Meet the Press / Rice; Broder, Bumiller, Cooke, Harwood

UPDATE 5:30EST complete.

Today, Timmeh snared Condi to talk about the Russians, the Iraq qWagmire, and her non-existent Presidential ambitions. Then comes a roundtable on immigration and the 2006 midterms with the slightly stale purveyor of the convention wisdom, David "Dean" Broder, Lizzie "Girl Reporter" Bumiller, Charles Cook of the professionally non-partisan Cook Report, and John Harwood, the White House correspondent of the Wall Street Journal.

At the end of the show, I had a complicated feeling of bewilderment, despair, and hope. More on the flip:

Bewilderment at the overwhelming irrelevance of the issues being discussed; it was like having somebody read Inside Baseball aloud to me during, oh, the Battle of Stalingrad.

Despair at the fecklessness of our political class--presumably, we're seeing the best and the brightest here, and they aren't very good, and they aren't very bright. Or rather, they are good and bright at retaining positions of power; unfortunately, chimpanzee dominance heirarchies are not always adaptive, particularly when the heirachies themselves have become purely kleptocratic, or the habitat is being destroyed.

Hope that a game so degenerate, so Byzantine, and so poorly played, will shortly be replaced by something better. These guys are not "displaying adaptability," as Neil Stephensen would say. "The old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear."

Why do I claim that the political class is not displaying adaptability?

There are two (at least two) overwhelming issues--the second, literally so--that America and the American political system face. I've been phrasing both as questions, because although I don't know the answers, I'd like to.

Every elected representative should be asked these questions. If they can't answer them, they don't deserve to be your representatives. And if they're amazed that you are even asking the questions, still less do they deserve to be.

Question 1: What is your plan to restore Constitutional government to the United States? (We have a President who openly breaks the law. This is a fact. What is to be done?)

Question 2: What is your plan to protect Americans from a catastrophic rise in ocean levels due to global warming? (Recently, the Philadelphia Inquirer frontpaged a story on a three foot rise, so the issue is now mainstream. If you live in the Arctic, or you live near a glacier, or you live in the Netherlands, Ocean Rise is a fact. What is to be done?)

If the political class could even ask these questions, they could begin to adapt. Instead, they remain in denial. The elephants are the room, but nobody speaks of them. This silence has consequences.

If the political class cannnot answer the Constitutional Question, Constitutional government as we know it will end, and tyranny will begin. Not as a theoretical possibility, but right now, and exactly as described in Federalist #47. It's a fact; let's face it.

And if the political class cannot answer the Oceans Rising Question, it's the end of the world as we know it. Not perhaps in our own time, but in our children's time, or our grandchildren's time. And to anyone who lives in the Arctic, near a glacier, or in a sea-level country like the Netherlands or Bangla Desh, this is a fact; let's face it.

And with that analytical framework in place, let us proceed to analyze the chatter of the chattering subclass of our political class.

[As usual, I’ve bolded the BCW talking points. Nor am I a professional transcriptionist. I type a summary as fast as I can, and "quote" anything especially vivid or ghastly.]

Part 1: Condi

RUSSERT: So what's this about documents that the Russians passed intel to the Iraqis in the first days of the war?

CONDI: We are trying first to understand what the documents say, there are thousands in the Iraqi stores. Of course, we will raise the issue with Russia.

RUSSERT Was it disinformation?

CONDI: First we need to take a hard look at the docs. We are finding important things here. Hope the Russians take it seriously.

To anyone who remembers VietNam, this is just the old "captured enemy documents" ploy. It's just more Republican disinformational warfare. There's no reason to regard any document that comes from this administration as credible, especially documents from Iraq, and especially documents from Iraq about WMDs. After all, the Republicans regard plagiarism as OK, so why not move on to forgery? Particularly when the "greater good" is at stake? I have no doubt that F/Buckhead or a similar Federalist Society elf will "discover" documents "proving" Bush's WMD claims in oh, late October 2006.

RUSSERT: That "looked in his eyes and got a sense of his soul" Bush thing with Putin. Does Bush still believe this?

CONDI: The Russians have generally done what they said they would do. They said they would oppose Iraq, and they did.

RUSSERT: The Russ ambassador was the source of the intelligence. How could Putin not have known?

CONDI: [Repeats talking points]

RUSSERT: Why won't the Russians help us get UN sanctions against Iran?

CONDI: We're not ready for sanctions. We are working toward a Presidential Statement. The Russians do not want nukes in Iraq either, that's clear in all that they do. They don't want enrichment, reprocessing.

Condi's voice was breathy and high-pitched, tense, when she was talking about the documents, but normal when she's talking about the Russians.

RUSSERT: From a story on the Times today: Most of us think Iran will get nukes. The optimists at the White House just hope to delay it by 10 or 20 years.

CONDI: Can't comment because I don't know who the anonymous source is. We are doing everyting that we can to send a strong message that they have no choice if they want to be part of the international community. Iran cannnot stand the sort of diplomatic iolation that North Korea has chosen.

I don't see how this can be; Iran has oil! Or perhaps I should write

Iran has (oil (automobile culture ( greenhouse gasses ( global warming ( oceans rise )))))

Just to make the levels (five, at least) from which this discussion is removed from reality more clear....

CONDI: If our efforts have no effect, the "next phase" is further UN options, a Chapter 7 resolution. This gives the UN the ability to compel a state to act, to say there will be consequences. We are a long way from the military option. Financial measures, travel bans ...

RUSSERT: Would the President go to Congress for approval of military action?

CONDI: Will not speculate. Of course, the admininstration went to Congress the last time. Look at the history of how this President has acted, he has taken Congress as full partner [!!]. "Will not get into a discussion of what the President may or may not do, constitutionally."

Interesting, Condi almost garbled that last word, "constitutionally." Her sentence trailed off into a mumbled slur. And when you have a President who claims the right to break the law under the theory of the unilateral executive, a mumbled slur seems appropriate.

CONDI: We're in Iraq, a different kind of enemy, a different kind of war, we need a different kind of Middle East if we are to conquer the ideology of hatred that makes people fly airplanes into buildings.

In 9/11 we faced the outcome of an ideology of hatred. Saddam was part of the old Middle East. We have a new Iraq in a new Middle East and so we will all be safer.

Oddly, or not, Russert doesn't mention the Hamas election as part of the "new" Middle East. And just to make the levels (six?) from which this discussion is removed from reality more clear:

A new ( Middle East (oil ( automobile culture ( greenhouse gasses ( global warming ( oceans rise ))))))

RUSSERT: Last week, an Iraqi foreign minister revealed that he was a CIA spy, and told the administration that there was no active nuke program and no biological weapons. This is a far cry from what people were told.

CONDI: This is one source among many. Saddam was unwilling to account for his weapons to the UN. We all thought Saddam had WMDs.

What do you mean, "we"? "We" in the blogosphere examined every argument for WMDs put forward by Bush in the runup to the war--and there were a lot of them, because they kept shifting. (Of course, we know now that the story kept shifting because the White House Iraq Group would come up with new disinformation as soon as the old disinformation was debunked.) We examined the facts, and we dismissed the case. And we were right

The point is, that now that Saddam is gone, we have a different kind of Iraq, a different kind of Middle East.

Condi gets very, very breathy here.

They are determined to form a government of national unity. This is something that has never been done!

RUSSERT: WMDs, No, greeted as liberators, No, only 100,000 troops, No, not $50 billion but $350 billion. Each of these judgments was wrong. Why should we trust your judgment now?

CONDI: Our judgment is that the region is changing in fundamental ways and is better than before. Keep historical perspective, they are doing something unknown. The alternative was to leave Saddam in power, a threat, with billions from the Oil for food program.

RUSSERT: He was in a box.

CONDI: He was not in a box. Oil for Food, billions, not just going to build palaces. Saddam had ad insatiable apetite to dominate his region.

If this isn't WPS, I don't know what is.

CONDI: The notion that before the war there was a placid Middle East is not true. The malignancy in the Middle East led directly to 9/11.

Remember Republican derision at attacking "root causes" of, say, poverty at home? Here we have Condi attacking the "root causes" of "malignancy" by invading the Middle East. Is this beyond bizarre, or what?

RUSSERT: Bush said troops in Iraq will be determined by the next President, that is after 2008.

CONDI: Bush said "some" troops. We will stand down as they stand up. And they are indeed standing up. A significant reduction has occurred because Iraqi forces are taking and holding terrritory now

It's entirely possible there will be a significant drawdown this year depending on events on the ground.

RUSSERT: The Afghanis just dismissed charges against a Christian convert.

CONDI: Not aware. This is a young democracy. After a new constitution, there are always issues to work out.

RUSSERT: We talk about spreading democracy, but in AghaniAfghanistan Christianity is punishable by death, and a woman can't get a without permission from a man. That's a far cry from democracy.

CONDI: It's better than the Taliban. Only in my lifetime were blacks guaranteed the right to vote.

RUSSERT: So Christians should be able to worship and seek converts in Afghanistan.

CONDI: Of course. The Declaration of Human Rights.

RUSSERT: But this can't be done on a case by case basis!

CONDI: They have to work through it. Four years ago the Taliban executed people for listening to music, women not educated at all, come a long way. Let's support them in their quest to become a modern democracy.

[Russert shows a series of clips of Condi. What I notice is that her hairstyle keeps changing. Funny there's no coverage of that, as opposed to the massive coverage of Hillary's hairstyle...]

RUSSERT: Do you want to become the NFL commissioner?

CONDI: Not interested.

RUSSERT: Fred Barnes says Cheney might resign and you might replace him.

CONDI: We've got a great Vice President in Cheney, he is one of the strongest supporters I've drawn on.

RUSSERT: Laura Bush said you'd make a great President but nobody can talk you into running.

CONDI: The last part is right.

RUSSERT: It won't happen?

CONDI: It won't happen.

Roundtable: Broder, Bumiller, Coook, Harwood

RUSSERT: Look at this scene from the Los Angeles demonstrations. How big a political issue is immigration?

BRODER Started as a border states issue, now a national issue, talking to Republican governor of MN, IL represenatives. Tough for both parties but especially for the Republicans.

RUSSERT: 62% say illegal immigrants should not become citizens. The pressure's on Bush--but we need these poeple to work.

BUMILLER: Bush is trying to walk a fine line between conservatives and business. Last year he was giving very emotional speeches [Please!], saying we're a nation of immmigrants, guest worker program, this year he's pulled back, emphaszing border seccurity. The White House is pulling back, waiting to see what comes out of the smoke.

COOK: The polls show it's a small issue, only 7% say it's the most important, but when it's raised, emotions run high. [A classic Rovian wedge issue.] But immigration is important for agribusiness. Hard to figure out how to cut the baby.

HARWOOD: It may be pushed 'til after the election.

RUSSERT: Look at 2008 electoral map, it's big in the swing states.

HARWOOD: Immigration was raised in VA by the Republicans and emotion did not prevail.

RUSSERT: Iraq. A quote from Cheney that history is not made in headlines or blogs. Shows a clip were a [pre-selected] audience member says the media "doesn't want to portray the good. They just want to focus on another carbombing."

Does that issue work?

COOK: Helps the base, not swing. It's the nature of the news. And wandering around Iraq is a good way to get killed. 86 have died. It's just another "Mission Accomplished" banner. They concede it's not going well.

BRODER: Post ombudman Deborah Howell has a thoughtful analysis on this topic today.

Eeew! Broder fluffing Howell? What is the world coming to?

HARWOOD: It's a weak argument, when you have journalists who know they're going to be killed if they go out and cover stories, that fells me the state of security in the scountry.

BUMILLER: In his response to the question, Bush was very careful not to jump on the bandwagon (tbough she did it for him). He said we have a free press, he pulled back. They know they can't sell this.

RUSSERT: Is the White House convinced that to secure the base, they have to go after the media?

BUMILLER: Of course not. Have noticed Scott saying "we don't blame the media" recently.

Isn't Lizzie sweet? A little naive maybe, but still sweet.

RUSSERT: There's rebellion among the House members, conflict over the Dubai ports deal, Tom Davis says this is the "worst administration ever for working with Congress on anything."

Some rebellion. Bush openly breaks the law, and what do the Republicans do? They offer to rewrite the law. What good does rewriting the law do, when Bush says he can break it anyhow?

BRODER: You've heard that privately, but to hear it on the record from Tom Davis gives you a measure of falloff of any sense of loyalty or intimidation.

They feel they are on their own, they will take care of their own business, Bush will take care of his own business.

RUSSERT: Times this morning--Do not replace Rove, bring in a relief pitcher.

BUMILLER: Maybe Ed Gilliespie, Tom Paxton, there's a lot of talk at the White House, but no indication of action. Rove says bringing in without clear lines of authority is a mistake. Bottom line: Would a personnel change help? Not clear.

HARWOOD: If you look at the big three--Card, Rove, Barlett-- you could see change. Card is the most likely because he is already the longest serving.

RUSSERT: The polls: Only 26% say we're on the right track, 62% say we're on the wrong track. And 37% would prefer to see a Republican Congress, 50% a Democratic one.

COOK These are national trends, but micro-analysis suggests that it will be very hard for DCmocrats. They will have to "run the table" and hold all their own seats. Not impossible, but a very tall oder. Here are the vulnerable seats:
COOK: These are national trends, but micro-analysis of the races suggests that it will be very hard for Democrats. They will have to "run the table" and hold all their own seats. Not impossible, but a very tall oder. Here are the vulnerable seats:

Burns (Montana)
Chaffe (Rhode Island)
Santorum (Pennsulvania)
Talent (Missouri)
DeWine (Ohio)
and an open seat in Tennessee.

Getting 3 or 4 is not that hard, but Ohio and Tenessee will be very hard. There are structural barries. 85% of incumbents are re-elected. it can happen but it's hard. If this is a category 3 storm, they will hold. If it is a category 4 or 5, they won't.

COOK: In the House, there are 24 Republican seats open, of which the Democrats need to take 15 and hold onto to all of their own 11. District and incumbency advantages make this hard unless there is a category 4.

BRODER: The Democrats real slogan not "Had enough but "Wouldn't you like to have somebody watcching the store?" The sense I get is that the people are not ready to entrust government to the Democrats but are not comfortable with Republicans controlling everything. Getting checks and balances back into system is a powerful argument.

And this is as close as Broder gets to the Constitutional Question: Confronting the issue of Bush's claim of total executive power, including the power to break the law. What is their plan to restore Constitutional government? The issue isn't even on their radar screen.

RUSSERT: To the Republicans, that means hearings with subpeona power and they don't like that. WMDs, prison abuse...

And this is as close as Russsert gets to the Constitutional Question. What would subpoenas mean to a President, a tyrant, who asserts he can break the law?

HARWOOD: Keeping the Republican majority is not the main White House priority. Iraq is.

RUSSERT: Must the Democrats come forward with a policy?

Democrats! Policy is the haunted house in the woods! Don't go there!

BRODER: If the Democrats are responsible party, they need to talk about policy.

As if the Republicans were (a) responsible and (b) had policies. Remember DiIulio before Rove put the horse's head in his head? There is no policy arm at the White House! Broder thinks the Republicans are governing. They aren't. They are about destroying government and replacing it with ruling.

COOK: Minority parties don't have to be responsible. If they are, they just dig themselves into a hole. Their job is to throw rocks. If you make policy proposals, you're on defense.

Not minority--the Senate Democrats represent a majority of the country, through the Republican tyranny gives them no voice. Don't say "minority," say opposition.

RUSSERT: "Sometimes nothing's a real cool hand."

RUSSERT: How about troop withdrawals? Some have said if we stay the course, some troops could come home by October.

BRODER: If that happens the Reps and the country would benefit, let's hope that's possible.

Because the Republicans are the party whose President is replacing the Constitution with the tyranny of the unilateral executive, nothing that benefits the Republicans benefits the country. But all Broder can see is business as usual.

COOK: That would help a lot. Iraq is a wet blanket, weighing down everything. When you go to lunch on Capitol Hill, you can tell who's gotten polls back from the district, their faces are grey, because what's happening in the polls nationallly is also happending locally.

-030-