# Posted 11:27 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

McCAIN VS. DUKAKIS : Occasionally, my day job gets in the way of blogging. For example, this morning I had to miss a blogger conference call with Mark Salter, Randy Scheuneman and Dan McKivergan from McCain '08. Dan, of course, was the founding father of the Worldwide Standard blog at TWS.

According to Liz Mair, McCain's staff wanted to drive home two points about the surge. First, it has dispersed the insurgents to areas outside of Baghdad, where they will be easier to handle. Second, 16 of 24 Sunnis tribes in Anbar are now on our side. I hope those are the right points to emphasize.

According to one McCain supporter who commented on Liz's post,

I wonder if [McCain had] made the above points initially[,] rather than the bald, "there are places in Bagdad where it is safe to go for a stroll" statement, he might have been treated more gently. The sad thing is, I think he could have even stepped back and said that he spoke to hastily but there are still some real signs of improvement and received some sort of pass. I am not real[l]y sure why he didn't. I think the media is too eager to jump on the defeat train, yet there is not a lot of credibity left among the war's supporters, and McCain's initial statement and reluctance to step back from it doesn't help.

On the other side of the spectrum, Josh Marshall is trying his best to turn McCain's hasty remarks into a pretext for full-scale character assassination. Josh hopes that photos of McCain in a bulletproof vest in Baghdad will become the next "Dukakis-in-a-tank moment":

It's an iconic moment, like but much more than the Dukakis image, since its ridiculousness can be come at again and again. And from so many angles.

And to top it all off, Josh throws in a photo of Saddam's spokesman, "Baghdad Bob", to suggest McCain has sunk to that level.

In other words, another typical day for Josh Marshall. Begin with defensible criticism of a Republican, then start in with the ridiculous hyperbole. I guess Josh deserves to indulge in his fantasy of war-hero John McCain turned into a Dukakis-like laughing stock. Josh can hope, but I don't think Americans are going to judge the Senator harshly for visiting a warzone they would never want to visit, even with the extraordinary security measures taken to protect his life.

Labels: Iraq, John McCain, Josh Marshall

(14) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 9:20 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

JOSH MARSHALL ON THE US ATTORNEYS: Taking my own excellent advice (which was seconded by an insightful reader), I decided to go ahead and see what Josh Marshall and the TPM gang have to say about the US Attorneys scandal. What do we do know for sure? What do we suspect? Why does it matter?

As I mentioned earlier, what I'm trying to figure out is whether there is reason to believe, as Dianne Feinstein suggested, that DoJ got rid of some of the US Attorneys in question in order to cover up corruption by GOP supporters. Josh Marshall thinks the answer to this question is pretty obvious:

Let's not be fooled on this one. The White House and the politicals at the DOJ were and are doing everything it can to spring [Brent] Wilkes and [Dusty] Foggo [the target of US Attorney Carol Lam's investigation].

Remember, Mitchell Wade really only gets you to Duke Cunningham, the little-lamented hapless federal inmate. Wilkes was tied in with DeLay, Cheney, Doolittle, the whole rotten crew.

The evidence Josh cites is that DoJ delayed the indictments of Wilkes and Foggo until after Lam was dismissed, which strikes me as inconclusive. In addition, one should note that Wilkes and Foggo are now on trial.

A few days ago, Marshall was less confident about why Lam lost her job. He wrote:

There's a lot of speculation now about what might have spooked the White House about Carol Lam's expanded Cunningham investigation, if indeed that is why she was sacked.

One point on which Marshall seems to have a reasonably good case is that Lam was not lax on enforcing immigration laws, which might have justified her departure (as one OxBlog reader noted). But that only gives us one more reason why Lam wasn't fired, not why she was.

In another post, Josh observes that Gonzales aide Kyle Sampson, while testifying before Congress, couldn't provide any clear indication of what criteria were used to select the eight US Attorneys who were let go.

In addition Lam, this lack of clarity extends to the departure of David Iglesias of New Mexico, described by Sampson as insufficiently vigilant in the prosecution of voter fraud. According to Josh, that may be the real reason Iglesias was fired, but it is a terrible reason, since bogus allegations of voter fraud are just something that the GOP cooks up to disenfranchise minority voters. (On several occasions, Josh links to this WaPo op-ed to justiy his assertion that voter fraud is a bogus issue.)

Iglesias' departure may also have been related to his refusal to rush the indictment of a Democratic pol in New Mexico so that it could be announced before election day. At present, Josh seems to think that the New Mexico Democrats in question actually were corrupt. But he is equally harsh on the two New Mexico Republicans, Rep. Heather Wilson and Sen. Pete Domenici, who pressured Iglesias to indict early. According to Josh,

In the old rule of law days, this would be seen as the definition of corrupt use of the justice system to interfere with the integrity of elections and advance narrowly partisan aims.

So, what should one make of this incredible welter of details? My sense is that there are some tantalizing hints, but no solid evidence of a corruption cover-up. But if there's nothing to cover up, why couldn't Judge Gonzales & Co. tell a straight story about the US Attorneys?

Unfortunately, there's no answer to that question that can make Gonzales look even half-way good. Maybe that's why the National Review wants him fired and the Weekly Standard wouldn't object to letting him go.

Labels: Josh Marshall, US Attorneys

(1) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 9:08 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

KERRY BIDS ADIEU: The junior senator from Massachusetts won't be running for President in 2008. Matt Yglesias writes:

I know that everyone, myself included, has sort of treated Kerry's 2008 aspirations as a bit absurd and under the circumstances it's probably better that he spare himself the humiliation. That said, it seems to me that there's no reason whatsoever to believe that Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Barack Obama, or Mark Warner would actually do a better job of being president and at least a some reason to think Kerry (who, after all, has dramatically more experience in governing) would be better than any of them.

True, although Kerry didn't seem confident in his decades of Senate experience to actually talk about it on the campaign trail.

On a related note, Josh Marshall adds:

I think he ran a much better campaign than the conventional wisdom now allows. But for all that, I'm very glad to hear he's not going to mount another campaign in 2008...

Like a lot of you I suspect, I feel torn in these sorts of situations. I don't want to give in to web of slurs and smears and character assassination that now still clings to Kerry.

But the issue seems best handled at the most practical level.

He wouldn't have been the best candidate so best that he didn't run at all.

Obviously, I won't be crying any crocodile tears in response to Kerry's departure. But I agree with Josh that Kerry ran a much better campaign than he was given credit for. The fact is, the loser gets blamed even if the party as a whole is responsible.

Labels: John Kerry, Josh Marshall, Matt Yglesias

(10) opinions -- Add your opinion