I think you're right. But the McCain campaign has decided it's not worth the resources to try to fix his brand. It's sort of another McCain "Hail Mary."

Posted at October 3, 2008 3:14 PM in response to McCain Campaign's Ad Spending Now Nearly 100 Percent Devoted To Attack Ads

Speaking as a former campaign consultant, McCain going 100% negative is a desperation move. It means they think this is the best shot for changing the dynamics of the race, which is now trending entirely in Obama's direction.

Posted at October 3, 2008 3:06 PM in response to McCain Campaign's Ad Spending Now Nearly 100 Percent Devoted To Attack Ads

Please see Sara Diamond's "Roads to Dominion." She did the real heavy lifting in studying the right wing.

Posted at May 29, 2008 1:18 PM in response to Who's Right?

Impeachment -- as desirable as it might be -- would hardly be adequate to repair the damage that Bush has done. So I'd be loathe to limit ourselves to just one way to repair this damage. This isn't some one-shot deal.

Posted at August 10, 2007 9:06 AM in response to An Alternative to Impeachment: Transitional Justice for the Bush-ites

How about it if we don't just "gamble" on Democratic gains, but actually work for them?

The goal is accountability. Impeachment is one path; prosecution is another; a Truth Commission is yet another. Defeating the Republicans -- i.e. holding them accountable politically -- is just as valid as the rest. And it can facilitate other forms of accountablility.

Posted at August 10, 2007 8:59 AM in response to An Alternative to Impeachment: Transitional Justice for the Bush-ites

I didn't say Congress should abdicate its responsibility. I said no options for accountability should be taken off the table. It's not an either/or proposition.

And I don't think there is an effective argument that a President, a Vice President, an Attorney General, and a passel of apparatchiks should be able to commit multiple, heinous crimes and be exempt from prosecution.

Posted at August 10, 2007 8:54 AM in response to An Alternative to Impeachment: Transitional Justice for the Bush-ites

You write: "And as much as I might want to see Bush, Cheney and Gonzales spend their last decades in a federal prison or perhaps on the island of St. Helena, or renditioned to a lovely Romanian prison lacking even a golf course, none of those things are going to happen."

Perhaps.  Perhaps Bush, Cheney and Gonzalez (and their minions) will not be prosecuted for their crimes.  But this is a proposition that should not be dismissed before it is even considered.  There is no reason that Bush administration officials cannot, or should not, be prosecuted by a special prosecutor appointed by the next President.  The crimes that they have committed have statutes of limitations that are sufficiently long.

Our goal should be accountability.  And no options for achieving accountability should be taken off the table prematurely. 

Posted at August 9, 2007 3:58 PM in response to An Alternative to Impeachment: Transitional Justice for the Bush-ites

Another aspect of Ignatieff's delusions is a simple failure to recognize that there are limits to American power. He's not the only one. War supporters and critics alike frequently fall into what are essentially meaningless debates about what mistakes were made during the Occupation and how things might have -- or might still -- turn out better.

For all of the reasons Reed Hundt has articulated, it should have been obvious -- repeat obvious -- to any thinking person that the invasion of Iraq would lead to disaster It was a war built on delusions, and now we're screwed no matter what we do. Anything else is just more wishful thinking.

Posted at August 7, 2007 8:46 AM in response to Arrrgghh

Additional thoughts regarding my earlier post arguing for prosecution.

I also favor impeachment, but I do not see any reason that it should be the only option available for accountability. They're not mutually exclusive.

Defeating the Republicans across the board is, in itself, one avenue toward enforcing accountability. And the behavior of the White House and its allies in Congress increasingly resembles a mass political suicide on the order of Jonestown. There is no reason to be anything but optimistic about the prospects for making the Republicans feel the consequences of drinking their own brand of Kool-Aid. And defeating the Republicans at the polls can facilitate future investigation and prosecutions.

Bush and Cheney are not the only ones who have committed crimes, and they are not the only ones who should be held accountable. Staff members, both present and future, should fear prosecution for their crimes.

I see no reason to assume right now that moving a future Democratic administration toward prosecution is hopeless, any more than assuming that moving the Congress toward impeachment is hopeless. Nor should we simply assume that investigations of the Bush Administration's crimes -- including, for instance, the wiretapping program -- should stop after the '08 election. The Bush Adminstration may want to run out the clock, but why should we not be the ones to determine how long the clock will run?

Our goal should be to build a broad-based political movement that demands accountability, and, therefore, demands that Democratic officeholders demand accountability.

It's impossible to predict what impact future revelations may have on the climate of public opinion, in favor of either impeachment or prosecution, or both.

Regarding the wiretapping programming, no one has been emphasizing this (the Democrats certainly have not), but crimes were certainly committed. And it seems (more than) likely that what we may learn in the future about the wiretapping program will be particularly egregious.

Restoring constitutional government and legal accountability is a long-term project. It's a process, which will not produce instant results, or lasting ones. Eternal vigilance.....

Posted at July 27, 2007 2:46 PM in response to Impeachment Questions

Impeachment is a vehicle for holding Bush and his adminstration accountable for their crimes and reestablishing the rule of law. But there is another vehicle available that would serve the same purposes: criminal prosecution.

The current Bush stonewalling strategy can also be described as "running out the clock." But which clock? Bush's term of office? Or the statute of limitations on the multiple crimes Bush and his administration have committed?

There's plenty of time left on the latter clock. It would extend well into the term of a likely Democratic adminstration taking office in 2009. And in the long run, criminal prosecution would be more meaningful than impeachment.

Why don't we think in those terms?

Posted at July 26, 2007 3:52 PM in response to Impeachment Questions