Posts by Steve Benen

Steve Benen is a freelance writer/researcher and creator of The Carpetbagger Report. In addition, he is the lead editor of Salon.com's Blog Report, and has been a contributor to Talking Points Memo, Washington Monthly, Crooks & Liars, The American Prospect, and the Guardian.

McCain: Time to Start Rationing Veterans' Healthcare
Posted by Steve Benen, The Carpetbagger Report on July 24, 2008 at 4:12 PM.

It seems hard to imagine a presidential candidate, running in the midst of two wars, openly speculate about cutting back on veterans' healthcare. And yet, here we are.

Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain appeared Tuesday to suggest rationing of veterans' health care may be needed so combat veterans can receive the care they deserve.

At a town hall meeting in Dover, N.H., McCain talked about the need to "concentrate" veterans' health care on people with injuries that "are a direct result of combat."

"Right now, there are people who drive a long way and they stand in line to stand in line to get an appointment to get an appointment," McCain said.

McCain's campaign press office did not return a telephone call asking for clarification of the remarks.

Well, that's not good at all.

The Washington Monthly ran a terrific cover story a couple of years ago, heralding the success of the VA system, and the quality of the medical care veterans receive. McCain may hold some kind of ideological grudge against the VA system -- it is, after all, a form of socialized medicine -- but even raising the prospect of rationing veterans' health care seems like a remarkably bad idea. It's not good policy, and it's certainly not good politics.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Washington Post Editorial Board Peddles 'U.S. Knows Best' Position on Iraq
Posted by Steve Benen, The Carpetbagger Report on July 23, 2008 at 4:59 PM.

The editorial board of the Washington Post continues to be a mysterious group, making strange arguments that are detached from the paper's own reporting. Indeed, the gap between the quality of the WaPo's news division and editorial division is greater than at any major newspaper in the country.

The Post's unwavering editorial support for the war in Iraq has been well-established, but today, the WaPo outdoes itself with an editorial that seems to reject reality altogether.

The initial media coverage of Barack Obama's visit to Iraq suggested that the Democratic candidate found agreement with his plan to withdraw all U.S. combat forces on a 16-month timetable. So it seems worthwhile to point out that, by Mr. Obama's own account, neither U.S. commanders nor Iraq's principal political leaders actually support his strategy.

Over the last several days, we've learned that both the democratically-elected prime minister and the spokesperson for the Iraqi government support Obama's withdrawal timeline of 2010. Maliki, in fact, did so, by name, without prompting. But the Post still doesn't believe Iraq's principal political leaders are on board with Obama's policy.

And why does the WaPo editorial board continue to deny what is plainly true?

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

McCain's Deeply Concerned About Yet Another Nonexistent Territory
Posted by Steve Benen, The Carpetbagger Report on July 22, 2008 at 6:37 AM.

Remember, the entire premise of John McCain’s campaign pitch is that he has an unrivaled expertise in foreign policy.

For those of you who can’t watch clips online, McCain appeared on ABC’s “Good Morning America” a few hours ago, and Diane Sawyer asked if he believed “the situation in Afghanistan is precarious and urgent.” McCain, carefully avoiding Sawyer’s adjectives, responded, “It’s a serious situation, but there’s a lot of things we need to do. We have a lot of work to do and I’m afraid that it’s a very hard struggle, particularly given the situation on the Iraq-Pakistan border.”

And in apparent attempt to win the electoral votes of Schmuck Town, McCain added, “And I would not announce that I’m going to attack Pakistan, as Sen. Obama did when he was during [sic] his campaign.”

Watching McCain humiliate himself like this is just painful. For one thing, Iraq and Pakistan don’t share a border. They’re not even especially close — Iraq and Pakistan are separated by 1,500 miles and the country of Iran.

For another, Obama did not “announce” that he’s going to “attack” Pakistan. Obama said he would authorize pursuit against high-value terrorist targets if targets slipped into areas of Pakistan where Musharraf has limited control. If John McCain seriously wants to tell voters that he would not pursue terrorists in this area, perhaps he should stop lying and start acknowledging the weakness of his counter-terrorism policy.

Regardless, the comments reflect a larger problem for McCain and his surprisingly incoherent perspective on the basics of foreign policy.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Is The Religious Right Losing Its Edge?
Posted by Steve Benen, The Carpetbagger Report on July 21, 2008 at 1:03 PM.

In January, Focus on the Family's James Dobson ruled out voting for John McCain, if he won the Republican nomination. "Speaking as a private individual, I would not vote for John McCain under any circumstances," Dobson said in a statement. In February, just as McCain was wrapping up the GOP nod, Dobson reiterated that McCain was unacceptable.

As recently as April, Dobson told the WSJ, "I have seen no evidence that Sen. McCain is successfully unifying the Republican Party or drawing conservatives into his fold. To the contrary, he seems intent on driving them away." Dobson added that McCain has "written off" social conservatives.

And yet, Dobson has suddenly discovered that his hatred of McCain is not as intense as his hatred of Barack Obama.

Conservative Christian leader James Dobson has softened his stance against Republican presidential hopeful John McCain, saying he could reverse his position and endorse the Arizona senator despite serious misgivings.

"I never thought I would hear myself saying this," Dobson said in a radio broadcast to air Monday. "... While I am not endorsing Senator John McCain, the possibility is there that I might." ... In an advance copy provided to The Associated Press, Dobson said that while neither candidate is consistent with his views, McCain's positions are closer by a wide margin.

"There's nothing dishonorable in a person rethinking his or her positions, especially in a constantly changing political context," Dobson said in a statement to the AP. "Barack Obama contradicts and threatens everything I believe about the institution of the family and what is best for the nation. His radical positions on life, marriage and national security force me to reevaluate the candidacy of our only other choice, John McCain."

Dobson recognizes that he's done a 180-degree turn here, and told the AP, "If that is a flip-flop, then so be it."

Now, it's tempting to just dismiss this as yet another unprincipled religious-right leader, doing what these clowns always do -- shill for the Republican Party.

But I have to admit, Dobson's reversal actually surprises me. In fact, from a political perspective, Dobson isn't doing himself any favors here.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

This Week in God
Posted by Steve Benen, The Carpetbagger Report on July 19, 2008 at 11:40 AM.

First up from the God machine this week is a poll that didn’t get a lot of attention, but was actually pretty important.

A Quinnipiac University national poll released on Thursday covered quite a bit of ground when it came to “culture war” issues, and perhaps most importantly given the recent campaign discussion, produced some interesting data on faith-based federal funding.

American voters support 53 - 41 percent giving money to faith-based organizations to help them run social programs. But voters say 77 - 16 percent groups which receive federal funds cannot discriminate by hiring only members of their own faith.

This is interesting for a couple of reasons. First, that 41% of Americans don’t want faith-based groups to get social-service grants is a surprisingly high number. There’s a perception, which I’ll admit to buying into on occasion, that these kinds of partnerships and contracts — which have been around for years — are overwhelmingly popular. A poll like this suggests there remains some discomfort about mixing church and state, which I find encouraging.

But that second part of the question is even more striking.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Friday's McCain/Obama Round-up
Posted by Steve Benen, The Carpetbagger Report on July 18, 2008 at 12:00 PM.

Campaign-related news items from this week:

* Resolving a simmering dispute, the Obama campaign has indicated that Barack Obama will not speak at Brandenburg Gate in Germany during his visit, but will instead give a speech at Berlin's Victory Column next Thursday.

* CNN: "Former President Bill Clinton said Thursday he's prepared to hit the campaign trail on behalf of Barack Obama as soon as the presumptive Democratic Presidential nominee asks him to. 'Whenever he asks -- that is, we had a good talk, and he said he wanted me to campaign with him, and I said I was eager to do so,' Clinton told reporters in New York Thursday. 'He's busier than I am, with politics anyway, so I just told him that whenever he wanted to do it, I was ready.'"

* The Obama campaign has quietly organized a tight-knit group of foreign-policy aides, "supported by a huge 300-person foreign policy campaign bureaucracy, organized like a mini State Department."

* Rasmussen shows Obama pulling ahead of John McCain in Nevada by two, 42% to 40%.

* Rasmussen shows McCain leading Obama in Virginia by the slimmest of margins, 48% to 47%.

* A little further south, Rasmussen shows McCain leading Obama in North Carolina by just three points, 45% to 42%.

* The McCain campaign can feel a lot better about its chances in Arkansas, where Rasmussen shows McCain up by 10, 47% to 37%.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

McCain's Shifting Stance on Immigration Continues With 'Dream Act' Flip-Flop
Posted by Steve Benen, The Carpetbagger Report on July 15, 2008 at 3:41 PM.

John McCain, recognizing the importance of Latino voters in the upcoming election, spoke to the National Council of La Raza yesterday. He told the audience, "I do ask for your trust," adding, "I think I have earned that trust."

I know McCain often has a dry sense of humor, and in this case, I can't help but wonder if he was kidding.

We've already talked about McCain's efforts to mislead the audience about his on-again, off-again support/opposition to comprehensive immigration reform. But after his speech, McCain opened the floor to about 15 minutes of Q&A. A young woman asked whether the Republican senator would support the Dream Act (Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act), which gives undocumented young people a chance to earn U.S. citizenship by going to college or enlisting in the military.

McCain didn't hesitate to endorse the legislation.

That's clearly the right position for McCain to take. The Dream Act should be a no-brainer: "Roughly 65,000 children graduate each year from high school into a constrained future because they cannot work legally or qualify for most college aid. These are the overlooked bystanders to the ferocious bickering over immigration. They did not ask to be brought here, have worked hard in school and could, given the chance, hone their talents and become members of the homegrown, high-skilled American work force. The bill is one of the least controversial immigration proposals that have been offered in the last five years."

But what McCain neglected to mention is that he already promised conservative activists that he opposes the Dream Act, and would have voted against it had he shown up for work last fall.

In fact, it was captured on tape.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Possible GOP Veep Asked How McCain's Economic Plans Differ from Bush's: "I'm Stumped!"
Posted by Steve Benen, The Carpetbagger Report on July 14, 2008 at 2:51 PM.

You'd think, at this point in the presidential race, that McCain campaign surrogates would be prepped on how to answer some of the easy, obvious questions, such as, "Are there any differences between Bush and McCain on economic policy?" This came up in May, when Rep. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), the second highest-ranking Republican in the House, was asked to name a difference, and he couldn't come up with one. It came up again in June, when Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) couldn't think of any differences either. And it was especially amusing to see this clip from CNN yesterday:

For those who can't watch clips online, CNN's Wolf Blitzer asked campaign surrogate and South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford (R), a man rumored to be a VP possibility for John McCain, "Are there any significant economic differences between what the Bush administration has put forward, over these many years, as opposed to, now, what John McCain supports?"

In a painful display, Sanford hemmed and hawed for quite a while. "Yes. I mean, for instance, take, you know -- take, for instance, the issue of -- I'm drawing a blank, and I hate it when I do that, particularly on television," he said, before adding, "But take, for instance, the contrast on NAFTA."

When Blitzer noted that Bush and McCain have identical policies on trade, Sanford said he was making a point about an area of disagreement between McCain and Barack Obama. (In other words, Sanford was making up a different question and then answering it.)

The reason that Sanford was humiliated, of course, is because there are no differences. He couldn't think of one because there are none.

But, McCain supporters say, there have been key differences between them. That's true. McCain used to disagree with Bush on taxes, supply-side economics, and the estate tax, but then McCain abandoned his old persona to reinvent himself as a Bush clone. But here's the real mystery: why didn't the McCain campaign send Sanford some talking points before the interview? Something to help him avoid this embarrassment?

In other Sunday show news:

* Carly Fiorina, a leading McCain advisor and surrogate, announced that McCain has not been "aligned with Bush on Iraq." She was lying.

* Fiorina also said there is "a set of economists" who've endorsed McCain's plan to eliminate the deficit. She was lying about that, too.

* And Fiorina insisted that "[t]he principal reason that [Sen. John McCain] voted against the Bush tax cuts is that they were not accompanied by fiscal restraint." And as it turns out, she was lying about that, too.

I've got a new slogan for the Republican presidential operation: "McCain '08: The Campaign That Makes Stuff Up."

Former White House Press Secretary Tony Snow Dies at Age 53
Posted by Steve Benen, The Carpetbagger Report on July 12, 2008 at 9:12 AM.

Tony Snow, dead at age 53:

Conservative commentator and former White House press secretary Tony Snow has died of cancer, Fox News reported Saturday.

Snow, 53, was a broadcaster for Fox News Channel and Fox News Radio when he replaced Scott McClellan as President Bush’s press secretary in May 2006.

Snow served just 17 months as press secretary, a tenure interrupted by his second bout with cancer. He resigned as Bush’s chief spokesman six months later, in September 2007, citing a need to earn more money. He then joined CNN as a commentator.

It wouldn’t be fair of me to pretend that I valued Snow’s work; I’ve criticized him enough times to prove otherwise. But even as he misled reporters and the nation, I always found Tony Snow to be an affable, likable guy, who enjoyed politics as much as I do. Even more important, I always respected his courage and tenacity when dealing with his serious illness.

My condolences to his family, friends, and colleagues.

McCain Thinks the Recession is All in Our Heads
Posted by Steve Benen, The Carpetbagger Report on July 10, 2008 at 10:29 AM.

Given economic conditions, the housing crisis, the energy market, dispiriting employment numbers, and the value of the dollar, you’d think the McCain campaign would be going to extraordinary lengths to show that John McCain a) recognizes the seriousness of the problem; and b) has a plan to help turn things around.

But that’s not quite the path the McCain campaign has chosen. Instead, the Republican presidential campaign has decided that the economy is really great, but Americans just aren’t smart enough to realize it.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Obama Outlines Faith-Based Agenda
Posted by Steve Benen, The Carpetbagger Report on July 1, 2008 at 2:15 PM.

The notion of the government contracting with religious ministries to provide social services is not, on its face, scandalous or unconstitutional. Groups like Catholic Charities and Lutheran Social Services have partnered with public officials for decades, almost always without incident. There have always been safeguards in place to protect church-state separation, the integrity of the ministry, and the rights of those who receive the benefits.

The safeguards were just common sense, and helped make these partnerships legal. Independent religious agencies, not churches themselves, handled the public funds. Tax dollars supported only secular programs, and no religious discrimination with public funds was permitted.

So what happened? George W. Bush decided he wanted to re-write the rules. His White House identified those safeguards and renamed them “barriers.” To protect the First Amendment and the interests of taxpayers, the president said, was to stand in the way of churches helping families in need. The safeguards, Bush insisted, had to be eliminated.

I was working at Americans United for Separation of Church and State when Bush was pushing this, and I worked specifically on this project. So, when I saw this AP feed this morning, I nearly fell out of my chair.

Reaching out to evangelical voters, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is announcing plans that would expand President Bush’s program steering federal social service dollars to religious groups and — in a move sure to cause controversy — support their ability to hire and fire based on faith.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Dick Cheney is a Barnacle on the Rotting Hull of the Executive Branch
Posted by Steve Benen, The Carpetbagger Report on June 26, 2008 at 3:44 PM.

Exactly one year ago tomorrow, the Office of the Vice President gave up on the notion that Dick Cheney isn’t really part of the executive branch. In the midst of an oversight fight regarding the handling of classified material, the OVP had made the absurd argument about Cheney’s branch, but on June 27, 2007, the Vice President’s team decided that was too ridiculous to keep repeating.

In fact, the next day, the NYT reported, “A White House official placed further distance from the dual role argument by adding that Mr. Cheney did not necessarily agree with it.”

So, all of this unpleasantness is behind us? We can finally agree that Cheney is the Vice President, and the Vice President is part of the executive branch? Apparently not. Cheney’s reclusive chief of staff, David Addington, told the House Judiciary Committee this afternoon that the VP is “attached” to the legislative branch.

The video shows Addington reading a 1961 memo describing the OVP as belonging “neither to the executive nor to the legislative branch.”

Addington refused to go into any additional detail, saying only that Cheney is “attached” to the legislative branch. When Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) suggested that would make the Vice President a “barnacle,” Addington, disgusted, said he didn’t “consider the Constitution a barnacle.”

Just as an aside, I can’t remember the last time I’ve seen any government official express the kind of contempt for Congress as I’ve seen from Addington today. Every response to every question is soaked in pure revulsion. I keep expecting him to spit at the members of the committee after every exchange.

But that aside, Addington’s argument about Cheney’s branch was silly when he first started pushing it, and it hasn’t improved with age.

Karl Rove advising McCain campaign
Posted by Steve Benen, The Carpetbagger Report on June 16, 2008 at 11:33 AM.

For several weeks, a variety of political observers, most notably ThinkProgress’ Amanda Terkel and Matt Corley, have highlighted Karl Rove’s connections to John McCain’s campaign. And for several weeks, Bush’s former chief strategist — the man the president affectionately calls “Turd Blossom” — has been arguing that there really isn’t a relationship.

Just a couple of weeks ago, George Stephanopoulos identified Rove as an “informal adviser” to McCain before an ABC News interview. Rove denied it, and when Stephanopoulos suggested that Rove offers the McCain camp advice and information, Rove would only concede to “chit chat” with the Republican presidential campaign.

Not surprisingly, there appears to be a little more to the relationship. Peter Stone writes in National Journal:

“Generally speaking, Rove’s advice [for McCain] is action-oriented and useful,” said another senior consultant to the McCain camp. “It’s always well received.” This McCain adviser noted that Rove talks periodically to [McCain’s chief political strategist, Charlie Black] and a few other top campaign aides on several key matters.

“It can be policy ideas, messaging ideas, fundraising prospects, or people who need calls from someone in the campaign.” Rove is “part of the information network that the campaign has,” this adviser said, adding that Rove talks fairly regularly to such key people as Wayne Berman, a major fundraiser for McCain; Nicolle Wallace, a communications adviser; and Steve Schmidt, a senior aide.

This isn’t necessarily a surprise, but it’s interesting for a few reasons.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Army Public Affairs Office Oversteps Its Bounds in Partisan Politics
Posted by Steve Benen, The Carpetbagger Report on June 13, 2008 at 6:00 AM.

In the coming issue of Joint Force Quarterly, an official military journal widely distributed among officers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff writes a welcome but unusual open letter to everyone who wears an Armed Forces uniform: stay out of the political arena during the election season.

“The U.S. military must remain apolitical at all times and in all ways,” wrote the chairman, Adm. Mike Mullen, the nation’s highest-ranking officer. “It is and must always be a neutral instrument of the state, no matter which party holds sway.”

It’s good advice, and a good policy. If only the Army’s public affairs office had taken the Admiral’s advice. Phillip Carter has the story:

The Army’s public affairs office publishes a daily roundup of Army-related news called “Stand To” — named for the set of procedures combat units do just prior to dawn, when they go to full alert for a possible enemy attack. The daily wrap-up contains links to mainstream media articles, Army press releases, foreign media stories and blogs. It’s similar to the Defense Department’s Early Bird — but much briefer, and obviously more focused on the Army.

Tuesday’s edition contained an entry under “WHAT’S BEING SAID IN BLOGS” that struck me as unusual — both for its headline and its patent political bias: “Obama: World peace thru surrender (KDIHH)”

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Comparing Obama and McCain on Taxes
Posted by Steve Benen, The Carpetbagger Report on June 12, 2008 at 3:55 PM.

Media efforts to minimize the differences notwithstanding, Barack Obama and John McCain couldn’t be much more different, especially on the issues of taxes.

The irony is, McCain, after his last presidential election, thought Bush’s trickle-down, class-warfare-style tax plan was ridiculous. “I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us, at the expense of middle-class Americans who most need tax relief,” McCain said in 2001.

Now, however, McCain is anxious to do precisely what he couldn’t in good conscience do before. Obama, meanwhile, is prepared to deliver for middle-class families and those at the lower end of the scale. The Washington-based Tax Policy Center crunched the numbers.

Both John McCain and Barack Obama promise to cut taxes for the majority of Americans. But an Obama administration would redistribute income toward lower- and middle-class households, while a McCain White House would steer the bulk of the benefits to the wealthiest families, according to a nonpartisan analysis of the still-evolving tax plans of the presidential candidates. […]

Under Sen. McCain, those in the middle — making between $66,354 and $111,645 — would see their after-tax income increase by 0.7%. The biggest benefit would flow to those in the top 0.1% — those with incomes above $2.8 million — who would see their after-tax income increase by 4.4%.

Sen. Obama skews his tax cuts toward the lower- and middle-end of the income scale. Those in the middle would see their after-tax income increase by 2.4% , or $1,042. Americans with incomes above $2.8 million would see their after-tax income decrease by 11.5%.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »