Novak Bows Out

Just received an e-mail that Robert Novak, of the Evans-Novak Political Report among many other pursuits in political journalism, is stepping aside due to ill health. And the Evans-Novak Political Report, a fixture of American politics, will also cease publication after some 46 years.

Novak's farewell note is below:

Dear Reader,
As you may have read in the Evans-Novak Political Report, my recent health issues have forced me to give up active participation in the newsletter. Thankfully, my gifted deputy, Tim Carney, has ably filled the void for the past few months.

However, with the election and the inauguration behind us, and after much thought and deliberation with my publisher, we have decided that it is time to retire the Evans-Novak Political Report.

As you might imagine, this was an extremely difficult decision for me, and one I did not make lightly. It has been an honor to report on American politics for more than five decades, covering eight presidents, 23 Congressional elections and state and countless local elections and issues. I am grateful for your support of the Evans-Novak Political Report over the years, and wish you and your family all the best.

Sincerely,
Robert D. Novak

Novak Wrong in Calling Steady Five-Point Obama Lead a 'Bad Sign'

via mal contends - Robert Novak opines that "Republican losses in Congress will range from bad to catastrophic ... ," and yet Novak still contends that McCain has an even 50 shot at winning the election because of the static some-five-point-lead Obama has enjoyed at the polls for weeks.

"The complete lack of movement in the national polls is good news for Sen. John McCain and bad news for Sen. Barack Obama, even as the Democrat continues to hold a modest lead," writes Novak, whom we hope stays with us for decades to come.

But since when does a newcomer, non-incumbent presidential nominee blow away his challenger in the polls before the conventions and Labor Day—the first Monday in September. Can anyone name one example?

As Alan Abramowitz, Thomas E. Mann, and Larry J. Sabato write:
... virtually all of the evidence that we have reviewed--historical patterns, structural features of this election cycle, and national and state polls conducted over the last several months--point to a comfortable Obama/Democratic party victory in November. Trumpeting this race as a toss-up, almost certain to produce another nail-biter finish, distorts the evidence and does a disservice to readers and viewers who rely upon such punditry.

Religious Right Portends Trouble for McCain

Update: McCain Extends His Outreach, but Evangelicals Are Still Wary
Update: McCain's Evangelical Problem

Good to read McCain still having trouble with the religious right.

Though I happen to disagree with their descriptive facts of the world, those of the religious right whom I have met personally (here in Wisconsin) are earnest and well-intentioned, disdainful of cynicism and involved in the concept of community.

This headline makes progressives feel warm: Religious Right Figure Gets Chills: Obama Could Win 40 Percent Of Evangelicals.

For more information on McCain's trouble with the religious right, see:

- Religious Right to Kill 2008 Republican Nominee

- Evangelicals deserting ahead of 2008 election

Novak: Former Clinton Cabinet Members Scorn Hillary Candidacy

From the Evans-Novak Political Report:

The best indicator of Sen. Hillary Clinton's (D-N.Y.) distress is the fact that erstwhile supporters, including former Clinton Cabinet members, are badmouthing her as a very poor candidate. Inside the Democratic Party, it is already taken for granted that the queen is dead and Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) is the king.

Novak is right, Hillary is denounced and rejected by the voters; so she can go away now, right?

Noam Scheiber's has a fun look at Hillary's falling flat last night, and all season.

Campaign Notes

In what political pundits see as the most extraordinary presidential race in modern history, recent deployments have Americans looking to the electoral arena with passion and hope not seen since RFK and 1968. Some notes:

Edwards

Populist-progressive John Edwards has dropped out the race for the Democratic nomination, and appears poised to consolidate the growing progressive direction of the national political Democratic party, as activists and white men congeal around Barack Obama. However, Hillary’s coalition includes activists as well as strong Hispanic and womens’ support.

Hillary

But Hillary's grandstanding in Florida (in what was supposed to be a state in which no campaigning was to take place among Democratic candidates) reveals a desperate campaign. From the Evans-Novak Political Report:

The combination of Sen. Barack Obama's (Ill.) unexpected landslide in South Carolina and Sen. Teddy Kennedy's (Mass.) dramatic endorsement mean real trouble for Sen. Hillary Clinton (N.Y.). This is not what she expected on a smooth run to the nomination. Her name ID may be enough in Super Tuesday states, but she can no longer be so certain.

McCain

From the Evans-Novak Political Report:

Sen. John McCain's (Ariz.) successive wins in South Carolina and Florida mean he clearly is the front-runner in a two-man race with former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. Everything is in his favor in the high population states, and he could come close to wrapping up the nomination because of winner-take-all Republican rules. Time is growing short for the right wing of the GOP to stop McCain or even wrest concessions from him.

Huckabee

Mike Huckabee has enough organization and appeal to evangelicals to stay in the race after Super Tuesday. As Huckabee notes in his e-mail sent to supporters today:

Our focus turns now to Super Tuesday. Recent polling shows us in first or tied for first place in Georgia, Arkansas, Alabama, Missouri, Tennessee and Oklahoma… If the Republican nominee appears out of touch with regular voters or has cast votes that were an anathema to his Party, that candidate will fail to unite the Republican Party against the Democrat nominee, no matter who that nominee is. I have what it takes, our campaign is still standing and drawing new support everyday and I am prepared to lead America forward. Spread the word. I am fighting for you and will continue to do so every step of the way.

Obama and Hillary

The Obama and Hillary race will be a clash of political titans that all Democratic activists hope will stay relatively good-spirited and on the high road.

The Obama-Hillary race is a 50/50 bet, and a political junkie’s dream:

Salon’s Joan Walsh writes:

Barack Obama went up with a new ad in Northern California that I just saw this morning, and I have to say it's powerful. It's about healthcare, and he tells a story that's now a staple of many of his speeches, about his mother's troubles with insurance while she was fighting and ultimately dying of cancer at age 53. One noteworthy image in the first frames: A photo of Obama as a child, with his adoring mother, Ann Dunham, who was, of course, white.

Rudy

Defeated Giuliani Endorses McCain
Rudy was his own worst enemy: Arrogant, authoritarian, Nixonian and so enamored of himself that he believed people would flock to him even though he skipped political campaigning.

###

Novak: Clinton-Obama Race at 50/50

The Evans-Novak Political Report offers this take on Clinton's sleaze machine:

The truce between Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Barack Obama (D-Ill.) turned Tuesday night's two-hour MSNBC Democratic debate into a deadly dull affair. While it lasted, the "race debate" strained at the chords of the Democratic Party's racial alliance. Clinton cut it off, because the tiff was hurting her. It could make her election more difficult if nominated. The contest
between Clinton and Obama now appears to be 50-50.

Maybe so, on all counts.

The luster generated from the New Hampshire win has faded, and Hillary, a brilliant campaign team notwithstanding, faces an up-hill climb to convince large segments of the populace that she is a change candidate.

###

Novak: Romney Campaign at Death's Door

After spending millions of dollars and contorting himself to appeal to the GOP's religious right, Mitt Romney is being declared all but dead by a rightwing political pundit.

From the Evans-Novak Political Report:

Romney's core tactic in New Hampshire of attacking McCain on immigration fell flat partly because McCain reduced the issue to a squabble over the definition of "amnesty." Also, the negativity seemed to hurt him here as it did in Iowa. Finally, as a well-off corporate raider, it's hard for voters to believe Romney really cares about the issue. It comes across as opportunistic and purely political. Immigration has not proved a winning issue in recent years. ...

While Romney can dig into his own massive fortunes to stay alive, it's hard to imagine where he can win if he can't win in two states where he has spent huge amounts of money and time. The voters who know him best -- including those in his neighboring state of New Hampshire -- aren't quite sold on him.

###

Novak's Nowhere Man

From the Evans-Novak Political Report:

Robert Novak assures us John McCain is the Big Winner:

Thanks to Romney's loss, McCain won big despite his fourth-place finish. An impressive third-place would have given McCain serious momentum into New Hampshire, but he is still the favorite there. Letting the air out of Romney's balloon is a huge boost to McCain, who once again is now at the front of the pack.

Last I checked McCain is still immensely unpopular with the religious right. And Republicans without the religious right today hit the road to nowhere fast.

Well, maybe South Carolina and the South like McCain now that he has serious momentum; must have been Lieberman's endorsement

###

Novak's Iowa Predictions: Romney and Obama

Update: Iowa's not over, but gearing up for South Carolina, the GOP is sliming its own. Crooks and Liars reports: A holiday card that falsely claims to be from “the Romney family” and highlights Mitt Romney’s Mormon faith was anonymously sent to Republican mailboxes across South Carolina earlier this week.

On to Iowa predictions:

From the Evans-Novak Political Report:

Republicans

1st Place: Mitt Romney
2nd Place: Mike Huckabee
3rd Place: Fred Thompson
4th Place: John McCain

Democrats

1st Place: Barack Obama
2nd Place: John Edwards
3rd Place: Hillary Clinton
4th Place: Bill Richardson

MAL's Prediction

Republicans

1st Place: Mike Huckabee
2nd Place: Mitt Romney
3rd Place: John McCain
4th Place: Fred Thompson

Democrats

1st Place: Hillary Clinton
2nd Place: John Edwards (tie)
2nd Place: Barack Obama (tie)
4th Place: Bill Richardson

###

Plamegate: The Republicans Lied ... Again

The truth won, if your scoreboard is reality.

When the Bush rightwingers betrayed national security and blew the cover of a non-official cover CIA officer involved in keeping nuclear weapons technology out of the hands of other countries like Iran, The Nation's (posted 07/16/2003) David Corn (that crazy leftist, bring back HUAC) sounded the alarm.

As the first journalist to point out what amounts to treason, Corn deserves a few I-told-you-sos. And Corn sets the record straight in his piece, Plamegate Finale: We Were Right; They Were Wrong.

(Corn's) piece was the first to identify the leak as a possible White House crime and the first to characterize the leak as evidence that within the Bush administration political expedience trumped national security.

Continues Corn:

The column drew about 100,000 visitors to this website in a day or so. And--fairly or not--it's been cited by some as the event that triggered the Plame hullabaloo. I doubt that the column prompted the investigation eventually conducted by special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, for I assume that had my column not appeared the CIA still would have asked the Justice Department to investigate the leak as a possible crime. But now that Fitzgerald's investigation is long done, the Scooter Libby spin-off is over (thanks to George W. Bush's total commutation of Libby's sentence), and Valerie Wilson has finally published her account, it seems a good time to say, I was right. And to add, where's the apology?

Good question. Notes Corn:

From the start, neocons and conservative backers of the war dismissed the Plame leak and subsequent scandal as a big nothing. Some even claimed that somehow former Ambassador Joseph Wilson and I had cooked up the episode to ensnare the White House. (Oh, to be so devilishly clever--and to be so competent.) But these attempts to belittle the affair (and to belittle Valerie Wilson) were based on nothing but baseless spin. As was--no coincidence--the Iraq war. In fact, the Wilson imbroglio was something of a proxy war for the debate over the war itself. In the summer of 2003, when the Plame affair broke, those in and out of government who had misled the nation into the war saw the need to spin their way out of the Wilson controversy in order to protect the false sales pitch they had used to win public support for the invasion of Iraq.

First they attacked Joe Wilson when he disclosed that he had gone to Niger in February 2002 for the CIA and had reported back that the allegation Saddam Hussein had been uranium-shopping there was highly dubious. Then when Valerie Wilson's CIA identity was exposed during the get-Wilson campaign, they pooh-poohed the leak. They subsequently spent years doing so.

Here's a brief list of Plame attacks I've published before:

* On September 29, 2003, former Republican Party spokesman Clifford May wrote that the July 14, 2003 Robert Novak column that disclosed Valerie Wilson's CIA connection "wasn't news to me. I had been told that--but not by anyone working in the White House. Rather, I learned it from someone who formerly worked in the government and he mentioned it in an offhand manner, leading me to infer it was something that insiders were well aware of."

* On September 30, 2003, National Review writer Jonah Goldberg huffed, "Wilson's wife is a desk jockey and much of the Washington cocktail circuit knew that already."

* On October 1, 2003, Novak wrote, "How big a secret was it? It was well known around Washington that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA....[A]n unofficial source at the agency says she has been an analyst, not in covert operations."

* On July 17, 2005, Republican Representative Roy Blunt ☼, then the House majority leader, said on Face the Nation, "This was a job that the ambassador's wife had that she went to every day. It was a desk job. I think many people in Washington understood that her employment was at the CIA, and she went to that office every day."

* On February 18, 2007, as the Libby trial was under way, Republican lawyer/operative Victoria Toensing asserted in The Washington Post, "Plame was not covert."

* In his recently published memoirs, Novak wrote of Valerie Wilson, "She was not involved in clandestine activities. Instead, each day she went to CIA headquarters in Langley where she worked on arms proliferation."

Corn could add Wisconsin's Jim Wigderson's flacking as well. Writes Wigderson:

* So to sum it up: we have a case of obstruction (under appeal) of a needless investigation to determine facts already known in a case where no crime has been found to have been committed where the dispute centers on two different recollections of one phone conversation which took place after the possible crime was committed, a reasonable chance of getting the conviction overturned, and an arguably excessive sentence which was to be imposed immediately while the appeal was pending. Under the circumstances President Bush’s decision (to commute), and the timing of it, are completely understandable

Bad flacking. Valerie Wilson was undercover; blowing her cover is against the law; and obstructing justice in federal investigations is no little crime. Corn writes:

For her part, Valerie Wilson, who left the CIA at the end of 2005, has only recently been able to challenge the purposefully misleading descriptions of her CIA tenure. Appearing before the House government oversight and reform committee in March, she testified the she was a "covert officer" who had helped to "manage and run operations." She said that prior to the Iraq invasion she had "raced to discover intelligence" on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. "I also traveled to foreign countries on secret missions," she said under oath, "to find vital intelligence." She noted that she could "count on one hand" the number of people outside the CIA who knew of her spy work.

On Sunday, as she launched her new book, Fair Game: My Life as a Spy, My Betrayal by the White House, she appeared on 60 Minutes and repeated her case. Though the CIA has absurdly prevented her from acknowledging that she worked for the agency prior to 2002--she started there in 1985--Wilson told Katie Couric, "Our mission was to make sure that the bad guys basically did not get nuclear weapons." After her name appeared in the Novak column, she said, "I can tell you, all the intelligence services in the world that morning were running my name through their databases to see, 'Did anyone by this name come in the country? When? Do we know anything about it? Where did she stay? Well, who did she see?'...It puts in danger, if not shuts down, the operations that I had worked on." What damage was actually done by the leak remains a secret.

On 60 Minutes, Valerie Wilson said a damage assessment was conducted by the CIA but that she never saw it. She added, "I certainly didn't reach out to my old assets and ask them how they're doing, although I would have liked to have." That damage report has not been leaked. Nor has it been a subject of congressional interest--as far as one can publicly tell. in 2003, the Democrats in Congress who cared about the Plame leak were obsessed with calling for the appointment of a special prosecutor. That fixation proved to be a mistake.

A special prosecutor could only focus on criminal matters and could only disclose information necessary for a prosecution--rules that Patrick Fitzgerald would stick by. The Democrats never pushed for a congressional investigation that could have examined (and perhaps made public, even if in a limited fashion) key issues in the case, such as the consequences of the leak. Valerie Wilson said to Couric that the damage was "serious." The public ought to know if this is so. (When I once asked Senator Jay Rockefeller, the top Democrat on the Senate intelligence committee, if he had any intention of probing the Plame leak, he said he no interest in doing so.)

That's the detestable thing about Republican flacks' political logic: It's so Soviet. Protect and lie first, and never admit a crime. If lies obstruct and cover up crimes, then the crimes did not occur, and the lies and obstruction are just politics against the enemies of the state anyway.

But why not say, the hell with the Republicans' corruption? Many progressives have at numerous points dumped the Democrats for far less. Concludes Corn:

It is true that at the end of the day, no one was charged with a crime for leaking information on Valerie Wilson. Patrick Fitzgerald decided that he could not prove in court--as he would have to under the law--that the leakers knew that Valerie Wilson was a covert officer. But Fitzgerald did pursue Libby and Rove for possibly lying to FBI agents and the grand jury investigating the leak. He nabbed Libby but, after much consideration, opted not to indict Rove.

Still, Rove was caught in a lie. Toward the start of the Plame affair, the White House declared that Rove was not involved in the leak, and Bush indicated that anyone who had leaked classified information would be dismissed.

But the White House statement regarding Rove was false (probably because Rove had misled White House press secretary Scott McClellan). Bush's promise was false, too, for Rove remained Bush's master strategist even after Isikoff published an email showing that Rove had leaked classified information about Valerie Wilson to Cooper.

The bottom line: this episode demonstrated that the Bush White House was not honest (the vice president's chief of staff was even convicted of lying to law enforcement officials), that top Bush officials had risked national security for partisan gain, and that White House champions outside the government would eagerly hurl false accusations to defend the administration.

So is anyone apologizing? For ruining Valerie Wilson's career? For perhaps endangering operations and agents? For lying about the leak? For misleading the public about Rove's role? For placing spin above the truth? Armitage did apologize (via a media interview) to the Wilsons. But no one else involved has. And no one--not Bush, not Cheney, not their aides, not their neocon confederates--has admitted any wrongdoing in this saga.It's like the war: false statements, false cover stories, and failure to concede the errors in judgment and action that have caused harm to national security. But the meta-narrative of Bush and his neoconservative allies is one of no apology, no surrender. They say and do what they must to shield themselves from the consequences of their actions. Reality be damned. What matters is what they can get away with. In the case of Valerie Plame Wilson, they did escape retribution. In the larger case of the Iraq war, they are still hoping to.

In the meantime, the Toensings, Novaks, Wigdersons, and Jonah Goldbergs and the like can be counted on to lie and slime until their hearts are content. It's their way.
###

Religious Right to Kill 2008 Republican Nominee

Update II: Novak - McCain's Christian Problem

Update: Evangelicals deserting ahead of 2008 election

The Republicans Are Going to Lose.

[A recurring feature pointing to evidence and analyses of the Republicans’ coming defeat in 2008.]



Perhaps the key question about the race for the 2008 Republican presidential nominee is: How badly will the Republican nominee under-perform with the religious right in the general election?

Looking at the top four Republican contenders, the answer appears to be very badly; and though the religious right voters arguably comprise merely some 15-to-20 percent of the electorate in the general election, absent their enthusiastic support, the Republican nominee looks dead.

The religious right has found no acceptable candidates in the GOP's first-tier candidates, so Democrats can have some fun observing their nomination process.

Some quick notes on the four leading candidates:

Rudy Giuliani — James Dobson, the leading religious right leader of the Focus on the Family group that self-consciously rallies religious right voters has made clear that Rudy is political anathema; hence Rudy will perform badly with the religious right; and Rudy’s past positions on Affirmative Action, Abortion, civil right for gays and Immigration will kill his candidacy. [Rudy won’t play in the general election, and his cross-over appeal because of his strength has never been demonstrated and will be off-set by any agile Democratic campaign.]

John McCain — "Speaking as a private individual, I would not vote for John McCain under any circumstances," said James Dobson. Few religious right leaders have forgiven McCain for his wildly unpopular (in Republican circles) McCain/Feingold bill, and his April 9, 2000 speech trashing the religious right (that’s the Robertson/Falwell “agents of intolerance” speech). McCain would perform as badly as Rudy.

Mitt Romney — As Governor of Massachusetts, Romney was even more pro-choice and pro-civil rights for gays than Rudy. The massive effort underway to convert him into a rightwinger won’t fly (detailed in the current Harper’s (November) piece by Ken Silverstein). As quoted by Silverstein: “(Romney) says all the right things, his speeches run through the litmus test on conservative issues, but there’s no conviction behind it. …,” said Cyndi Mosteller, a social rightwinger and GOP politico in South Carolina. Add to that Christian religious bigotry against Mormons and you have a political Loser.

Fred Thompson — As a late September piece in The Politico notes: "Isn’t Thompson the candidate who is opposed to a constitutional amendment to protect marriage, believes there should be 50 different definitions of marriage in the U.S., favors McCain-Feingold, won’t talk at all about what he believes, and can’t speak his way out of a paper bag on the campaign trail?" Dobson asked in the message, obtained by The Associated Press. "He has no passion, no zeal and no apparent ‘want to.’ And yet he is apparently the Great Hope that burns in the breasts of many conservative Christians? Well, not for me, my brothers. Not for me!"

Grandpa Fred is dead, and he comes across as tired and wooden: An older version of an unenergetic John Kerry.
###

U.S. Senate Looks to Turn Dark Blue

Update:

The Politcio: Coming Dem Dominance in Senate

Novak: GOP Could Lose 5-8 Senate Seats
From the latest Evans-Novak Political Report: "The decision not to run by Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) now raises to five the possible losses of Senate seats by Republicans. Democrats also are targeting Sen. Gordon Smith (R-OR) for a sixth seat. If 2008 turns into a Democratic landslide, Senators Elizabeth Dole (R-NC) and even Mitch McConnell (R-KY) could be in danger."

The most undemocratic body of American representative government looks to turn dark blue in 2008 with Republicans' most optimistic scenarios pointing to at least four pickups for Democrats.

As the Iraq occupation lingers on with the effect of grinding up young American troops, democratic candidates for the Senate in 2008 across the country are hitting the war hard.

Jeff Merkley, Speaker of the House and the leading contender for the 2008 Senate Democratic nomination in Oregon, sends out a fundraising e-mailing stating:

Unfortunately, General Petraeus is a good man being forced to justify a disastrous war. How many more American and Iraqi lives, and how many billions of dollars will it take before President Bush admits it? ...

Despite all evidence to the contrary, President Bush and his top advisers continue to insist the escalation of the Iraq war is a prescription for success. It is mind boggling just how disconnected from reality this administration really is.

And despite his efforts to remake his record, (Republican incumbent) Gordon Smith voted for this escalation and is just as responsible as George Bush for the ongoing debacle in Iraq.

Oregon is representative of the rest of the country, slightly blue turning darker blue as Republicans cling to old bigotries and militarism, running from reality as the country passes them by.

###