The Opinionator: A blog at the NY Times by Tobin Harshaw & Chris Suellentrop

August 6, 2007, 9:06 am

So What?

By Tobin Harshaw

Tags: Democrats, media

While Hendrick Hertzberg finds the appeal of nostalgia at YearlyKos, other liberals simply find the deja vu repellent. “YearlyKos will add nothing to a much needed debate on the future direction of our country,” insists Nancy (The Hankster) Hanks. “The time for insurgence in the DP is over. Without a relationship to independent voters — left, center and right — YearlyKos will remain safely within the boundaries of the very partisan political culture that is responsible for the bad policy we are living with right now.”

The freelance journalist Marc Cooper shows a little outrage. “Showing up to pander to the online activists (whatever that means) does not in itself make a revolution, nor necessarily even denote much of a shift of political gravity within the Democratic Party,” he writes on his blog. “That sort of paradigm shift requires more than a stiffening of the will of the Democrats. It also means that liberal blogs (especially after the Dems win the coming election) are going to have to show some real independence and not settle for being mere transmission belts of the party ‘communications’ apparatus.”

Read full post and comments:
"The Opinionator: A blog at the NY Times by Tobin Harshaw & Chris Suellentrop" >>

The New Democratic Scapegoat

By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

Published: July 26, 2007

Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama are both serious foreign policy thinkers. So that makes it all the more bizarre that in one important area of foreign policy they both would drag this country backward.

That’s trade, particularly the effort to bash China as a scapegoat for our economic problems.

Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama have signed on as co-sponsors of a bill — the latest resurrection of anti-China legislation — that could target China for punitive duties unless it revalues its currency. The China-U.S. relationship is the most important relationship in the world, and this bill would risk trade battles that would disrupt it for many years to come.

It’s precisely the kind of cowboy diplomacy that would infuriate the commentariat if it were coming from President Bush. Yet the president, while reckless in most areas of foreign policy, has been steadfast on trade and his handling of China.

The China bill that Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama have co-sponsored would antagonize ordinary Chinese. It would set a precedent for politicizing trade disputes. And it marks a betrayal of President Bill Clinton’s outstanding legacy on economic issues.

For eight years, Mr. Clinton tugged Democrats away from protectionist impulses and toward pro-growth and pro-trade policies that elevated America’s standard of living. Now the Democratic Party as a whole is retreating from that free trade legacy.

Congressional Democrats have been cool or petulant toward a series of free trade agreements in Latin America. This month House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and three other top Democrats bluntly declared that “our legislative priorities do not include the renewal of fast track authority” to negotiate trade agreements. In the trade arena, Congressional Democrats are gratuitously angering our allies in much the way that Dick Cheney has already done in security affairs.

Trade is a particularly useful prism through which to look at politicians, for it offers a litmus test of political courage and economic leadership. That’s because there are no political benefits to a candidate who supports free trade, but considerable benefits to the country.

There are a couple of grim possibilities here. One is that Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama really believe in stepping away from the Bill Clinton legacy on trade. The other possibility, perhaps even sadder, is that they are faux China-bashers who stake out myopic positions for political calculations, even if their heart isn’t in those positions.

So maybe Democrats are only seasonal protectionists, enjoying a useful weapon against Republicans in the 2008 campaign. After all, Mr. Clinton himself was a China trade hawk when he ran for president in 1992 but then reversed himself in office — so there’s hope that Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Obama would likewise show more maturity in the White House.

Yet all this is dispiriting to anyone who yearns for positive leadership from the next president. Once in office, Mr. Clinton and Al Gore bravely used the bully pulpit to educate the American public about the benefits of trade and to challenge those like Ross Perot, who appealed to Know-Nothing nativists. It would be a tragedy for all the world if the next Democratic president followed Mr. Perot rather than Mr. Clinton.

It’s true, of course, that the Chinese yuan is undervalued. That’s bad for China, and it’s one of the imbalances (along with our own addiction to debt) that is disruptive for the global economy. China should sharply stimulate domestic consumption and nudge the yuan upward faster than it has been.

But this legislation vastly exaggerates the impact on the U.S. from the yuan value. China’s manufacturing juggernaut hurts Mexico and other countries that peddle cheap shoes and shirts, but it has much less effect on American workers. Meanwhile, that flood of Chinese imports helps low-income Americans by lowering the cost of essentials like clothing.

Look, there are plenty of valid reasons for Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama to stand up to China. One place to start would be China’s disgraceful policy of supplying Sudan with the weapons used to slaughter people in Darfur.

There’ll be a tendency among liberals to excuse Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama for pandering on trade, because they are sensible on so many other issues.

But when we see candidates as smart and sophisticated as Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama, we should demand more from them than Ross Perot-style populism. And it would be a disaster if eight years of reckless gunboat diplomacy in the political/military realm were followed by reckless cowboy diplomacy in economics and trade.

You are invited to comment on this column at Mr. Kristof’s blog, www.nytimes.com/ontheground.

Read full post and comments:
"The New Democratic Scapegoat" >>

Bush Meets With Democrats on Their Turf

President Bush spoke to House Democrats on Saturday.

By JEFF ZELENY

Published: February 4, 2007
The New York Times

WILLIAMSBURG, Va., Feb. 3 — In a rare appearance before an audience of Democrats, President Bush said Saturday that he did not question the patriotism of those who disagreed with his Iraq strategy. He also asked lawmakers not to let their disagreement over the war stir distrust and prevent them from finding consensus on immigration and other concerns.

“I welcome debate in a time of war, and I hope you know that,” Mr. Bush said. “Nor do I consider a belief that if you don’t happen to agree with me, you don’t share the same sense of patriotism I do. You can get that thought out of your mind if that’s what some believe.”

The president’s words were met with applause from House Democrats, who gathered here at a secluded resort along the James River for their annual issues conference. Newly in control of Congress, Democrats invited Mr. Bush to their retreat, eager to show that they could no longer be overlooked by the White House.

“The choice,” said Representative Nancy Pelosi, the House speaker, “is bipartisanship or stalemate.”

So for nearly two hours, Mr. Bush held forth with some of the very Democrats he has spent the better part of six years sparring with. He delivered a speech to members of Congress and their spouses, took questions in a private session and shook hands and posed for pictures.

“I’m looking forward to working with you,” Mr. Bush said, gesturing to those seated in the crowded ballroom. “I know you’ve probably heard that and you doubt whether it’s true — but it’s true. We’re going to do big things together.”

The political reality, of course, requires Mr. Bush to work with Democrats in the final two years of his presidency if he wants his legacy to include legislation like overhauling the nation’s immigration and health care systems, and beginning to curb America’s dependence on foreign oil.

“A great goal is a comprehensive immigration bill,” Mr. Bush said. “In order to get it done, it’s going to require members in the House and the Senate — Republican members, Democratic members — finding common ground, and the White House wants to help.”

The president’s speech, which lasted about 16 minutes, was interrupted by applause 21 times. Occasionally, the clapping seemed tepid, as some legislators looked across the room to see whether fellow Democrats were joining in. At other times, particularly if Mr. Bush delivered a self-deprecating line, the clapping boomed.

He began his remarks with such a moment, saying he meant no ill will at the State of the Union address when he referred to the lawmakers as members of the “Democrat Party.” The remark stirred a mini-dustup among some Democrats, who believed he was being pejorative.

“Look, my diction isn’t all that good,” Mr. Bush said. “I have been accused of occasionally mangling the English language, so I appreciate you inviting the head of the Republic Party.”

The event’s cordiality stood in contrast to the coming days on Capitol Hill, where the Congress is heading toward a confrontation with the White House over the war in Iraq. In a private question-and-answer session, according to lawmakers in the room, Mr. Bush said he intended to stick by his plan to send more troops to Iraq, but he added that he hoped the debate would be civil.

“We share a common goal,” Mr. Bush said in his public remarks, “and that is to keep America safe.”

In his weekly radio address on Saturday, Mr. Bush said the top priority of the budget he will submit to Congress on Monday was “keeping America safe and winning the war against extremists who want to destroy our way of life.” He intends to request nearly three-quarters of a trillion dollars in military spending.

Mr. Bush did not wade deeply into the specifics of his budget proposals in his speech to Democrats, but he warned with a smile, “Some of it you’ll like, some of it you won’t.”

Before Mr. Bush arrived on Saturday, Representative Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, the House majority leader, conceded that some Democrats were not thrilled about their guest speaker. “There was a little controversy about the president coming,” he said. “Some of our members said, ‘Well, why is he coming down?’ ”

But by the time he left the room, even some of Mr. Bush’s critics were applauding.

“Look, we don’t always agree,” Mr. Bush said. “That’s why we’re in different parties.”

Read full post and comments:
"Bush Meets With Democrats on Their Turf" >>

Democrats may push to shutter war prisons

WASHINGTON -- House Democratic leaders yesterday outlined plans to try to force the Bush administration to close the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and the Guantanamo Bay detention facility in Cuba, taking aim at two sites that have sparked an international furor over the Bush administration's war policy.

Representative John P. Murtha, the chairman of the powerful Defense Appropriations subcommittee and a close ally of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, said he wants to close both prisons by cutting their funding, "to restore our credibility worldwide." If he succeeds, it would force the administration to find a new location for high-value terrorism suspects.

"We have the role, as elected officials, to exert our influence through the power of the purse -- that's what it's all about," said Murtha, a Pennsylvania Democrat whose committee will hold hearings on Iraq next week. "We try not to micromanage the Defense Department, but I tell you, they need micromanagement. They're out of control."

The effort to close the prisons, which Murtha said Pelosi supports, illustrates how congressional Democrats are confronting the president over his war policies. The aggressive push to change the war's course has intensified after the president's address Wednesday night in which he announced plans to send an additional 21,500 troops to Iraq.

Democratic leaders will try to include the measure to close the prisons in a spending bill designed to pay for war operations, Murtha said. He acknowledged that closing Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo would be more symbolic than substantive. Abu Ghraib gained international infamy in 2004 after pictures emerged of US soldiers torturing and sexually abusing Iraqi prisoners there. The Guantanamo facility, which has housed Al Qaeda members and other terror suspects for more than five years, has emerged as a lightning rod for criticism of US policies in combating terrorism.

Numerous human rights groups and a United Nations commission have called for it to be shuttered, citing widespread reports of prisoner mistreatment. Starting last fall, Bush has used the prison as a holding place for suspects who were previously held in secret CIA prisons.

"My action is trying to restore credibility in the Middle East," Murtha said.

Bush has defended the detention center as a "necessary" part of the war on terror.

"I'd like to close Guantanamo, but I also recognize that we're holding some people that are darn dangerous and that we better have a plan to deal with them in our courts," Bush said in June.

A Pelosi spokesman, Brendan Daly, said the speaker isn't going to make a final judgment on whether the prisons should be closed until after Murtha's committee has hearings on the issue.

"She has encouraged him to look into it," Daly said.

Murtha's plan emerged as a new series of volleys over the president's war plans played out on Capitol Hill.

House and Senate Democratic leaders say they still hope to change the president's mind about the troop "surge" by passing a non binding resolution of disapproval in the coming weeks. But a growing number of Democrats say that -- because Bush is almost certain to ignore such a resolution -- more must be done to hasten the end of the war.

The most likely step, many Democrats say, would involve spending restrictions on the war budget.

"The non binding resolution is symbolic, and that's nice to do if you've got the time to do it," said Representative John F. Tierney, a Salem Democrat. But lawmakers have to use their power over the budget to stop the war, he said.

"That's where we're going to find out which Democrats and which Republicans are going to take a stand on this," Tierney said.

Though some Republicans are also skeptical of Bush's plan, they indicated they will resist Murtha's attempts to close prisons and control war policy.

"You can't conduct a war or a battle from the House chamber or a committee room," said Representative C.W. Bill Young of Florida, the ranking Republican on the Defense Appropriations subcommittee.

Still, in an indication of the president's waning support in Congress, House Republican leaders held a "listening session" yesterday morning to hear out GOP members' concerns, and Republican leaders have been invited to join the president at Camp David for further talks this weekend.

Bush yesterday made calls to King Abdullah II of Jordan and President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt to rally support in the Middle East. And for a second straight day, lawmakers grilled top administration officials about the plan on Capitol Hill.

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates insisted that the White House has no plans to attack targets in Iran. He also said he believes that having more US troops in Iraq will succeed because Iraqi leaders say they are committed to reaching political settlements to pacify the nation.

"If they fail to do those things, then I think it's incumbent upon the administration and incumbent upon me to recommend looking at whether this is the right strategy," Gates told the Senate Armed Services Committee.

The White House got some support from Senator John McCain of Arizona, the committee's top Republican and a 2008 Republican presidential prospect. McCain said the troop increase will give Iraqis "the best possible chances to succeed."

But Senator Edward M. Kennedy, a Massachusetts Democrat, said the US mission has changed substantially since Congress gave the president the authority to destroy weapons of mass destruction and depose Saddam Hussein.

"Why not come back to the Congress? Why not come back and permit us to have a vote on this surge?" Kennedy asked.

Gates said he would pass that message on to the president, but "I think he feels that he has the authority that he needs to proceed."

That is driving much of Democrats' interest in forcing the president's hand. Kennedy and other Democrats have proposed keeping the president from sending more troops to Iraq by blocking the money he would need to do it.

Representative James P. McGovern, a Worcester Democrat, said he is preparing a bill that would go even further, cutting off funds for nearly all troops after six months and allocating only enough resources to provide for the "safe and orderly withdrawal" of US forces.

© Copyright 2007 Globe Newspaper Company.

Read full post and comments:
"Democrats may push to shutter war prisons" >>