If you think the last two years have been a rough time for Alberto Gonzales, check out what's happened to a different Alberto: former Peruvian President Alberto Fujimori. First, his poorly-thought-out scheme to return from exile and run in Peru's 2006 presidential election ran into trouble when he was arrested by Chilean authorities while en route to Peru and later placed under house arrest.
To fan the who-is-Bush-subtly-endorsing flames, here's a tidbit from a Mort Kondracke write-up of a meeting with Bush in which he waxes philosophical about what he's looking for in the next prez: "He should be comfortable with his family," Bush said. "Should be somebody who'll work hard to make sure there's love in the White House ..." I can think of one person who doesn't meet the first qualification -- meow! But "love in the White House"? If that's your priority, there's only one logical choice: --Eve Fairbanks
Ross Douthat takes a swipe at TNR's editorial stance on the constitutionality of the D.C. voting-rights bill. He quotes our position on the issue: McConnell and Bush base their opposition on ostensibly constitutional grounds, arguing that the Constitution grants congressional representation only to states, which, of course, the District of Columbia is not. But the legislation, as it's crafted, addresses these concerns--since it provides for expedited judicial review of the bill if it's challenged after becoming law.
AP: COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) - Former President George H.W. Bush backs John McCain's efforts to increase support for the Iraq war in a new video, a telecast that aides to both men say shouldn't be construed as an endorsement of McCain's White House bid. On Monday night, the former president appeared in the video shown at South Carolina's military college, The Citadel, during the final stop of the Arizona senator's "No Surrender" tour. "The bottom line is we must persevere; we must not surrender; we must not quit and run away.
. . . and the District of Columbia. The D.C. voting rights bill--which would have added two seats to the U.S. House of Representatives, with one going to D.C. and the other to Utah--has died in the Senate. From the WaPo: The Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and the White House have strongly criticized the legislation.
Last week, Eve reported that the real news at the Petraeus testimony came from Ambassador Ryan Crocker, who painted a much bleaker picture of the situation in Iraq than essentially any other administration official to date. Today Crocker is in the news again, this time for condemning the Department of Homeland Security's resettlement process for Iraqi refugees.
Following up on Ryan's New Yorker piece about the Democratic candidates' efforts to deal with Bill Clinton's legacy, Ed Kilgore has an insightful post noting the similarities and differences between the critiques of Clintonism offered by Dick Gephardt and Ted Kennedy in 1997 and those offered by Edwards and Obama today.
Granted, Newt has a vested interest in dumping on the current crop of GOP presidential candidates. But I think the critique of the Republican field that he gave to National Journal is pretty smart: Q: Let's talk about the Republicans who are in the race, starting with former Governor Mitt Romney. Is he the kind of visionary you think the country needs? Gingrich: Look, I think there are three or four possible Republican nominees -- [Rudy] Giuliani, Romney, [Fred] Thompson, [Mike] Huckabee, and, based on his recent re-energizing, [John] McCain. All of them are smart people.
Obama's swing through Iowa was all about Iraq. After delivering his initial address in Clinton, he held four town hall-style forums in the eastern part of the state. Before taking questions he opened each event with a 15-minute condensation of his Wednesday Iraq speech. His campaign also distributed Iraq-specific campaign brochures to supporters. One of them is headlined, "BARACK OBAMA: Opposed to the Iraq War from the Very Start." Printed on one side are the particulars of Obama's plans for a US withdrawal from the country.
In Sweatt v. Painter, the Supreme Court noted that a new law school could never, whatever its material endowment, acquire those qualities which are incapable of objective measurement but which make for greatness in a law school.