I Know Nothink, I See Nothink

Somebody got to Tom Ridge. Someone got to him so badly, he's claiming that he was misquoted by his autobiography.

Ridge is now trying to get back into their good graces. He has been on an apology tour this week, insisting that he never meant to insinuate any bad motives on his former colleagues. Yesterday he groveled to Sean Hannity on Fox News, and today he went on CNN and is scheduled to talk with Rachel Maddow on MSNBC tonight. He also gave an interview to ABC’s Political Punch podcast. In all the appearances he criticized people for misinterpreting what he had written:

• But there’s never been any doubt in my mind that any of these individuals, Secretary Powell, Attorney General Ashcroft, Secretary Rumsfeld, the FBI Director Mueller, they’ve always had the security of America as the number one reason they would say, let’s go up or let’s not go up. I don’t think it ever was politics.” [CNN, 9/1/09]

• “”Is there any other reason that’s out there and perhaps this — expressed it unartfully — but I’m not suggesting that anybody in that room on that occasion or any other occasion was interested in doing anything other than the right thing to protect America.” [ABC, 9/1/09]

• “I was musing in the book, as I was trying to think back on those discussions. … Is there something else that I am missing or my department’s missing? Pure and simple. It’s not an accusatory statement. Wasn’t intended to be. And if people want to talk about it in that fashion, in this world — see, security is not black and white.” [Fox News, 8/31/09]

That Maddow interview was straight crazy. He denied words on the jacket of his own book.

I wonder what the Bushies have on this guy. Ridge has talked about political pressure in the past, in fact for years and years. John Dean speculates that he talked himself into criminal actions of politicizing terror this time, so he has to backpedal.

My Gut Hatred Of People Who Use The Term "Gut Hatred" To Marginalize People

I'm glad that the Tom Ridge revelation about FEAR Unit is getting the pickup it deserves - we shouldn't forget the kind of place this country was after 9/11 and during the bulk of the Bush regime (By the way, Ridge has been hinting at this for years). Maybe if Democratic leaders understood that more they wouldn't be stubbing their toes right now. The facts are that the Republicans at that time were willing to politicize national security, and lie to terrorize the public, all to win elections. The fact that Ridge refused to raise the terror alert level one time (in response to the bin Laden message right before the 2004 vote) doesn't excuse him for doing Bush's bidding numerous times beforehand, like holding press conferences right after the Democratic National Convention raising fears of terrorism. And the spin from Frances Townsend, that they only discussed if raising threat levels would HURT Bush, makes no sense at all.

It was clear just by recognizing the pattern - that even election year came with a whole slew of terror alerts - that this was a coordinated effort to scare people into trusting Daddy Bush and the GOP with their lives. When Marc Ambinder tried to call those who recognize this pattern motivated by "gut hatred" of Bush and admitted that "journalists are going to give the government the benefit of some doubt," he really summed up the state of the modern media. Ambinder's apologized for the term "gut hatred," but not the underlying fallacy supporting his beliefs. Glennzilla:

Just as is still commonly said about opponents of the Iraq War (even though they were right, they were still wrong and unSerious because their motives were bad), Ambinder acknowledges that Bush critics were right that the terror alerts were being manipulated for political ends (he has no choice but to acknowledge that now that Ridge admits it), but still says journalists like himself were right to scorn such critics "because these folks based their assumption on gut hatred for President Bush, and not on any evaluation of the raw intelligence." As always: even when the dirty leftist hippies are proven right, they're still Shrill, unSerious Losers who every decent person and "journalist" scorns [...]

The reason journalists such as Ambinder saw no such evidence wasn't because it didn't exist. It existed in abundance; you had to suffer from some form of moral, intellectual or emotional blindness not to see it. It's because they didn't want to see it, because -- as Ambinder said -- they trusted the Bush administration as good and decent people who might err but would never do anything truly dishonest. It's because only loser Leftist ideologues distrusted Bush officials and the overriding goal of establishment journalists is to prove that they are not like them, that they're much more Serious and responsible and thus would never attribute bad motives to government leaders such as those who ran the Bush administration.

As Krugman says, "it’s really sad that those who missed the obvious, who failed to see what was right in front of their noses, still consider themselves superior to those who got it right." But then, they wouldn't be modern journalists if they didn't act that way.

Oh, The Things They Did

So let's take a quick break from calling Obama Hitler to have a look at his predecessor. Anything new coming out?

Doop-de-do... hey, look, turns out they hired mercenaries to carry out extra-judicial assassinations!

The Central Intelligence Agency in 2004 hired outside contractors from the private security contractor Blackwater USA as part of a secret program to locate and assassinate top operatives of Al Qaeda, according to current and former government officials.

Executives from Blackwater, which has generated controversy because of its aggressive tactics in Iraq, helped the spy agency with planning, training and surveillance. The C.I.A. spent several million dollars on the program, which did not successfully capture or kill any terrorist suspects.

The fact that the C.I.A. used an outside company for the program was a major reason that Leon E. Panetta, the C.I.A.’s director, became alarmed and called an emergency meeting in June to tell Congress that the agency had withheld details of the program for seven years, the officials said.

It's the perfect Bush-era blend of privatization and murder.

Also, I think we know how Blackwater mercenaries react in situations where they are given guns and a measure of freedom - that would be Nissour Square. I guess we should be happy the "Blackwater in Your Corner" campaign only reached the formative stages.

So, anything else? Hmm... here's confirmation from Tom Ridge of something we knew all along!

Among the headlines promoted by publisher Thomas Dunne Books: Ridge was never invited to sit in on National Security Council meetings; was “blindsided” by the FBI in morning Oval Office meetings because the agency withheld critical information from him; found his urgings to block Michael Brown from being named head of the emergency agency blamed for the Hurricane Katrina disaster ignored; and was pushed to raise the security alert on the eve of President Bush’s re-election, something he saw as politically motivated and worth resigning over.

Obviously, this is Ridge's book, and he gets to set the history. But I don't think you could escape the sneaking suspicion that, every even-numbered year in the age of Bush, suddenly we were told about "chatter" from terrorists and definitive plans and the raising of the alert level. I used to call it the Federal Even-yeared Anti-Terror Response, or FEAR, Unit.

Can Ridge apologize now for saying in 2004 "We don't do politics at the Department of Homeland Security"?

My, what a trip down memory lane this morning...

...Marc Ambinder calls pattern recognition "gut hatred of Bush", admits his skepticism about politicized terror alerts was wrong, but at least he wasn't a hippie about it. This guy should be fired for admitting that.

But he's a card-carrying Villager, so he'll be promoted.

...Wow.

Osama bin Laden had released a videotape with one more ominous sounding but unspecific threat against the United States. Neither Mr. Ridge nor any of the department’s security experts thought the message warranted any change in the nation’s alert status.

“…at this point there was nothing to indicate a specific threat and no reason to cause undue public alarm,” he writes.

But that view met resistance in a tense conference call with members of the intelligence community and several other Cabinet officers including Attorney General John Ashcroft and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

“A vigorous, some might say dramatic, discussion ensured. Ashcroft strongly urged an increase in the threat level and was supported by Rumsfeld.”

Noting the correlation found between increases in the threat level and the president’s approval rating, Mr. Ridge writes, “I wondered, ‘Is this about security or politics?’”

No wonder Ridge didn't run for Senate.

Tales Of Harry Reid Speaking Out Of Turn

Harry Reid tries to reassure those nervous about Arlen Specter changing his party affiliation but not his votes since becoming a Democrat by assuring everyone "on procedural votes he'll be with us all the time." When asked, Specter just didn't offer the same impression.

Well, Fox News caught up with Specter today and asked him about that: "Specter merely smiled and repeated several times, 'I'm going to have to talk to Sen. Reid about that.'"

Reid told Fox in response: "I have talked since Monday night of last week on Specter. I'm not going to talk any more about it. I have explained and re-explained and the re-explaining is over with."

And Reid's spokesman Jim Manley said Reid was being "hopeful and optimistic" about Specter's vote, and reiterated what he told me yesterday about this: "Sen. Reid never takes any votes for granted."

Oy.

Meanwhile, Tom Ridge, who decided against a run for the Republican Senate nomination in Pennsylvania, won't say if he'd vote for Pat Toomey in a general election matchup against Specter. Pat Toomey, as in, the guy who'll be the nominee Pat Toomey.

Hopefully Joe Sestak or some actual Democrat can step in and beat all these clowns.

Worst. Candidate Recruiters. Ever.

You would think that a former Governor, someone extremely competitive in the general election against an incumbent, would be an easy mark to recruit for the Senate. Unless the person in question is Tom Ridge, and the party in question the Republican Party. Here's his statement:

After careful consideration and many conversations with friends and family and the leadership of my party, I have decided not to seek the Republican nomination for Senate.

I am enormously grateful for the confidence my party expressed in me, the encouragement and kindness of my fellow citizens in Pennsylvania and the valuable counsel I received from so many of my party colleagues. The 2010 race has significant implications for my party, and that required thoughtful reflection. All of the above made my decision a difficult and deeply personal conclusion to reach. However, this process also impressed upon me how fortunate I am to have so many friends who volunteered to support my journey if I chose to take it and continue to offer their support after I conveyed to them this morning how I believe I can best serve my commonwealth, my party and my country.

It's clear from the statement that he didn't want to deal with the whackos of the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate either. Kos had numbers showing him losing to Pat Toomey in the primary.

Two things here: first, this is all the more reason to support a primary of Arlen Specter. With Ridge's departure, the probability that Pat Toomey will win the Republican nomination go up significantly. Sure, the party poohbahs will try to find someone not fated to lose, like Rep. Jim Gerlach from the Philly suburbs. But Toomey has the momentum. And he cannot win a general election. Democrats in Pennsylvania should know that they can put someone who shares their values in the race with every expectation that they can win the seat.

Second, this is an epic FAIL for the GOP recruitment team. Combine this with Mark Kirk's demurral to run for the Senate in Illinois, and you have two high-profile candidates begging off a run. Nobody wants anything to do with the Republican Party. And why would they? Consigned to a minority for the near future, unable to gain traction with the same old ideas, and in the face of a popular President, the Republicans have nothing to offer their candidates, let alone America.

Press Release Pollsters

This is getting weird. The same pollster, from a GOP outfit, releases two polls on the same day, one showing Arlen Specter crushing Joe Sestak in a primary, the other showing Tom Ridge crushing Pat Toomey in a primary, and beating Specter in a head-to-head matchup. And this used to be Specter's pollster, but they parted ways after Specter switched parties. The head-to-head numbers from Ridge/Specter and Toomey/Specter differ dramatically from anything else out there.

This reads like a PR release for Tom Ridge, plain and simple. Anyone who buys these poll results ought to take a look at some beachfront property in Oklahoma I'm selling.

By the way, the primary wouldn't be for a year, people realize, and in that time Ridge will have to deal with hundreds of days of attacks from his own party on his record. Remember that the GOP primary in Pennsylvania is closed. Also, Ridge appears to not live in the state anymore. And he has lobbying problems.

Long story short, I don't buy the numbers and I don't buy the foregone conclusion of Specter-Ridge.

For instance, Arlen pining for Norm Coleman to win the Senate race in Minnesota - AFTER the party switch, strikes me as something that may come up in a primary.

Kabuki Partially Confirmed?

This Joe Sestak interview with TPMDC confirmed some of my suspicions that the same Democrats who brokered a deal with Arlen Specter aren't exactly unhappy with Sestak criticizing it.

I asked him whether he'd been on the receiving end of establishment pressure -- from people like Vice President Joe Biden and Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell -- to stay out of the race, and he insisted, "I haven't heard from anyone."

While Democrats from the While House on down might be trying to keep the Democratic primary field clear for Specter, they might not necessarily mind the fact that, for the time being, Sestak is applying pressure on Specter to move left. By keeping the door open to challenging Specter in the Democratic primary, Sestak may serve to nudge Specter further than he might otherwise have gone. Yesterday, Sestak told Greg Sargent that if Specter "doesn't demonstrate that he has shifted his position on a number of issues, I would not hesitate at all to get in" to a primary fight against him.

As I said yesterday, Sestak loses nothing from calling out Specter - even if he decides against running, he gains credibility as a Democrat enunciating Democratic principles, actually more credibility than he probably deserves - later in the TPMDC interview he equivocates on the question of a public option for health care reform. And given that Sestak has only grown louder in his criticisms, he certainly hasn't heard from the White House, as he notes, that he might want to tone it down. I could absolutely envision a scenario where Sestak has no real intention of running but is being used as a cattle prod to corral Specter.

The bigger question about primarying Specter is whether or not Tom Ridge enters the race. While Pat Toomey probably cannot get elected in Pennsylvania, a pro-choice former Governor with some measure of popularity might be able to pull it off. I don't think that's a given - Ridge worked for George Bush in a high-profile position, so he'll have to live that down. And there's a major question whether he can beat Toomey in a primary. Toomey has raised half a million dollars in just a few weeks since entering the race and would have substantial grassroots support in a closed Republican primary that has grown far more conservative in recent years. I personally don't believe that any Democratic candidate has much to fear, either from Specter or from Toomey or from Ridge. But that's another factor.

...Labor leaders meeting with Specter today. The kabuki dance continues.

Palin's Failure

I think history will show Sarah Palin to be among the worst Vice Presidential choices in American history. Normally these picks have little to no bearing on the race. This year, it caused a big bounce up due to conservative enthusiasm followed by a HUGE bounce down once Americans got to know this lady. Especially considering the age on the top of her ticket, the idea that she might become President is enough to frighten the vast middle. In fact, it's enough to frighten McCain campaign advisers.

Charles Fried, a professor at Harvard Law School, has long been one of the most important conservative thinkers in the United States. Under President Reagan, he served, with great distinction, as Solicitor General of the United States. Since then, he has been prominently associated with several Republican leaders and candidates, most recently John McCain, for whom he expressed his enthusiastic support in January.

This week, Fried announced that he has voted for Obama-Biden by absentee ballot. In his letter to Trevor Potter, the General Counsel to the McCain-Palin campaign, he asked that his name be removed from the several campaign-related committees on which he serves. In that letter, he said that chief among the reasons for his decision "is the choice of Sarah Palin at a time of deep national crisis."

Why the revulsion? Because she represents everything that we've seen from George Bush for the last eight years. She is completely ignorant, particularly in the area of science...

his is too much. Sarah Palin gave a policy speech today in which she claimed that she wanted more support for children with disabilities, more tools to test for disorders, and while also decrying the expense of scientific research.

Where does a lot of that earmark money end up anyway? […] You've heard about some of these pet projects they really don't make a whole lot of sense and sometimes these dollars go to projects that have little or nothing to do with the public good. Things like fruit fly research in Paris, France. I kid you not.

Yes, scientists work on fruit flies. Some of the most powerful tools in genetics and molecular biology are available in fruit flies, and these are animals that are particularly amenable to experimentation. Molecular genetics has revealed that humans share key molecules, the basic developmental toolkit, with all other animals, thanks to our shared evolutionary heritage (something else the wackaloon from Wasilla denies), and that we can use these other organisms to probe the fundamental mechanisms that underlie core processes in the formation of the nervous system — precisely the phenomena Palin claims are so important.

...she is terribly corrupt, a strong believer in cronyism - she installed 100 friends and hangers-on in government positions in Alaska - and happy to abuse the power of her office:

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin testified for two hours Friday in an abuse-of-power investigation that has been a distraction to her Republican vice presidential campaign. Palin's leadership was questioned this month in a stinging but largely toothless legislative report that found she violated state ethics laws by letting a family dispute influence her decision-making [...]

The (personnel) board is investigating the firing of her public safety commissioner, Walter Monegan. Monegan claims he was dismissed because he refused to fire Palin's former brother-in-law, a state trooper involved in a messy divorce from Palin's sister. The controversy, known as "Troopergate," took on national significance after John McCain selected Palin as his running mate.

(BTW, Palin calling it "Tasergate" admits guilt; their party line is that Monegan was fired because of budget issues, but the "Taser" refers to the conduct of Mike Wooten, inferring that Monegan really was fired for refusing to remove Wooten from his job.)

...and her extremism on social issues gives aid and comfort to domestic terrorists:

Brian Williams: Back to the notion of terrorists and terrorism, this word has come up in relation to Mr. Ayers -- hanging out with terrorist – domestic terrorists. It is said that it gives it a vaguely post uh 9-11 hint, using that word, that we don’t normally associate with domestic crimes. Are we changing the definition? Are the people who set fire to American cities during the ‘60’s terrorists, under this definition? Is an abortion clinic bomber a terrorist under the definition?

Sarah Palin: There is no question that Bill Ayers via his own admittance was um one who sought to destroy our US Capitol and our Pentagon -- that is a domestic terrorist. There’s no question there. Now others who would want to engage in harming innocent Americans or um facilities, that uh, it would be unacceptable -- I don’t know if you could use the word terrorist, but its unacceptable and it would not be condoned of course on our watch. I don’t know if what you are asking is if I regret referring to Bill Ayers as an unrepentant domestic terrorist. I don’t regret characterizing him as that.

Brian Williams: I’m just asking what other categories you would put in there. Abortion clinic bombers? Protesters in cities where fires were started, Molotov cocktails, were thrown? People died.

Sarah Palin: I would put in that category of Bill Ayers anyone else who would seek to destroy our United States Capitol and our Pentagon and would seek to destroy innocent Americans.

This is by no means an exhaustive list. There's the whole not understanding the role of the Vice Presidency, which puts her at odds with her own running mate. But it's a good sampling of why she has been so uniquely miserable as a nominee. It's why even John McCain's closest friends are unable to defend her. Joe Lieberman says "thank God she's not going to have to be president from day one"; Tom Ridge says the campaign would be going better if he were on the ticket. There are little controversies like wardrobe-gate. But this is about who Sarah Palin is. It terrifies people.