts picked a bad time to reprise her Erin Brockovich role - what was her hair-stylist thinking about those roots?

-- We love Lord of the Rings, but in the Song category, "The End of the Rainbow" from the little-known "A Mighty Wind" was my pick.

In God We Trust... A Lot of The Time

In the closing scramble of the Democratic candidates debate, John "Coin-toss" Kerry manages to come down on both sides what should have been an easy question from Elisabeth Bumiller of the NY Times:

BUMILLER: Really fast, on a Sunday morning, President Bush has said that freedom and fear have always been at war, and God is not neutral between them. He's made quite clear in his speeches that he feels God is on America's side.

Really quick, is God on America's side?

KERRY: Well, God will -- look, I think -- I believe in God, but I don't believe, the way President Bush does, in invoking it all the time in that way. I think it is -- we pray that God is on our side, and we pray hard. And God has been on our side through most of our existence.

Man, is this guy a long-time, big-time professional politician, or what?  Memo to Kerry staff:  The questions will get progressively more difficult; if your candidate is intent on having an authentic moment, let him shout something like "Yankees Suck!", and hope that Hillary! will help repair the damage.  However, if he really has doubts about God's positioning vis a vis the USA, he had best keep them to himself.

There is an easy answer to this question.  Johnny On the Spot Edwards had his hand up, and was called on immediately; George Bush has heard this before, from Edwards, and was paying attention; Ronald Reagan knew it, and folks familiar with wars other than Vietnam, such as the Civil War or WWII, also knew it.  Let's go to Senator Edwards:

BUMILLER: Senator?

EDWARDS: Well, there's a wonderful story about Abraham Lincoln during the middle of the Civil War bringing in a group of leaders, and at the end of the meeting one of the leaders said, "Mr. President, can we pray, can we please join in prayer that God is on our side?" And Abraham Lincoln's response was, "I won't join you in that prayer, but I'll join you in a prayer that we're on God's side."

Not a trick question.  But not easy, if you haven't thought about it.  We serve God's plan, not vice versa.

MORE:  Yes, that seems to tarnish the "Animatronic Lincoln" theory.  James Lileks has thoughts and quotes; John Kerry addressed his spirituality at the start of the debate; and we look for Bush "constantly invoking" God in his State of the Union Addresses.