Brian Beutler

Uncaffeinated, pre-Argentina blogging

As a handful of you probably know, I'm leaving tomorrow (on, in fact, a jet plane) for a semi-extended stay in Argentina (provided U.S. Customs doesn't know a few things about me). I'll be writing, I hope, about international criminal justice and the trials of that country's junta leaders. Hopefully I'll keep updating my blog while I'm down there. That's the plan for now. But moving to a different hemisphere turns out to be a pretty labor-intensive undertaking, and I fear I'm falling behind. So it's quite possible that this is my last post from above the equator for a few weeks. If things cool down later in the day, I may return for some light pre-weekend blogging. But if not, farewell to all my friends. Thanks for reading.

Krauthammer's martian

From his op-ed in The Washington Post, Charles Krauthammer engages in what one might call "the inaccurate assumption of competence dodge":

Of all the arguments for pulling out of Iraq, the greater importance of Afghanistan is the least serious.

And not just because this argument assumes that the world's one superpower, which spends more on defense every year than the rest of the world combined, does not have the capacity to fight an insurgency in Iraq as well as in Afghanistan. But because it assumes that Afghanistan is strategically more important than Iraq.

Well, I would venture that the argument assumes "the world's one superpower...does not have the capacity to fight an insurgency in Iraq as well as in Afghanistan" because, quite simply, the world's one superpower does not have the capacity to fight an insurgency in Iraq as well as in Afghanistan. That, Dr. Krauthammer, has by now been borne out empirically. The same argument also assumes that Al Qaeda leadership is more likely to be found in Central Asia than in the Middle East. And, of course, it implies the small point that there was an actual moral case to be made (and there remains public support) for overthrowing the Taliban. 

Being a doctor, though, Krauthammer presents a "thought experiment":

Bring in a completely neutral observer -- a Martian -- and point out to him that the United States is involved in two hot wars against radical Islamic insurgents. One is in Afghanistan, a geographically marginal backwater with no resources and no industrial or technological infrastructure. The other is in Iraq, one of the three principal Arab states, with untold oil wealth, an educated population, an advanced military and technological infrastructure that, though suffering decay in the later years of Saddam Hussein's rule, could easily be revived if it falls into the right (i.e., wrong) hands. Add to that the fact that its strategic location would give its rulers inordinate influence over the entire Persian Gulf region, including Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the Gulf states. Then ask your Martian: Which is the more important battle? He would not even understand why you are asking the question.

I think if I were a martian, what I would actually suggest to Krauthammer is exactly what he imagines I (a martian) ought to suggest. Iraq is important. Stay in Iraq. Then, after doing my part to keep the world's one superpower gasping and bleeding and unable to protect its allies or fight its enemies, I'd return to Mars to organize an invasion of my own.

Marijuarmulke

This is pretty hilarious. Apparently marijuana and Passover are incompatible if you're an orthodox Jew, even if you're a huge pot head. If I had to fast all day, though, I don't know how desirous I'd be of a drug that made me really really hungry. Mainly for all sorts of non-Kosher foods.

The Yglesias plan...

...is one specific incarnation of the Beutler plan--which might more accurately be called the Reid-Pelosi plan. But you get the idea.

The D.C. franchise

More New York Times linking!

The article, by Bob Herbert, is all about how D.C. deserves equal representation in congress. I agree! I've gotta say though, that case can be made on its own merits and Herbert spends a lot of his time railing against the Bush administration (and the government at large) for various other sins. 

(This cartoon, which appeared in the Washington City Paper last week sums up pretty well the point I think Herbert is trying to make.)

Big government conservatism

Read David Brooks, Republocrat extraordinaire.

This, of course, would mean an entirely new tax ethos for the GOP. For a point of reference, here's Ezra's older take on the issue.

Conventional wisdom: new vs. old

Link of the day.

No one has seemed more surprised by the Democrats’ success in pushing an exit strategy for Iraq than the Democrats.

Their aggressiveness and unity on a major foreign-policy challenge to the president is a striking change for a party that has, on many occasions over many years, seemed to be on the defensive on national security issues.

In fact, for much of the post-Vietnam era, the Republican advantage on those issues has been a defining feature of American politics. Many Democrats felt they needed to prove, again and again, that their party was tough enough to defend the nation’s interests — to fight the notion, often stoked by Republicans, that Democrats were the party of George McGovern and the nuclear freeze.

My immediate instinct when reading media analyses of the national security policies of the two main parties is to cringe. But these lead paragraphs sound about right, and seem to imply that Democrats are beginning to feel more sure footed about the revolutionary idea that "defending the nation's interests" does not necessarily require being "tough enough".

That's not to say that the change is permanent. It's easy to be unified against something as bloody (and as unpopular) as the Iraq war. It's a fact that seems to embolden analysts into suggesting that, to maintain their advantage, Democrats should invent problems that require toughness so that they can solidify their foreign policy bona fides:

The broader question is whether the war forges an enduring change in the Democratic Party, its stance and its credibility on national security. Many strategists are already warning that over the long haul, it is not enough to be antiwar: the Democrats need a strong, affirmative vision of foreign policy.

“If getting out of Iraq defines entirely who the Democrats are on national security, then over the long run, it will be a disaster,” said Matt Bennett, a co-founder of Third Way, a moderate Democratic group. Rather, Iraq needs to be part “of a larger strategy aimed at showing how to protect America’s national security interests,” he said.

Fortunately the author of this article helps offset Bennett's bullshit with some more sophisticated insights from Gary Hart. For those insights, click the link. But really: the suggestion that it will be disastrous for Democrats if they succeed in extricating us from the howling chaos of Iraq is absurd. The idea that, to forestall that disaster, the Democrats should...I dunno...plan to invade Iran is dangerous. And the fact that a think tank like Third Way has any traction with the Democratic party on foreign policy is astonishing.

More war and Democrats

The Guardian asked me to flesh out the below post on the supplemental for their newish site Comment is Free, so I'll link to that, because I think--having more time devote to clarity and background--I made the point more clearly.

Keep in mind that, though it's impossible to disentangle the Democratic strategy on Iraq vis a vis Iraq from their strategy on Iraq vis a vis elections in America, these people are on record. Reid and Nancy Pelosi both have stated their personal positions on the war. Positions that happen to be identical to Kucinich's. So when people criticize Democrats for thinking of their own electability when advancing their slow poking strategy, they should keep in mind three things: 1). That it's no secret who believes what about the war; 2). That because both houses are so evenly divided, building consensus is extremely important; and 3). That the strategy is itself not particularly popular. 

This isn't, to me, about party solidarity. I just happen to think that the Democratic leadership is doing this because they know their options well, and they have concluded that this is the only one that might possibly work before Bush leaves office. And at the very least, nobody will be able to say they completely ignored the issue.

Activist judging

From The Opinionator comes a study on the Eliot Nesses in the U.S. Attorney corps.

Key tidbit: “Data indicate that the offices of the U.S. Attorneys across the nation investigate seven (7) times as many Democratic officials as they investigate Republican officials, a number that exceeds even the racial profiling of African Americans in traffic stops,”

And you thought there was a problem here!

More supplemental

This is a big deal. Here's how Kevin put it, before the votes were in and the deadline language was allowed to stay: "when that happens, George Bush really will be alone, finally forced to make public his commitment to staying in Iraq forever. That will -- finally -- be the beginning of the end, because the public simply isn't on his side anymore."

Precisely. A lot of people were pretty upset at the beginning of this Congress by what seemed like the Democrats' fecklessness. I was one of them. And I can remember at least 336,298 segments of The Daily Show dedicated to lambasting the "non-binding resolution" "expressing disapproval".

But now I've come to believe that their strategy is the only one that will work. Effectively, they've had three choices. The first, I suppose, would have been to do nothing. But that was obviously a non-starter, given all the reasons Democrats were elected in the first place. The second option would have been for the leadership to, from day one, stand behind strong bills. Bills that, in their substance, would have put an end to this mess. (Bills like Russel Feingold's, for instance.) It's frustrating, but those bills don't pass. And they don't get the Gordon Smiths and Chuck Hagels of the world on to your side.

So instead, they picked a third strategy: Keep hacking away. Make Republicans vote no. Make them say, "I want this war to continue." Make them say, with a straight face, "I want the president in charge." Make them answer to reporters and constituents. These people don't have epiphanies. They will not go from a pro-war position to Feingold's position over night. But they will ultimately be nudged, as they have been, into supporting incremental improvements like dates-certain. Then it's up to the president to veto those bills, alienating himself from members of his own party and from the public at large.

And then we can all watch in quiet relief as the wheels come off.

When in doubt, turn to Wikipedia

As both a blogger and a (once and future) political reporter, I can help Matt with this one: "I really do enjoy all the blogosphere in-jokes and so forth and would miss them if they went away, so maybe the only thing to do is educate, educate, educate. So have at it, what's an authoritative definition of "concern troll" we can offer up to Time's crack team of political reporters."

And it's only fitting that the answer comes from a place beloved by both bloggers and their nemeses in the press corps. Wikipedia. The hallowed common ground.

Here's the whole entry. It gives a solid definition, a relevant example, and advice on how to spot a concern troll when you're looking into its lying eyes.

"A concern troll is also a fictitious online identity whose proclaimed beliefs are not those its creator really believes and is trying to push.

The concern troll posts in web forums devoted to its declared point of view (for example, Democrats or fans of the Prius), and attempts to sway the group's actions or opinions while claiming to share their goals but with some "concerns".

For example, in 2006 a top staffer for Congressman Charlie Bass (R-NH) was caught posing as a "concerned" supporter of Bass's opponent Democrat Paul Hodes on several liberal NH blogs, using the pseudonyms "IndieNH" or "IndyNH." "IndyNH" was "concerned" that Democrats might just be wasting their time or money on Hodes, because Bass was unbeatable.

Suspicion of concern trolls is hard to verify without clearcut information about the IP number from which their posts originate, as there are people who naturally behave in such a manner.

Hawking Harold's heady harticle

I know that blogging has not quite wound its way into my DNA just yet, but Ezra asked me to help him take a vacation, and what better way to start than by suggesting you all read his boss's op-ed, which suggests four explanations for the curious fact that the Republicans have been so brazenly corrupt and out of touch in the months after the election:

What gives with the Republicans? How have they -- not just in the White House but in Congress, too -- become so detached from reality?

There are, I think, four possible, partial explanations. The first is Rudy-ex-machina-- the hope that the party will nominate somebody who is not perceived to be part of their current mess and who will sweep them back into power no matter how big a hole they may now be digging for him. The second is a strategy to make it impossible for the Democrats to pass any legislation, and then run against the do-nothing Democrats.

The third is that the alternative reality conveyed by the Republican media -- Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and their ilk -- has created a Republican activist base that is genuinely not reality-based, and from which the current generation of Republican pols is disproportionately drawn. And the fourth, pertaining specifically to the inability of the administration to stop politicizing government, is that good government is just not in their DNA. Bush and Rove are no more inclined to create a government based on such impartial values as law and science than they are to set up collective farms.

Allow me to suggest a fifth reason, which is, I suppose,  related to Harold's point about the Republican base. The Republicans have spent--depending upon when you start the clock--as few as six or as many as a dozen years advancing a broken system of government and holding their oversight priorities in contempt. Now they're busted, and--like children--plan to pretend that nothing mischievous has been going on. They're worried that they'll lose that base if, on the heels of their first major political loss, they put their hands in the air and say, "yep, it was all a scam."

Pleading the fifth

I really have enjoyed the news reports about the letter sent from the attorney for Monica Goodling to the Senate Judiciary Committee. I'm talking about the letter wherein she announced that Goodling (Alberto Gonzales' White House liaison) would be invoking her fifth amendment right against self-incrimination in the Purgegate scandal because of the "hostile and questionable environment" on Capitol Hill, and wherein she cited the perjury conviction of Scooter Libby as evidence of that "hostile and questionable environment."

Here's Bloomberg:

Monica Goodling, who helped coordinate the dismissals as the attorney general's White House liaison, will invoke her Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination, her lawyer said in a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee. She will refuse to be interviewed by committee lawyers and decline an invitation to testify at a public hearing, said attorney John M. Dowd, citing the "legally perilous'' environment of congressional probes.

This is actually important, though. This person works in the executive branch of the federal government and she's basically saying, without a hint of irony, "I'm not going to testify because you will punish me when I, like Scooter, lie to your faces".

More spending bill

I think it behooves us to remember that several weeks ago a vote on a similar measure (one that would have set basically the same timeline we see in the supplemental) went down 48-50. (That was thanks to the defections of Senators Pryor, Nelson, and Lieberman. Gordon Smith voted with the Democrats.) That was actually a cloture vote. It needed 60 yeas and that would simply have moved the bill to the floor of the Senate where it would need 51. The supplemental will go straight to the floor of the Senate, so 60 votes won't be necessary. But 48 is less than 51.

Fun congressional procedure

On Matt's question about the Iraq spending bill and defunding the troops: As I understand it, on appropriations matters if the president vetoes a budget Congress usually passes a continuing resolution that allows government services (in this case the Department of Defense, I suppose) to operate until a new version of the spending bill is passed or the continuing resolution expires. This isn't required, but is incredibly common. And is a de facto way for the president (or the Congress) to avoid charges of abandoning troops in the field.

Ah, the quiet streets of Baghdad

From Calling All Wingnuts, John McCain offers the reassuring news that, despite news reports of explosions, beheadings, and other untidy episodes, some parts of the city are actually safe enough to walk around. I actually bet that, if he were to walk around in Baghdad, he'd have bodyguards and he'd sneak some kevlar underneath his suit. But for the rest of us, that, of course wouldn't be necessary. Also, on the idea that the "terrorists will follow us home if we leave", does anybody imagine them chasing us down in a pickup truck with banjo music blaring out the windows? Or is that just me?

House passes U.S. Attorney legislation

Legislative reporting sentence of the day: Yesterday, the House of Representatives passed its version of a piece of legislation originally sponsored by Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) which overturns a PATRIOT Act provision that allows the president to appoint U.S. Attorneys without congressional approval.

What's particularly good about this move is that it retroactively applies to the eight U.S. Attorneys that President Bush appointed to replace the other eight U.S. Attorneys that he dismissed so unceremoniously.

So... again... will he sign?

What you don't notice

What you don't notice when you grow up in paradise (Southern California) is how quickly flowers bloom when the weather turns nice. I've surmised that that's because the weather's almost always nice in Southern California. Which, now that I think about it, is a pretty banal observation.

What does vicious mean?

I watched the Althouse rant that Ezra pointed to and thought to myself, "Self, you've read a bunch of TAPPED posts in your life. Perhaps even some about Ann Althouse. Can you remember any that were particularly, as she put it, 'vicious' to her?" I answered no to this question, but decided to double check.

It turns out that, by taking the bold step of searching Google, one can find a mighty dozen links to Prospect blog threads that use the word "Althouse". Of those, a slightly-less-mighty three contain the word "Althouse" in the meat of the post. They are here, here, and here . (The remaining posts contain the word "Althouse" in the comment threads only.)

Now it's true that, of those four posts, none says overtly nice things about Althouse. In his post, Scott implies that he doesn't respect Althouse. And Linda calls her a "conservative diva" (which bloggingheads may have just validated). But none of that seems particularly vicious. As for why she thinks calling the Jessica Valenti breast controversy the "Jessica Valenti breast controversy" is unfair--and why the topic itself is not appropriate subject matter for bloggingheads--I think the lady doth protest too much.

Update: I know that Ezra and Matt and Scott and others all have their own blogs. And they have probably been less charitable to Althouse in those venues. But TAPPED is it's own blog. And it is--perhaps--the least offensive site on the internet.

Update 2: I take it back. This is the least offensive site on the internet.

Racing towards a brick wall

Reading this article reminded me how stupid it is for people to argue against American (and western) changes to climate policy on the grounds that China and India aren't doing anything to help. I don't know exactly why I forgot that it's a stupid argument. But now I remember that I think it's stupid.

For one, only stupid people demand that we arbitrarily base our national imperatives on the (in this case disastrous) norms of other countries. I suppose we should altogether disavow our national opposition to genocide because those damn Sudanese insist on committing genocide.

But more importantly, if the governments of the world ultimately end up cooking the planet, then the stupid argument is that we might as well broil it rather than pan fry it. Which, while perhaps the right decision vis-a-vis tasty steak dinners, I think would actually prove to be a monstrous, destabilizing tactic.

After all, every additional, unnecessary cubic-unit of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere just makes all the more urgent and difficult to accomplish the steps we will need to take to (temporarily) cope with the changes wrought.

The Edwards non-opportunism problem

In the last few days, I (seemingly incorrectly) warned that conservative--and perhaps other--commenters would shamelessly hammer Edwards for not abandoning his campaign in light of his wife Elizabeth's incurable cancer relapse. That hasn't happened. Yet.

What has happened instead is that seemingly respectable--and much more visible--traditional media figures have kept that stink in the air. First, by insisting that the non-existent criticism of Edwards was actually existant criticism of Edwards, and then by demanding of Edwards a deeper explanation of his motives for staying in the race.

Taegan asks a good rhetorical question in his post. But I'm happy that Edwards steered clear of it.

On rights vs. Amnesty

The Economist has a thought provoking and, I think, ultimately wrong take on the role major human rights groups like Amnesty International have assumed in recent years.

Filtering out all of The Economist's glibness, the main points are:

some years ago [Amnesty] decided to follow intellectual fashion and dilute a traditional focus on political rights by mixing in a new category of what people now call social and economic rights....

Food, jobs and housing are certainly necessities. But no useful purpose is served by calling them “rights”. When a government locks someone up without a fair trial, the victim, perpetrator and remedy are pretty clear. This clarity seldom applies to social and economic “rights”. It is hard enough to determine whether such a right has been infringed, let alone who should provide a remedy, or how. Who should be educated in which subjects for how long at what cost in taxpayers' money is a political question best settled at the ballot box. So is how much to spend on what kind of health care....

And it could not be further from the truth. For people in the poor world, as for people everywhere, the most reliable method yet invented to ensure that governments provide people with social and economic necessities is called politics. That is why the rights that make open politics possible—free speech, due process, protection from arbitrary punishment—are so precious. Insisting on their enforcement is worth more than any number of grandiloquent but unenforceable declarations demanding jobs, education and housing for all.

It's true that politics are the place where big changes in economic and social justice arise. But Amnesty's role is to bring international attention to issues of injustice--whether they be the kind The Economist cares about or not--with the hope that the pressure inherent in that attention inspires the perpetrators of those injustices to change their politics. It's not particularly their role to incite internal revolt.

The other problem with their argument is that there's nothing really empirical to back it up. Amnesty can't be all things to all countries--and I don't know if or how they organize their efforts country by country--but what's definitely true is that, sometimes, a stiff critique (by a group like Amnesty) of economic and social policies in one country will actually help more people than will a stiff critique of anti-libertarian policies in another. The gravest injustices are different, for instance, in North Korea than they are in Egypt, or than they were in apartheid South Africa and so on.

Amnesty has never committed itself to be the Global Civil Liberties Union. What Amnesty says they hope to advance is, "a world in which every person enjoys all of the human rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights standards."

That Declaration states no ideological preference between, say, Article 5 and Article 13. And while it would be a good thing for everybody if Amnesty had near-infinite resources to devote equally to all major abrogations of the Universal Declaration, that's just not reality. And so they allocate their resources to bringing to light the injustices they think they can best forestall.  It may be for that reason that (to the Economist's dismay) Amnesty takes up the cause of migrant birth certificates in the Dominican Republic. But Amnesty may be able to do more to improve the lives of Haitians in the Dominican Republic than they can do to enforce the rights Castro's political prisoners.

And that, too, doesn't mean they're not also focusing on other individual liberties issues such as America's detainee policies or Russia's destruction of free speech.

Tom Maguire, friend

First, it's good to know that Tom Maguire's (seemingly) reading this relatively unknown little blog.

For starters, he pointed out a typo. That's useful, right? And, in my gainfully-employed days before the Libby verdict, I had a blast working with him on this article. If you read it, and I hope you do, you'll find it fascinating and you'll notice that Tom got a lot of things spectacularly wrong. But it was a fun exercise nonetheless.

Additionally, though, he makes the following points in response to my Hillary post below:

"I concede that sexism--both latent and overt--is part of the reason she polls so low with men" Are you conceding that you yourself are sexist? Or are you graciously conceding that, despite the high-minded example of those such as yourselves, *other* men are sexist? I am quite sure it is not your place to make that concession on behalf of others. However, if you want to concede your suspicion that sexism is a factor, that would not antagonize me.

I think this point, boiled down, is "sexism only exists or can only be identified when people are willing to admit that they are sexists." Which, while hilarious, is actually nonsense.

More Tom:

"As pernicious as gender-driven antagonism is to determining who should be president, I think gender-driven camaraderie is, in its own right, harmful to answering the same question." Good point.

I AGREE!

More Tom:

For my money, MS. Franke-Ruta seems to be telling us that TAPPED has: (a) a bunch of male writers who are just average guys, with average education, average political views (and average blue-collar jobs?), and (b) a bunch of women pundits too shy to actually express their views and risk a confrontation. Cancel my subscription.

Interesting. But the point of my post is that Garance (Ms. Franke-Ruta) is, ahem, wrong. So if Tom disagrees, and is more persuaded by her argument, then I suppose, yes, he should cancel his subscription. I don't think that's the case though (see second blockquote). I, for the record, am an ardent supporter of people renewing (or beginning anew) their subscriptions to the Prospect.

 

In which I am politically incorrect

Matt pointed me to this post by Garance, which he found to be "a bit of a low blow." It's not my fight, but I'll way weigh (oops) in anyhow and say that I agree with Matt, and for reasons that have entirely nothing to do with our...mutual gender.

I understand--as do, I would guess, most thinking people--that gender (along with a million other factors, socially constructed or otherwise) affects how people interpret things. But that goes both ways, doesn't it? Garance lays down this tidbit to imply that Matt, Ezra, Sam, and the mostly-male punditocracy antagonize Hillary Clinton because she's a woman: "Today, the Gallup Poll reported that 'Clinton's highest level of support is among 18- to 49-year-old women; her lowest, among 18- to 49-year-old men.' And so, with all due respect to Sam and Matt and Scott and Ezra and Mark, their views on this site must be understood as unavoidably a reflection of their demographics, as well as their judgment."

I concede that sexism--both latent and overt--is part of the reason she polls so low with men, and why some male pundits attack her, which undoubtedly adds to the low polling numbers among men etc. etc.

But let me also be offensive and suggest that if it's fair to conclude that Hillary polls so poorly with men (including Matt, Ezra, and Sam) in some part, because she is a woman, then it also fair to suggest that Hillary polls so well with women (including Garnace) in some part...also because she is a woman?

As pernicious as gender-driven antagonism is to determining who should be president, I think gender-driven camaraderie is, in its own right, harmful to answering the same question.

Iraq supplemental and pragmatism

Matt says pretty much everything relevant.

The Democratic base is sorely disappointed with what they see as the Congress' cowardice...or at least what they feel is Democrats' lack of unity or competence to end the war.

But that's not really fair. It needs to be pointed out that if the House was led by somebody more ideological than Pelosi--say, Kucinich--or if the whole progressive caucus shaped Democratic policy, then we'd probably be in the same position we're in now. Sure, there might, in that parallel universe, be articles of impeachment and more subpoenas, etc. But for Congress to end the war, legislation has to be passed. Veto proof. And an ideological band of Democrats wouldn't do any better at convincing Republicans to switch their Iraq votes than pragmatists like Pelosi have been. (Remember, Pelosi and Kucinich have both made clear what they would do if they had all the power in the world to end the war, and they're on the exact same page.)

The Reid-Pelosi strategy--of pecking and pecking and pecking away at the obstacles with votes and public hearings, etc.--at first seemed pretty impotent to me. But I can't imagine what else they'd do. And to recommend instead that Democrats do nothing, or stage symbloic votes on Kucinich's (or, say, Feingold's) legislation makes the anti-war cause look dead. And it doesn't have any of the benefits of the pragmatist strategy, including the possibility that the pragmatist strategy might, very slowly, be working.

More Hagel

It should also be noted that Hagel, by speaking up against the war, is bucking just about his entire party (definitely his own, conservative wing of it). I wish he'd vote better (see resolution, non-binding). But even speaking out takes courage.

Hillary by comparison is taking a perfectly milquetoast position as far as her caucus is concerned.

Hagel v Clinton

From Ari Melber at The Nation:

In a conference call with major donors Thursday, former President Bill Clinton challenged the netroots for backing Barack Obama as an anti-war candidate, according to The Hill newspaper.

While avoiding any direct criticism of Obama's statements, Clinton said it was "ludicrous" to treat "Hillary and Obama's positions on the war as polar opposites." Then he tried to fact-check the netroots:    

"This dichotomy that's been set up to allow [Obama] to become the raging hero of the anti-war crowd on the Internet is just factually inaccurate."

The Hill reports that Clinton continued, "It's just not fair to say that people who voted for the resolution wanted war," and he argued that Hillary's defense of her war vote is similar to Chuck Hagel, who remains popular in the antiwar community.

First, I should say that, as Matt Yglesias has pointed out repeatedly, I don't think Hillary Clinton's going to get very far pretending she's as antiwar as Barack Obama (or even as antiwar as John Edwards). It's a pretty embarrassing posture for her to take, actually.

But more substantively, Bill Clinton's comparison of Hillary and Chuck Hagel on the Iraq war--which he made on the basis of their concordance on a single vote--is a little bit ridiculous and a little bit maddening. Let me say first that if it came down to the two of them in the presidential race, I'd still throw my support to Hillary. I believe that both candidates would end the war rapidly, I don't think either of them would be able to conduct a particularly belligerent foreign policy in the 4 (or even 8) years after Iraq, and Hagel's pretty wretchedly conservative on almost every other issue. 

But in the meantime, words matter, and Hillary's words show her to be a more war-hungry public figure than Chuck Hagel. Hillary has, it's been noted before, supported every war of her adult life. On Israel, Hagel talks about the importance of establishing a Palestinian state, while Hillary says that the interests of Israel are one and the same as the interests of the United States. On Iran, while Hagel emphasizes the importance of diplomacy, Hillary says that Iran can not be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. Neither of one's positions necessarily contradict the other's, but their postures (words) are the issue, and hers rankle me and will rankle the rest of the free world.

That's why Hagel has support among Democratic anti-war activists. Because he's more anti-war than Hillary Clinton. Hagel probably also has support within the Club of Growth for his tax policies and within the pro-life community because of his stance on abortion. That's what activists do. They march with those who agree with them.

More Edwards

She has suffered a relapse and he--likely at her behest--has decided to stay in the race. I think that's courageous. But, as per my below post, let's keep an eye out for accusations of opportunism and callousness.

Update: So far right wing commenters seem to be handling the Edwards thing with class. I like this from Jonah Goldberg, though:

I think it would be in very poor taste to second guess the Edwardses on this.  I also think it would be in very poor taste if Edwards exploits this in some overly political way. But he hasn't done that and may never do it. He had to give a press conference. And, from what I hear he did it with class and dignity. So, again, as long as the facts are what they are, leave them alone.

Kind words indeed, but--note--taylored to remind people that: 1). he reserves the option of hammer ing Edwards for opportunism at some point in the future; and 2). conservatives shouldn't get ahead of themselves and bash him just yet... after all, no need to risk the backfire that often follows expressing excessively vile criticism. 

Yoo said it!

Ahh the pristine legal mind of John Yoo, law professor at my alma mater and torture memo writer extraordinaire. On tap today from him is a password-protected op-ed in the Wall Street Journal.

Opening line: "Once again, the Bush administration has shot itself in the foot."

Good news. Some fair analysis to follow, no doubt.

Second line: "If the Justice Department had just removed individual U.S. attorneys one by one, just for a change, no controversy would have erupted."

Basically, his point is that the Bush team isn't shady enough.

But the most important quote from the piece--that everybody should carry away with them to better understand the mindset of this administration--is this one: "But presidents need to have their own people in place in order to promote a consistent, national agenda. While U.S. attorneys can gather better information on, and react more swiftly to, local conditions, the Constitution still gives the president the responsibility to govern the activities of all U.S. officials."

It's funny how, when they think nobody's reading closely, conservative thinkers will slip up and say that judges should be promoting an agenda. It's funny, because there's nothing really wrong with what he wrote except for the fact that Bush's agenda is really terrible. Also, that it seems--for almost cliched reasons--that unitary-executive practitioners excercise their limitless authority just because they have limitless authority and their defenders don't ever seem to bother to ask whether that authority is being used in the best interest of the country. Not that I think John Yoo ever disagrees with the president... except about his insufficient shadiness.

Later there's a fun, unhinged rant about Patrick Fitzgerald, who it seems is an example of unanchored political appointees run amok. Yoo's unitary-executive legal theories are in wide disrepute and have facilitated torture and corruption at the highest level of government. So it's no surprise that, as punishment, he bears the Sysiphean burden of carrying an American Enterprise Institute sinecure by a chain around his neck.

Prince of Darkness

I wonder if Robert Novak feels like he's writing a police statement or a monograph about an ex-wife when he pens a column about the Plame case.

The former CIA employee's status is critical to the attempted political rehabilitation of former ambassador Joseph Wilson and his wife. The Democratic target always has been Karl Rove, President Bush's principal adviser. The purpose of last week's hearing was to blame Rove for "outing" Plame, in preparation for revoking his security clearance. Claims of a White House plot became so discredited that Wilson was cut out of Sen. John Kerry's presidential campaign by the summer of 2004. Last week's hearing attempted to revive a dormant issue. The glamorous Mrs. Wilson was depicted as the victim of White House machinations that aborted her career in intelligence.

He goes on--with shocking mendacity--to call into question just how covert a covert agent can be if she's not hiding in trees or being ferried from safe house to safe house or blowing tranquilizer darts into the necks of Al Qaeda operatives. Or something like that.

But while it's possible that the administration didn't violate the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, what's not particularly controversial any longer is whether there was a concerted effort to divulge her name and profession. That much is almost definitional. What's a little less clear is why Novak, who should know this case as well as anybody, is so fixated upon Rove. Yes, Rove seems to be as guilty as Libby. But the Queen of Hearts for Plame watchers is definitely not Rove. It's Cheney.

On subpoena power

Democrats are at the waters edge of issuing their first subpoenas since taking power this winter and my guess is they'll actually move forward.

New York Times:

“Trust me,” said Representative John Conyers Jr., the Michigan Democrat who is chairman of the Judiciary Committee. “We are not going to move in a reckless or angry or temperamental way at all.”

...

Senator Patrick J. Leahy, the Vermont Democrat who is the chairman of the panel, said Wednesday evening that he expected to win the authority to force the testimony. “Every day there are thousands of good, loyal Americans who stand in courtrooms, raise their right hand and swear to tell to truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth and are proud to do it,” Mr. Leahy said. “It is amazing that thousands of ordinary Americans can do it, but they are kind of special and they don’t have to.” Some Congressional Republicans said privately that the administration’s proposal might be a tough sell because many Americans would question why the officials were unwilling to talk under oath — a position the administration attributes to a desire to not set a precedent.

A couple things here. I think it's both wrong and a big mistake for Democrats to walk so softly. There are dozens of respected voices echoing Leahy and they're all undergirded by the words of the U.S. Attorneys themselves (the ones who were, you know, canned) who want to know why their careers were interfered with. They and the Democrats have the better of this fight.

But additionally, it's frustrating to realize that the only time Congress will even toy with the idea of using their (Constitutionally mandated) oversight powers is when the administration is completely punchdrunk.
There are a handful of other investigative arenas that are at least as subpoena-worthy (torture and the second Bybee memo leap to mind) as the U.S. Attorney case is. The point of issuing a subpoena is to be able to conduct a complete investigation, when that investigation is being obstructed and it would behoove Leahy, Conyers, and the rest to accept that that's what's happening and expose the people who have lied to them.

Torture, for instance, may poll disgracefully well with the public. But shady obstructionism and unaccountability do not. 

Kurtz <3 Gore

His appearances yesterday played well with the establishmentarians.

Edwards

If he's out for good, it's a shame. He has the most clear and progressive policy platform of the three majors, cherry-topped just this week by a really impressive cap-and-trade proposal.

If he's out for a few weeks, on the other hand, how long before sundry right-wing radio and TV hosts simultaneously make light of Elizabeth Edwards' health and suggest wryly that his campaign is cancer-baiting her for political gain? 45 minutes or so?

Closing thoughts

I think the confrontation with Inhofe reinvigorated Gore. He was looking REALLY BAD at first. But this format was much more suited to his professorial tendencies. He was able to go into more depth, and to speak more technically (which fine I suppose in this context, though he never spoke more technically than he did in An Inconvenient Truth, which is great). There were--Inhofe aside--fewer insane people to deal with. Bond and the sun spots didn't trip him up at all, and though Craig was at times acerbic, Gore killed him with kindness.

I'll say that, to me, his performance in the Senate equaled his showing in the House. Again, that's just my interpretation. Because if the media zeroes in on (or airs on repeat) the dust up with Inhofe--even though it was one of the most foul pieces of political opportunism I've ever seen or heard of--it won't play well with the public at all.

Carper

His question had something to do with how to weigh the "cost" of pollutants in a cap-and-trade system.

Gore, I think, said his solution is an auction based system of four different major pollutants, with more serious pollutants costing more money. But I missed most of this. (He wasn't supposed to ask a question... so I can't possibly be blamed. Not one bit.)

Cardin

Generally kind words for the former vice-president. Thanks for his leadership etc. etc.

Whitehouse

Gore encomium and thanks for the movie. Whitehouse's wife is a scientist... she's known this for a long long time.

Global warming's national security concerns: refugees from climate disasters, reliance on foreign energy. All will need to be reckoned with.

Thomas

Ok. They're in a huge rush now. Two minutes left, three people to go, then there are votes in the Senate. Boxer's laying down strict limits.

Gore's handling Thomas exactly as he should. Thomas is questioning his expertise and his ability to forecast future temperatures and on and on. Gore answers that he is speaking for the experts because he's blessed with this platform. That's different than saying he's falling back on consensus.

He handled the coupled nature of global warming and global warming emissions elegantly if somewhat technically.

Clinton

GREAT QUESTION:

Is there a contradiction between an economy-wide carbon tax and an economy-wide cap-and-trade system?

Gore: No. I favor doing both.

Also, Gore sounding off on how to incentivize clean building wherein the costs to builders offset by savings from efficiencies.

Clinton does some of Gore's work for him on the cute girl with the multiple sweaters. The cost of keeping her warm doesn't have to be expensive or particularly dirty.

Alexander

Tons of stuff, all covered before. Nuclear, coal, costs. Gore: this has to be economy-wide and will be nowhere near as expensive as people fear. Huh!

Baucus

Again on how to incorporate coal.

Gore on FICA<-->pollution tax swap. He says it's the best, but that cap-and-trade is decent, too. He sounds earnest. Maybe he'll make some headway today on legitimizing this issue in the congressional world.

Craig

He's hammering Gore on zeroing out the nuclear budget with Clinton [paraphrase Craig: an inquisitive look from you doesn't mean it's not true] and on Gore's contention that, as Craig put it, nuclear "is not a part of the solution."

Gore corrects: nuclear is part of the solution... just not a big one. Will respond later on zeroing out the nuclear budget (DOE). I don't know who's right here, though. Did Clinton and Gore zero out nuclear spending in the DOE budget without placing the same funding elsewhere?

Gore had kind words about Idaho.

Lieberman

Boxer introduced Lieberman as "another reunion".

To be fair to Lieberman, he could be worse on the issue. To be unfair to Lieberman, screw Lieberman.

Right out the gate Lieberman pitched the McCain-Lieberman bill. Said he thinks we've reached the political and industrial tipping point. Asking about the role of coal--specifically the tug-of-war between coal (or possible restrictions thereupon) and natural gas. Will that make natural gas too expensive?

Gore, in biblical language, politely disagrees with Lieberman that we've reached the political tipping point. Gore points to carbon sequestration and taxing. (He noted in his introductory remarks that his carbon tax-payroll tax swap is, at this point, a political non-starter.)

Isakson

Nuclear power, waste storage, cost of building, etc.

Lautenberg

Did you know he also has grandchildren? This is for them, too.

Good question: Have you spoken with the censored scientists who work for the government and whose reports have been tampered with?

Gore answered suitably briefly and sympathetically. Said he thinks it's morally wrong when non-experts with political briefs are allowed interfere with scientists whose conclusions are, um, inconvenient (damn!). Which, of course, is plainly true.

Bond

Bond is, of course, dubious of the possibile solutions. Pointing to a picture of a cute, cold, sweater-clad little girl whose family can't afford heating bills. Is carbon-neutrality fair to her (green energy green energy). Sun spot wingnut nonsense.

Gore handled the sunspot business fine. And handled the little girl fine. Supports LIHEAP (Low Income Heating Assistance Program). Though he didn't mention that there are clean ways to heat homes that should be ascendent.

Sanders

On the economic plusses of a new green economy. Recapture some auto industry market share, less money spent on cleaning. Same stuff as before on pluses and minus signs versus sines and cosines and Amory Lovins.

Warner

Gore's laying out strategy here. We can do R & D while we pick the low hanging fruit to lower emissions today. "We can start now with what we know to do... and then plan ahead so that within less than five years we can roll into [a] second generation" of technologies which will be much more powerful.

What about jobs? Warner is concerned about China and India. How do we persuade them to come on board?

He answered this very question about 700 times in the House.

Klobuchar

This is a bit redundant. Klobuchar is asking about technology. Gore is issuing another call to the government to pass legislation and that the steps we take don't have to harm the economy.

As it happens and I'm reading Bill McKibben's new book Deep Economy, which makes a strong case--as has been made elsewhere--that a smaller economy (globally) is absolutely necessary for reasons other than and including global warming. 

Inhofe v. Gore continued

Fortunately, Inhofe is toppling into his cantankerous, near-psychotic rambling.

He's citing random scientists who disagree with Gore and asking Gore if "you're right and all these scientists are wrong."

Gore has never sounded more sincere than when asking Inhofe to sit down for a breakfast with himself and a mutual friend of theirs. Not just so that he can chew out Inhofe, it seems, but because he knows how crucial it is to getting the Inhofes of the world on board.

Update: What's tripping up Gore is Inhofe's bullying, which makes Gore look bad, but makes Inhofe look bad, too. Gore's stuck on consensus again. It's correct, but it doesn't play well.

Update 2: Smackdown by Boxer. Three more minutes for Inhofe, then two minutes for Gore to answer.

Inhofe's asking Gore again if he'll change his way of life. Gore's answer this time is much better. "We are carbon neutral."

That was a bloodbath.

Inhofe v. Gore

Whoa! Inhofe's challenging Gore to offset his PERSONAL CARBON USAGE, lowering it to the level of the average American by this time next year.

Update: Gore's trying to dodge by talking about green energy. Boxer's coming to his defense.

OOH this is ugly. Totally unfair. But ugly.

Boxer's stepped in demanding Gore be allowed to answer questions. She took the gavel. "You don't do this. Elections have consequences."

Good for Boxer, but that looked very bad for Gore.

What if?

What if when confronted by Inhofe, Gore lashes out but strongly? If Gore responds to Inhofe's pseudo-scientific rambling by saying something like, "You must stop lying to the American people."

Would it play well?

Would he tank his presidential chances?

He looks less comfortable

But last time around he took a while to hit his stride.

Update: He must be pretty tired. And fortunately I think the only part of this that will really get major press is the back and forth with Inhofe. Let's hope he settles in.

Gore's opening, round two

His remarks are much less sentimental, more technical, comparisons between earth's atmosphere and the atmospheres of other planets. So far no comparisons to Thermopylae.

Update: This stuff is almost word for word from An Inconvenient Truth (with the exception of the IPCC references and the new data that 2006 was the hottest year in American history and that the hottest winter was... this winter. And the plug of course for Al Gore dot com

Update: Ok, he's on to Thermopylae. Forgive me I was wrong.

Here comes the rehash of the House testimony. His tone remains different. Perhaps because he doesn't know these guys as well.

Inhofe

His opening remarks are, I think a harbinger of the excruciating 15-minutes he will have to question Gore at the end of Gore's remarks. Dividing the debate between "alarmists" and "skeptics" and naming old "experts" who have now left Gore's side and citing astronomical costs and on and on.

Banal observation of the day II

The inconvenient truth is that jokes about the phrase "inconvenient truth" are neither convenient nor particularly funny.

Introductory remarks

Somewhat touching.

On to the Senate

I'm gonna try to live blog this one too, although  I expect it will be a little bit redundant. I'm particularly curious to see Gore v. Inhofe. But on redundancy, Inhofe is already snidely lashing out at Gore for not getting his paper testimony introduced 48-hours in advance. See what I mean?

Clearing up confusion

Joe Klein followed the live blogging over at Swampland.

Hard to tell just exactly what's going on, but it seems Gore has backed away from his prior support for a massive carbon tax-payroll tax swap...now he's limiting himself to a cap-and-trade system that will reduce co2 emissions by 90% in 2050. Which is an easier pill to sell than a tax (at least, front end), which may be an indication that Gore is...thinking politically? Hmm.

Two quick points. One, Gore didn't back away from the tax swap at all. Keep this in mind. His plan for a 90-percent reduction beats any of the bills in the Senate now and beats Edwards' new proposal. If anything I think this means it's LESS likely that Gore is thinking politically. His plan is sound, and the 80-percent number is sort of the magic number (at least as far as USCAP is concerned), but Edwards IS thinking politically. By definition. Gore, I'd argue, looks like he's thinking only about how to fix a huge, huge mess.

Last question

Question Fourteen: Whitfield (R-KY). If we only have a limited time, how do we address this problem?

Answer Fourteen: I've avoided setting timelines. But a year ago, the scientists I most respect concluded that if we don't act within 10 years, our ability to address the problem will be lost to us. If we lose the arctic ice cap completely--and we're losing it rapidly--the blue ocean underneath will become the biggest heat sink on the planet. Then, if in a hot world without an ice cap, Greenland "melts" and sea levels rise six or seven meters, we're all, um, screwed.

Man... I'm tired.

Update: He did pretty well. I'm not under any illusions. I know that even a serene and captivating performance by the worlds finest orator/climate expert wouldn't make a huge or immediate difference. But the Democrats' strategy for this congress is to peck and peck and peck away at these big issues with votes and testimony and celebrity figures like Gore until the doubters and obstructionists cede ground or look foolish. I'm not ready to discount that strategy yet. 

Gore was at times rambling, at times a prisoner to the word "consensus", seldom irritated, but never flummoxed, and ultimately he found an poised and statesmanlike stride. 

Markey

Markey will chair Pelosi's special committee on climate change. He asks the next question.

Question Thirteen: The National Academy of Sciences released a study noting that using existing technologies (not including hybrid technology) we can make average fuel economy 35-mpg. Discuss.

Answer Thirteen: Yes. We can. Also, it hasn't served us well to lower fuel economy standards. So "be careful what you lobby for." (Um. Yes.)

A kind conservative

Question Twelve: Bartlett of Maryland points out that conservative and conservation should be linked ideas and that one should be able to be a conservative without being an idiot. I'd like to agree! He's pointing out very important facts--Two percent of the worlds oil, use 25 percent of it, peak oil, etc. How can we get together on a global solution? The Chinese, he says, want help. Are we adequately reaching out to them?

Answer Twelve: Emphatically not reaching out to them. (Ok... he actually said, "I don't think we are." But I'm translating.) But we have no choice. We have to get them involved. And I (Gore) think they will.

(Many apologies for the inconsistent grammar here. When I use first person in these Q & A posts, I'm not speaking for myself, but losely translating the questioner and the respondent. I've tried to keep my comments in parentheses.)

Waxman's up

Question Eleven: Will my legislation (Safe Climate Act) introduced yesterday be a positive step?

Answer Eleven: Yes. You, Mr. Waxman, rock my ex-VP world.

More and more and... questions

Question Nine: John Barrow of Georgia. What do you say to people who argue that natural emissions overwhelm man made emissions in the greenhouse warming problem?

Answer Nine: Natural emissions--like volcanic emissions--are heavy particles and settle back out of the atmosphere quickly. CO2 is the problem.

Update:

Question Ten: Fred Upton (R-Auto Industry) You've been a bit down, haven't you, on nuclear energy? Yes? Yucca Mountain? What about all the new coal plants in China?

Answer Ten: I'm not a critic of nuclear energy, I'm just a skeptic of its viability in the market. True, China's five year plan--55 coal fired plants per year, and only three nuclear per year, but they see the same problems down the line as we do. So I'm all for nuclear power, but we need to address operator error and we can't build plants or store fuel when experts say it's a terrible danger.

More and more and more questions

Question Seven: Butterfield. Explain the effect of water vapor.

Answer Seven: Well, water vapor is a powerful greenhouse gas, but it's lifetime in the atmosphere is extremely short. But it's "a slave to CO2". As Carbon warms the earth, the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, of course, goes up. Technical question, well explained.

Follow Up Question: Can we level off at 450 ppm atmospheric carbon?

Follow Up Answer: Gore says he thinks the CURRENT concentrations are too high. Four-hundred-fifty would be catastrophic. (I agree. And it should be noted that the STRICTEST proposal in the senate--Sanders-Boxer--would level us off at 450. The McCain-Lieberman bill would take us to 550 ppm AND has giant nuclear incentives.)

Update:

Question Eight: Bob Inglis. (He's the most reasonable yet.) How do we save conservative principles (individual choice) in the Gore energy era? Also, should business leaders, or, say, my constituents benefits from a bipartisan consensus and get incentives to build a nuclear power plant over a coal plant? (Note, Duke Energy wants to build a nuclear plant in South Carolina, Inglis' home state.)

Answer Eight: Allow citizens to sell stored electricity back into the grid (go incentives!). Gore's pretty sanguine about nuclear energy. (I've got mixed feelings. I think he does too.)

More and more questions

Question Five: Nick Lampson of Texas--much reviled by the likes of Tom Delay. Will cutting down on global warming pollution improve breathable air quality.

Answer Five: Shorter Gore. DUH!

Lampson Follow Up: How do we make carbon capture/clean coal viable?

Follow Up: Well. Um. We need to store it safely.

I've gotta admit, it's more fun when the Republicans are asking the questions.

Update:

Question Six: HASTERT. But what about all the taxes? Shouldn't we let the market work it all out? (He admits that the debate on climate change is over, even if he's not terribly willing to admit that the problem is largely anthropogenic.) Also, what about all our coal energy? Don't we need to use it? After all I, Dennis Hastert, have grandchildren who need energy! (Not, presumably, to fly to DC for the page program.) Lastly, are we imperiling jobs here?

Answer Six: Don't raise taxes. Shift burden from working people and small business people and put the burden on polluters. A new, clean economy will create new jobs--presumably the people of Dearborn will get some of these jobs. But the market alone won't take care of this problem. Not fast enough.

More questions

Third Question: Bouchard, Democrat from Virginia, asks whether our approach should be cap and trade given the problems Europeans have had instituting the same.

Third Answer: I support cap and trade, and Europe is actually meeting its protocols.

Update:

Fourth Question: Mr. Gore, you're wrong on the costs. My question, if China and India don't take similar action, will the United States be at a competitive disadvantage to those countries? (Kind of a softball for such an acerbic old Republican).

Fourth Answer: We should lead by example. Poorer countries will follow.

Gore is in top form now.

Q & A

First question: Please elaborate on the money-saving, productivity-boosting potential of strongly addressing climate change.

First answer: Uh oh... trigonometry? Ok, well recovered. And he's acknowledged that in some spheres there are costs to attacking the problem. AND he's pointing out to Republicans that, in England, the Tories and Labor are fighting--to come up with the best solutions. "The debate on the science is over!"

But he was meandering and not as persuasive as he should have been.

Update:

Second question: Barton, attacking An Inconvenient Truth, is disingenuously suggesting that warming drives carbon levels and not the other way around, that Gore's estimates on sea-level rises are wrong, and that malaria is not a warm-weather disease (they have it in Siberia after all), and that Kyoto-like policies will raise electricity prices with little concomitant benefit to the environment. After all that, the question is whether the CAFE standards that Gore supports are closer to Japan's (45 mpg) or China's (30 mpg).

Second Answer: Gore trying pretty valiantly to address all of Barton's misdirection, but Barton is interrupting, asking for an answer to the very narrow actual question about CAFE standards. That's some sleazy questioning. (Sir, you are known to me to be a liar and a fraud and many suggest that you've even harbored illicit fantasies about your mother. My question: Do you like the Yankees this year?)

Ultimately I think that went better for Gore than for Barton. But come on!

Kyoto demonized

Gore's making an interesting point now--that while he's in favor of Kyoto, he's aware that it's very name at this point is a "political liability".

He's suggesting de facto compliance with Kyoto and creating a new, tougher treaty to be enacted and advanced by the new president in 2009.

In case of a new global protocol, here are some name-suggestions: Freedom Protocol. Dick Cheney Protocol. Carribean Adventure Protocol.

Immediate freeze

That's his suggestion. He's suggested it before. Immediate freeze of carbon emissions and a 90 percent reduction by 2050. That's an INCREDIBLY strong proposal. Stronger than any proposal in the Senate.

Some might say that it's unlikely that anybody with such bold goals on this issue would ever run (or be able to run) for president.

Gore's opening

He started slowly.

But when he addressed Dingell and his service in World War II his tone changed and the pleasantries dropped and he became deadly serious. Nearly, it seemed, on the verge of tears.

To the representatives of tough districts, who fear they can't take on the problem without losing their offices, he beseeched them to "walk through that fire."

On Hall's rant and the costs of strict policy

Hall contended that global warming experts never discuss the cost of restrictive energy policies. That's a lie on its face. But let's see how well Gore does on that score today.

Banal observation of the day

Gore: still looks pretty fat.

Science and Technology leaders

Bart Gordon, chairman of the Committee of Science and Technology, waived his opening statement. But ranking member Ralph Hall of Texas went on a hilarious rant excoriating "Kyotoites" like me, and insisting that we assault the energy industry (which, he reminds us, helped us win world wars!) at our peril!!!

I actually know the answer to this question, but I'll ask anyhow. Why is the House of Representatives full of lunatics?!

Barton is a punk

Ranking member Joe Barton of Texas is making a series of parliamentary inquiries to the chairman that seem designed to piss off everybody. I'm sure pissed.

But one particularly funny inquiry was about whether Gore was in violation of committee rules when he failed to submit his testimony a full 48 hours in advance. Apparently he got his testimony to the majority at 1 AM today and to the minority at 7. Barton complained that his caucus didn't have nearly enough time to read the testimony and come up with questions.

Dingell dismissed the concern, noting that he'd decided not to follow the committee rule (go majority prerogative!), and that he was sure his sharp colleagues across the aisle would have no problem formulating questions on such short notice.

Live-Blogging Gore

First up, Gore before a joint hearing of the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality (Energy and Commerce Committee) and the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment (Committee on Science and Technology).

Look out for Dingell--Chair of Energy and Commerce and prime advocate for the auto industry--to give Gore as difficult a time as any science-trashing Republican is likely to give him. Gore knows what he's talking about, and can handle these guys on the substance, but will defeat himself if he gets too technical or too defensive. It's a fine line he must walk.