Opposition to Gonzales

With all the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee having voted against the confirmation of Alberto Gonzales as Attorney General, it looks like perhaps Senate Democrats are preparing to vote against him en masse when the nomination reaches the floor. Personally, I'm all for it. Despite his attempt to soften his stance at the committee hearing, this editorial from the Washington Post indicates that he still won't come out and make a firm policy statement against the use of torture:

Mr. Gonzales stated at his hearing that he and Mr. Bush oppose "torture and abuse." But his written testimony to the committee makes clear that "abuse" is, in fact, permissible -- provided that it is practiced by the Central Intelligence Agency on foreigners held outside the United States. The Convention Against Torture, which the United States ratified in 1994, prohibits not only torture but "cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment." The Senate defined such treatment as abuse that would violate the Fifth, Eighth or 14th amendments to the Constitution -- a standard that the Bush administration formally accepted in 2003.

But Mr. Gonzales revealed that during his tenure as White House counsel, the administration twisted this straightforward standard to make it possible for the CIA to subject detainees to such practices as sensory deprivation, mock execution and simulated drowning. The constitutional amendments, he told the committee, technically do not apply to foreigners held abroad; therefore, in the administration's view the torture treaty does not bind intelligence interrogators operating on foreign soil. "The Department of Justice has concluded," he wrote, that "there is no legal prohibition under the Convention Against Torture on cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment with respect to aliens overseas."

According to most legal experts, this is a gross distortion of the law. The Senate cited the constitutional amendments in ratifying the treaty precisely to set a clear standard that could be applied to foreigners. Nevertheless, Mr. Gonzales uses this false loophole to justify practices that contravene fundamental American standards. He was asked if there were any legal prohibition against U.S. personnel using simulated drowning and mock executions as well as sleep deprivation, dogs to inspire fear, hooding, forced nudity, the forced injection of mood-altering drugs and the threat of sending a detainee to another country for torture, among other abuses. He answered: "Some might . . . be permissible in certain circumstances."

This is not a theoretical matter. The CIA today is holding an undetermined number of prisoners, believed to be in the dozens, in secret facilities in foreign countries. It has provided no account of them or their treatment to any outside body, and it has allowed no visits by the Red Cross. According to numerous media reports, it has subjected the prisoners to many of the abuses Mr. Gonzales said "might be permissible." It has practiced such mistreatment in Iraq, even though detainees there are covered by the Geneva Conventions; according to official investigations by the Pentagon, CIA treatment of prisoners there and in Afghanistan contributed to the adoption of illegal methods by military interrogators.

In other words, while claiming to oppose torture and abuse, Gonzales continues to offer loopholes and technicalities in order to allow U.S. personnel to practice, well, torture and abuse. If your senator is a moderate-to-conservative Democrat or a maverick Republican, now is the time to write/call/e-mail/fax/whatever to urge a vote against Gonzales. I'll be curious to see, incidentally, what John McCain and Joe Lieberman do, given this paragraph in the editorial:

In an attempt to close the loophole, Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.) sought to attach an amendment to the intelligence reform legislation last fall specifying that "no prisoner shall be subject to torture or cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment that is prohibited by the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States." The Senate adopted the provision unanimously. Later, however, it was stripped from the bill at the request of the White House. In his written testimony, Mr. Gonzales affirmed that the provision would have "provided legal protections to foreign prisoners to which they are not now entitled." Senators who supported the amendment consequently face a critical question: If they vote to confirm Mr. Gonzales as the government's chief legal authority, will they not be endorsing the systematic use of "cruel, inhumane and degrading" practices by the United States?

Couldn't have said it better myself. This change was a wise and responsible move by the U.S. Senate, and the Bush administration stiffed them on it. Lieberman and McCain, certainly, have no excuse for voting to confirm Gonzales as far as I'm concerned. (Which doesn't mean they won't -- I'd actually predict McCain will, and that Gonzales will be confirmed by at least a party-line vote of all 55 Republicans. I honestly don't know what Lieberman is planning to do.) Still, this is worth making some noise about, and I've signed up on the No to Gonzales page which is tracking opposition to Gonzales around the blogosphere. You can check out the list there to see the attention that this vote is generating.

Gay marriage...so shiny!

Spelling even more trouble within Republican ranks for Bush's Social Security plan, apparently some on the religious right are upset that not enough attention is being given to their favorite issue, a constitutional ban on gay marriage. (The title of this post, incidentally, comes from an episode of The Daily Show, in which Jon Stewart delivered the line in a Gollum-like voice to mock the national media's obsession with the issue.) As the New York Times reports, a coalition known as the Arlington Group has written a letter to President Bush about this:

The letter, dated Jan. 18, pointed out that many social conservatives who voted for Mr. Bush because of his stance on social issues lack equivalent enthusiasm for changing the retirement system or other tax issues. And to pass to pass any sweeping changes, members of the group argue, Mr. Bush will need the support of every element of his coalition.

"We couldn't help but notice the contrast between how the president is approaching the difficult issue of Social Security privatization where the public is deeply divided and the marriage issue where public opinion is overwhelmingly on his side," the letter said. "Is he prepared to spend significant political capital on privatization but reluctant to devote the same energy to preserving traditional marriage? If so it would create outrage with countless voters who stood with him just a few weeks ago, including an unprecedented number of African-Americans, Latinos and Catholics who broke with tradition and supported the president solely because of this issue."

[...]

Some Senate Republican leaders were not optimistic on Monday about the amendment's prospects this year.

"I think if we had the vote right now we'd come up short," said Senator Rick Santorum, the Pennsylvania Republican who is a member of the leadership and one of the amendment's most vocal backers in Congress. "We'd like to bring it up when we have the best possible chance of getting it passed."

Much as I hate to write this sentence any more often than I have to, I think Rick Santorum is right. The amendment failed 48-50 last year, with John Kerry and John Edwards also declaring their opposition but skipping the vote due to campaign commitments. Since then, five opponents -- John Breaux (D-LA), Tom Daschle (D-SD), Edwards (D-NC), Bob Graham (D-FL), and Fritz Hollings (D-SC) -- have left the Senate, all replaced by Republicans who are presumably supporters. Three supporters -- Ben Nighthorse Campbell (R-CO), Peter Fitzgerald (R-IL), and Zell Miller (D-in-name-GA) -- have also left. I'm guessing that Miller's Republican replacement is a supporter, and I'm almost certain that Barack Obama (Fitzgerald's successor) is opposed. I don't know about Ken Salazar (D-CO), who succeeded the retiring Campbell, but even if he votes for it, that's a maximum net gain of four in the Senate. There's just no way that the amendment's supporters can build from a base of 52 votes to the 2/3 majority needed to refer it to the states for ratification.

More to the point, however, I don't think it's true that "public opinion is overwhelmingly on [Bush's] side" on this issue. Though a wide majority of the public opposes gay marriage and a number of state constitutional bans have passed, the public support for a federal constitutional amendment is relatively low. According to the Polling Report, opinion polls from 2004 conducted by Quinnipiac University, CBS/New York Times, and Annenberg found that support for a constitutional amendment ranges from 38% to 43%, with opposition ranging from 48% to 56%. CNN/USA Today/Gallup found a small plurality or majority favoring the ban in 4 of 5 polls from 2004, while an ABC/Washington Post poll found 46%-45% in favor. Either way, it seems unlikely that this translates into the necessary approval at the state level, where 3/4 of states would have to ratify the amendment.

That's not to say, of course, that the amendment's supporters couldn't spin it in a way that state legislators would have to support it so as not to appear to be "pro-gay marriage" or that other arm-twisting shenanigans couldn't be applied. But as of now, despite all the talk of rising cultural conservatism, it appears that the "values majority" does not support the religious right's approach to this issue.

Chafee vulnerable in '06?

Republican Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island is certain to be a prime Democratic target in the 2006 elections, if nothing else because he's a Republican here in one of the bluest states in the country. Still, a race against Chafee is a more complex picture for Democrats than one might think: he's a respected maverick and the most liberal Republican in the Senate, his father was also a popular and independent-minded Senator, and the Chafees are one of the "five founding families" of Rhode Island or something like that. So I was somewhat surprised to read this today:

PROVIDENCE -- A public opinion survey commissioned by U.S. Senate Democrats shows Republican incumbent Sen. Lincoln D. Chafee to be vulnerable to a Democratic challenge in 2006, especially if the candidate is U.S. Rep. James R. Langevin, of Warwick.

The poll numbers released yesterday by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee show Langevin with 52 percent, Chafee at 32 percent and 17 percent undecided, said Cara Morris, spokeswoman for the committee.

The survey was done by Mark Mellman, a Washington, D.C.-based Democratic pollster who is familiar with Rhode Island politics. The poll of 500 registered voters was done from Jan. 11-13, Morris said. (The numbers do not equal 100 because of arithmetic rounding.)

Mellman asked this question: "If the November 2006 election were held today and the candidates were James Langevin and Lincoln Chafee, who would you vote for?"

The poll also tested two other Democrats who have expressed an interest in running against Chafee -- Secretary of State Matthew Brown and Sheldon Whitehouse, the former attorney general. The Democratic committee refused to release those numbers, but party sources -- and Chafee's staff -- said those results showed the senator with a big lead over Whitehouse and an even larger margin over Brown.

Of course, partisan polls come with a caveat, and Chafee's people point out that it's odd for Langevin to do so well in a poll where Whitehouse and Brown fare so poorly. Still, there are some signs that this could prove to be an interesting and perhaps successful race for Democrats. For one thing, the party establishment may be reaching a consensus in Langevin's favor -- as the article goes on to report, he seems to have the backing of Democratic Sen. Jack Reed, and Whitehouse is later quoted saying Langevin would "have his support," so presumably he'd forgo a run if Langevin enters the field. Similarly, Rep. Patrick Kennedy, himself once thought a potential Senate candidate, also commented favorably on Langevin's prospects in announcing his decision not to run. If the state's Democrats can agree to clear the field for Langevin ahead of time, they can avoid the sort of divisive primary battle that probably sunk their chances against Chafee in 2000. He also probably has the highest name recognition of any potential Chafee opponent now that Kennedy has opted out, and the fact that he's been paralyzed since age 16 gives his life story a unique appeal unmatched by the other career politicians in the field.

At that point, a Chafee/Langevin race could turn into a rather unique "steal the other guy's base" contest on certain issues. Chafee has historically had the support of pro-choice groups, while Langevin is pro-life. As someone who's personally opposed to abortion but has conflicted feelings about the issue of legality, this isn't make-or-break for me either way, but I know I don't speak for all of my fellow liberal Democrats on that, and the pro-choice advocates who have supported Chafee in the past certainly aren't going to endorse Langevin. At best, they may decide to keep a low profile and not stick their necks out for Chafee, who is still one more vote for a GOP-controlled Senate and who has limited influence over abortion legislation since he doesn't sit on any committees that typically deal with it.

Still, I suspect this could prove to be a winning bargain for Democrats, and here's why. Chafee's Republican base is already deeply dissatisfied with him. From his vocal opposition to the centerpieces of Bush's agenda (particularly tax cuts and the Iraq War) to his occasional public flirtation with changing parties and his announced decision to write in the President's father, George H.W. Bush, in the last election (which came off as more flaky and bizarre than anything else), he has not exactly made himself popular among the state's conservative Republicans. Mayor Steve Laffey of Cranston has attacked him from the right and attracted some attention as a potential primary challenger, and I still remember the angry listeners on a local call-in show who were vowing, on the eve of the Iraq War, to support Chafee's opponent next time around no matter who it was. A Democrat who takes conservative positions on a few hot-button issues like abortion and the flag-burning amendment (as Langevin does) just might inspire them to make good on those promises.

Langevin's Democratic base, on the other hand, is fairly diverse on social issues in the first place (the state legislature actually has a lot of pro-life Democrats) and may be more motivated to defeat a Republican Senator than anything else. And despite his positions on abortion and the flag-burning amendment, Langevin is not a uniform social conservative. He favors strong gun control, for example, and moreover, On The Issues places him a bit to Chafee's left on economic issues (where they both fall on the moderate-to-liberal side of the spectrum). The League of Conservation Voters, which endorsed Chafee in 2000, gives Langevin a near-perfect rating, whereas Chafee's appears to have fallen to somewhere in the 60-80% range. Given the GOP's generally atrocious environmental record in recent years, I doubt that the environmental groups will back even a pro-environment Republican when an even more pro-environment Democrat is the alternative.

These conflicts may well prove to be a microcosm of the race as a whole: Chafee will run on his moderate record and encourage his constituents to cast a vote for an individual and not a party, while Langevin (or any other Democrat) will appeal to Democratic party loyalty, trying to stress Chafee's party affiliation enough to hold the Democratic base but not enough to rally conservatives to Chafee's side. This is all assuming, of course, that Chafee doesn't decide to become a Democrat or a Democratic-allied Independent in the vein of Jim Jeffords. (Certainly some will continue encouraging him to do so -- Kos, for example, is now calling him "Lincoln 'Switch-or-Die' Chafee" in a diary entry from today.)

As a sidenote, Chafee's independent-but-flaky nature came through in the Rice hearings today. While I enjoyed seeing him challenge Rice over the Bush administration's "our way or the highway" diplomacy, his call for "common ground" with Venezuela and Iran couldn't help but sound like he wanted Bush to sit around a campfire with Hugo Chavez and Ayatollah Khameini roasting marshmallows and singing kum-ba-ya.

Houston, we have a signal

Yes, I'm still here. Er...there. Somewhere.

I've been meaning to get back to blogging for a while now, but I always seemed to end up not doing it for one reason or another, particularly the feeling that I would have to begin by writing up some sort of post-mortem on the Kerry campaign and my involvement in it. Hopefully, enough time has now passed that nobody would be particularly interested in that any more, and I can get away with simply acknowledging that I may have never felt worse in my life than I did at approximately 11:30 a.m. EST on November 3, 2004.

Anyway. I'm hoping to make a more regular habit of blogging from now on. A lot of my posts will probably still be about politics, albeit from the perspective of observer rather than stressed-out and confused volunteer participant, but I'll also try to get back to the original "mission statement" of this blog and occasionally blather about academia, pop culture, and life in Rhode Island as well. I've also picked a new template -- I believe this has zapped all the comments, but since there weren't many comments in the first place it's probably no great loss -- and redone the links section. One addition everyone should check out is JNickolaArts.com, where you can see my friend John Nickolai's various artistic endeavors. I'm also in the process of re-formatting the titles to the individual posts.

Of course, when I think back to my numerous attempts at keeping a journal over the years, I'm pretty sure that more than one "now I'm going to start writing in this more often" entry can be found among the various notebooks (which I really ought to track down and shred some day, now that I think of it), most of them followed by more long periods of silence. So when I say I'm going to start blogging more often, one should probably read an implied parenthetical "or not update for four months again."

So then. To whoever may be reading this -- check back soon. And just maybe I'll have updated again before the end of April.