Rahm Emanuel tells Dick Cheney to move out!

I'm not a fan of Mr. Emanuel, but this is some really good snark:

"Today, we discovered that everything we learned in U.S. government class was wrong. Evidently, the Vice President does not consider himself a part of the executive branch, and therefore believes he can obstruct meaningful oversight and avoid being held accountable. If the Vice President truly believes he is not a part of the executive branch, he should return the salary the American taxpayers have been paying him since January 2001, and move out of the home for which they are footing the bill."

So when will the protestors show up outside the Veep's residence yelling for Dick to "Get out of Al Gore's House!"

Bloomberg II

That was quick! Looks like there's already some data on the question of what impact Bloomberg would have.

Bottom line: Bloomberg's impact depends entirely on who the Dem and GOP nominees are, but it's clear that in more cases, his entry actually flips the states from red to blue than the other way around.

One other interesting point: The polls suggest that the two candidates who would be most hurt in a general election by a Bloomberg entry are Mitt Romney and, surprisingly, Barack Obama. And Bloomberg flips states when either of those two are nominated — at least for now.

I'm not that surprised by the Obama hit. Obama may actually be the most likely of the three top Dems to have some crossover appeal with Republicans who are sick of where their party has gone in recent years. Hillary is poison to the GOP while Edwards is running the most openly progressive campaign. But Obama speaks a language of reconciliation that may appeal to dispirited Republicans.

Bloomberg may give them a more acceptable alternative in the "I want to send a message to my party" dynamic.

Bloomberg might help Democrats

The (albeit anonymous) take on a Bloomberg candidacy from a Republican strategist: it would help the Democrats.

This analysis is interesting because my initial thoughts on this were along the line of other liberal bloggers who theorized that Bloomberg would steal more votes from Dems than from Republicans. Why did I think this? Partially because independents are notoriously disgusted with both parties and may like the appeal of a "pox on both their houses" candidate. But also because Democrats, traditionally, have been more fickle about sticking with their nominee.

For the last two decades (at least as long as I have been paying attention to politics), the Republicans have been nearly lockstep in supporting their nominee. They may squawk along the way about this or that issue (Bush garnered a lot of negative feelings early in 2000 from the Freeper crowd), but when the time comes they were reliable button pushers for their party.

But Democrats (again, for at least as long as I have been paying attention), have a problem getting that kind of loyalty out of their members. Democrats in recent years have loved to toy with the idea of protest candidates (Nader) and candidates outside the mainstream (Perot, etc.) There was even a serious consideration of McCain in 2000 (if he were to have chosen an independent run back then). The worse example of this I can think of is the rumors in 2004 that Kerry was considering offering the VP slot to McCain.

It was a measure of how little faith Democrats had in their candidates that they would seriously consider adopting a right-winger like McCain as their Veep!

But the above mentioned strategist has a different take on this:

"I don't think he's ultimately going to damage the Dem too much because there's a lot of energy behind the Democratic Party right now. People are fired up about the Democratic candidates."

I think he may be right. I've never felt the kind of strong cross-section appeal of the leading Dem candidates (Hillary, Obama and Edwards) within the Democrats as I have felt this year. Democrats got the taste of victory in 2006 and they want it again, even more so, in 2008.

Meanwhile, the Republicans appear to be almost in despair because of their weak slate of candidates. Going so far as to wistfully dream of resurrecting Ronald Reagan in the body of Fred Thompson.

Perhaps this will finally be the year where the Democrats hold tight and it is the Republicans who split.

Off the table. In the pocket.

I've been thinking lately about the use of the term "off/on the table" when discussing the use of military force against Iran. There are those who argue that it is a position of weakness to take the military option "off the table" and that keeping it "on the table" just adds necessary pressure on the Iranian regime to make concessions on its nuclear development. On the other side there are those who argue that keeping the military option on the table, aside from being impractical (do we really have much in the way of viable military options in Iran?), it is also beligerant. It tells Iran that we aren't really serious about negotiations and are really more interested in just bullying others into doing what we want.

I've come to the conclusion that there is a fundamental miscommunication between the "leave our options open" side and the "don't act beligerant" side. The problem is in the very metaphor itself. When you say that something is "off the table", what do you really mean? Do you mean that the option will NEVER be exercised (or, as critics like to say, that you are going into negotiations with one arm tied behind your back)? Or does it mean that you don't want to put the option in play at this time because doing so would needlessly aggravate negotiations.

Think of it this way, just because something is off the table doesn't mean it isn't in your pocket.

During the Cold War, American and the Soviets had thousands of missiles targeted on each others cities. The missiles were "on the table". After the Cold War ended both America and Russia agreed to de-target their missiles. Did this mean they were agreeing never to use them? No, they were just taking them off the table and "putting them in their pocket". The missiles could, with very little effort, be re-targeted if need be (indeed, Putin hinted at this during the recent dust-up over a missile shield in eastern Europe.)

It is a mistake to interpret "off the table" as equivalent to a pacifist position. That so many seem to interpret it as such is perhaps an indication that it is a flawed metaphor that should be retired.

BTW, the discussion of presidential impeachment is also hampered by misunderstandings over this metaphor. Nancy Pelosi assumed the speakership saying that impeachment was "off the table" for this session of Congress. Some interpreted that to mean that she would actively oppose any effort to pursue impeachment, even if it were overwhelmingly shown to be the proper course of action. But if "off the table" meant "in the pocket" for Pelosi, then she was simply saying that the Democrats wouldn't use impeachment as a negotiation chip in discussions with the White House but that the option would always be available if it was needed. I argued at the time (and still do) that a better metaphor would have been to say that impeachment was "not on the agenda". This would reassure people that the Democrats weren't interested in a tit-for-tat witch hunt that would derail all other legislative efforts but leave it clear that impeachment would always remain an option.

(This train of thought was inspired by this post from Ezra).

Oh, one more point on metaphors. This topic reminds me of a lesson I learned early in the experience of raising our children: never make a threat that you aren't willing to follow through on and always follow through on your threats. The "on the table" metaphor, unfortunately, sounds to much like a threat and not the "just keeping the option in reserve" that some people seem to think it is. In other words, if you put something "on the table" it means that you are seriously considering using it.

This is especially true with this administration that has a demonstrated record of using whatever weapons it puts "on the table" early in the negotiations. So a Bush administration putting the military option "on the table", in light of experience, sounds like a near 100% certainty that they will eventually use it. Bush has changed the way the game is played and its about time our more serious pundits realized this.

The rest of the world certainly has.

Confronting Cohen

I just submitted the following question to the online discussion that Richard Cohen is having with readers.

You said above, "I'm not taking anyone's word about it, I'm not saying there were no consequences to her outing, but it was done inadvertently. And in fact, a special prosecutor could not bring a case against anybody for the leak."

One of the reasons why Fitzgerald could not bring a case against anybody for the leak was specifically because Libby lied. He poisoned the investigation by seeding it with falsehoods and obscuring the underlying issue. That is why he was convicted of obstructing justice. By his deliberate acts Mr. Libby obstructed an investigation that might have determined if there was a real underlying crime.

You decry the sentence because you say there wasn't an underlying crime. But you don't know that. You can't know that.

And the reason you can't is directly because of Mr. Libby's actions.

That is why Libby deserves the punishment he is getting.

Is it really so difficult for Mr. Cohen to get this basic point?

Is Bush EVIL?

Glenn Greenwald has an important post today on the question of whether Bush is Evil because he has cynically used the "Good vs. Evil" frame to win support for his horrendous policies or whether he actually believes it.

He appropriately calls out those who want to paint Bush with the same simplistic "Evil" brush that Bush uses against others. What those who do so fail to understand is that, by doing so, they are legitimizing Bush's own use of this model.

If we are to argue that Manichean "Good vs. Evil" is a bad frame for our foreign policy (or any other policy for that matter) than we shoot ourselves in the foot if we, at the same time, adopt a similar black-n-white approach to Bush and his cronies.

I agree with Glenn that the question of Bush's own personal beliefs are irrelevant. If he really believes we are in a titanic battle of "Good vs. Evil" or whether he just uses it as a convenient talking point to scare people into supporting his policies, the end result is the same: the encouragement of a naive, simplistic view of the world that leaves us more vulnerable to the true evils (small e) of the world.

Besides, it is my personal belief that, even if the "Good vs. Evil" frame was adopted opportunistically, the repeated application of the frame will seep back into the mindset of those who promote it. In other words, the more you push the Koolaid the more the Koolaid starts to look good to you. So, even if Bush didn't start out believing in all his talk of "Good vs. Evil", he probably does now.

It may be the only thing that comforts him in the face of overwhelming public disapproval.