Monday’s Mini-Report

Today’s edition of quick hits.

* A pleasant surprise in Venezuela: “Venezuelan voters delivered a stinging defeat to President Hugo Chavez on Sunday, blocking proposed constitutional changes that would have given him political supremacy and accelerated the transformation of this oil-rich country into a socialist state. Hours after the final ballots were cast, the National Electoral Council announced at 1:15 a.m. local time Monday that voters, by a margin of 51 to 49 percent, had rejected 69 reforms to the 1999 constitution. The modifications would have permitted the president to stand for reelection indefinitely, appoint governors to provinces he would create and control Venezuela’s sizable foreign reserves.”

* While Venezuela’s authoritarian was rebuffed over the weekend, Russia’s wasn’t: “President Vladimir Putin secured a convincing personal victory in Russia’s parliamentary election Sunday and with it, his allies say, the “moral authority” he had demanded to maintain political influence in the country after he steps down next year. The pro-Kremlin United Russia party, whose ticket was headed by Putin, won more than 60 percent of the vote, according to exit polls and early returns.”

* Of course, not surprisingly, there are some lingering concerns about the integrity of Russia’s voting process. Go figure.

* How big is the national debt? It grows at a rate of $1 million per minute. Maybe now would be a good time to remind folks that as of 2001, Clinton had us on track to eliminate the national debt entirely by 2010. Instead, the debt now stands at a mind-numbing $9.13 trillion.

* A Wolfowitz comeback? Scary, but true: “Don’t ever say the Bush administration doesn’t take care of its own. Nearly three years after Paul Wolfowitz resigned as deputy Defense secretary and six months after his stormy departure as president of the World Bank — amid allegations that he improperly awarded a raise to his girlfriend — he’s in line to return to public service. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has offered Wolfowitz, a prime architect of the Iraq War, a position as chairman of the International Security Advisory Board, a prestigious State Department panel.”

* How bad was that front-page WaPo article on “rumors” (read: lies) about Obama’s religion? The piece has now drawn fire from the paper’s congressional reporter, media critic, and cartoonist.

* At a certain point, corruption in Iraq stops being a crisis, and becomes an epidemic.

* Larry Craig wants everyone to know that, despite all of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, he’s still not gay.

* More importantly, Craig, instead of just slinking away into oblivion, is in Bali this week, doing his part to undermine U.S. efforts to combat global warming.

* It’s a shame Bill O’Reilly doesn’t know what “ironic” means.

* It’s an even bigger shame the National Review’s W. Thomas Smith, Jr. seems to have published news reports from Lebanon that apparently weren’t true.

* Remember those loyalty oaths the Virginia Republican Party announced last week for voters participating in the primaries? The GOP wisely scrapped the idea in the face of widespread criticism. “We have heard the voice of the people,” said John H. Hager, the state party chairman. “It’s a new day, and our job has to be to build the party.”

* I like David Gregory’s aggressive style in the White House press room, but I’ll never understand his irrational hostility towards the netroots.

* TNR has decided to put the Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy to rest with a piece from Franklin Foer: “[I]n light of the evidence available to us, after months of intensive re-reporting, we cannot be confident that the events in his pieces occurred in exactly the manner that he described them. Without that essential confidence, we cannot stand by these stories.” I’d add, however, that the piece suggests Beauchamp’s accounts and anecdotes may very well be true, but the evidence to support the claims don’t meet the magazine’s standards.

* Did Tom Tancredo hire illegal immigrants to work on his Denver-area McMansion? It sure sounds like it.

* And finally, a nice quote from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on the filibuster-obsessed Senate GOP minority: “In all, Republicans have now blocked the priorities of working Americans by forcing 56 cloture votes — fast approaching the all-time record of 61 — a record that took a full two-year session to reach. Let me repeat — they have already nearly reached the all-time two-year obstruction record in less than one year. That would be like a ballplayer hitting 73 home runs by the all-star break. This isn’t normal obstruction. This is obstruction on steroids.”

Anything to add? Consider this an end-of-the-day open thread.

RE: Wolfowitz comeback…

If it looks like Dracula…
Murders like Dracula…
And is immortal like Dracula…

Maybe just maybe….

  • That Tancredo story has been well known in Colorado (and not just in politico circles) for some time. I’m shocked it hasn’t cracked into the blogs by now

  • I’m not absolutely against constitutions that can allow presidents to be elected repeatedly with no limits on terms, although maybe I should be (I certainly acknowledge that in a de facto dictatorship by the president, it’s obviously a farce to put a nice face on authoritarian rule). In a better society, one that could produce people with better human nature, for all I know it might be a good idea to bring back the same person again and again, if she was really so head-and-shoulders above the rest. But in the abstract, I would have to disagree with the idea- it just tends too much towards abuse, with the world and people as we’ve known them so far.

    So, because I haven’t read mcuh and don’t know much about modern Venezuela and about Chavez, my opinion is the defeat for the amendment is a good thing.

  • I wrote:

    I certainly acknowledge that in a de facto dictatorship by the president, it’s obviously a farce to put a nice face on authoritarian rule

    And of course, I don’t believe authoritarian is an appropriate way for modern, secular, technologically advanced people to be governed.

  • I applaud David Gregory when he asks really tough questions during the gaggle. I’m confounded when he gives his nightly report from the WhiteHouse lawn and he states the exact opposite of what he learned during the pressers. Needless to say, I couldn’t stand the cognitive dissonance and quit watching NBC Nightly News.

  • From the Alternet article:
    Tancredo, who dodged the draft during the Vietnam War by producing evidence that he suffered from mentall illnesses […]

    It’s interesting to see that the standards of mental fitness for the military are higher than those for Senate or President. Or used to be.

    re: Venezuela. Nice, but 51:49 percent is — as we all know — not, exactly, a mandate. And, of course, we still have to see whether Chavez accepts the results and retires from the public scene.

  • Re: The Virginia Republican Party loyalty oaths. Did anyone else notice the gaffe that Monica Goodling made in her Congressional testimony about a loyalty oath to Bush? I could be wearing my tin foil hat too tight but it seems like there’s something deeper going on underneath the surface.

  • Needless to say, I couldn’t stand the cognitive dissonance and quit watching NBC Nightly News.

    Enough cognitive dissonance and you can buy a house on the Vineyard.

  • How bad was that front-page WaPo article on “rumors” (read: lies) about Obama’s religion? The piece has now drawn fire from the paper’s congressional reporter, media critic, and cartoonist.

    If even Howard Kurtz can tell it’s bogus, then it must be boooooogus!

  • “Is Bali known for sexual tourism? Just wondering…”

    a few clicks on google ought to answer that. larry’s done that already, i presume……

  • RE: Nonstop Theft and Bribery Stagger Iraq

    The country was rebuilt by the best and brightest the american republican party had to offer.
    Is it any wonder that it is a manic kleptocarcy and a depressive plutocarcy?

    Doctor heal thyself….

  • Hey Harry, We already knew that. When are you gonna quit playing “look at what those mean republicans are threatening to do” and start making them DO it. The filibuster was never meant as a means of shutting down the senate. Republicans face no consequences for using this tactic and publicizing their actions will not get them to stop. They are shameless and act like pouting little kids who refuse to play if they don’t get their way. Start making them stay after school without recess. They need to be made fun of. DO something besides just saying okay and dropping the issue when they threaten filibuster. They won’t be there much longer.

  • How is losing by a less than 2% margin a ‘stinging defeat’?

    Honestly, I didn’t mind the referendum they were voting on… It was far less onerous than what we’ve had to vote on in CA here recently.

  • Crissa beat me to it – a few years ago, we held a sovereignty referendum on the question of Quebec independence, and it lost by almost exactly the same margin. Far from being a “stinging defeat” for the sovereigntists, they were encouraged by how close victory had been to their reaching fingers, and Canadians were agog to think how close we had come to losing perhaps our most beautiful province. Oh, I know we wouldn’t really have lost it, even the sovereigntists wanted substantial association after independence, but still.

    Anyway, Chavez came much closer to victory than the phrase implies. His following is mostly the poor – you can say they just want a handout if you like, but I don’t see it that way – and his detractors include the business lobby, who are opposed to losing the possibility of huge profits to the reallocations of a socialist state. I don’t think a Chavez victory would have made much of a difference to America, except that the Bush government despises him, and revels in his defeat. Venezuela’s oil would still be sold on the open market, as it has always been – even when Chavez was at his most insulting to the Great Vegetable that now disgraces the White House, he was selling oil in the U.S. at a substantial discount. Of course, that didn’t make the Bushies happy, either.

    I’m with Crissa.

  • I’m with Mark & Crissa as well – a 2% difference is less than, oh, a vote on the Supreme Court…

    Swan said “But in the abstract, I would have to disagree with the idea- it just tends too much towards abuse, with the world and people as we’ve known them so far.”

    Yep, those Aussies & Brits, with their open ended system… 🙂

    Sometimes, if someone is doing a good job, it seems really silly to remove them just because they’re limited to how long they can serve. How is it democratic to take someone out of the running completely? And yes, I know, there are a zillion places where it turned out badly. But, not always.

  • It has been mentioned that we don’t know if Chavez will accept the results, but the fact that the results HAVE been issued as a defeat for him says a lot about the election. Do you think that a rigged election would result in a defeat?
    But we can’t forget that Chavez is a monster, but Pooty-Poot is (sort of) our buddy, and how did those electins in Russia go?
    For that matter how did the recent election in Mexico go?

  • Kathy, a Brit prime minister is also more subject to being taken out of office (via election, and no confidence) than an American president, who is in there for good unless impeached and then removed from office pursuant to the impeachment. Even beginning an impeachment is an extraordinary process that is not initiated easily unless pretty unusual circumstances led to broad and unusually strong disapproval with the president. So the Brit example is not a good parallel. I don’t know anything about the Aussie system, but if it parallels the British in the pertinent details then of course what I say above stands for the Aussie system as well. Since a president who is only removeable by impeachment is more stuck in there, not having a limit on the number of terms in such a system is much more of a concern for democracy than in a system like the Brits’.

  • McCainbow flubs military contributions question at MTV/Meinspace “dialogue”

    McCain became most animated when Cillizza asked him a question about fellow Republican candidate and war critic Congressman Ron Paul reportedly raising more money than any other candidates from the ranks of the armed forces. “I don’t know the fact concerning more contributions from men and women in active duty, it may be accurate,” he said. “But I visit them too much and hear from them too much. … They aren’t fighting over there for oil and they aren’t fighting for empire and they aren’t fighting illegally. They’re fighting because they want America to be safe, or they wouldn’t be out there putting their lives on the line. Frankly, Congressman Ron Paul is wrong.”

    Ol’ McCain sure believes that the “cause of freedom” is in Iraq (same as his nostalgia for Vietnam and how the United States withdrew prior to “winning the war” there). Apparently he is not on speaking terms with U.S. Armed Forces members who support Ron Paul.

  • libra –

    re: Venezuela. Nice, but 51:49 percent is — as we all know — not, exactly, a mandate. And, of course, we still have to see whether Chavez accepts the results and retires from the public scene.

    Why would Chavez “retire from the public scene” after one referendum defeat? He’s still the president of the country until his term expires at the end of 2012, and his party still controls the National Assembly. We’re going to have Hugo in the news until the end of our NEXT president’s term, so get used to seeing his face.

  • I don’t understand why we at least don’t threaten to go nuclear on those Rethugs…give them a taste of their own medicine. See how they’d like it if we eliminated the fillibuster with them in the minority for the forseeable future.

  • How is losing by a less than 2% margin a ’stinging defeat’?

    Because, until last week, it was expected to be shooed through, and because it implies that a considerable portion of his (up-til-now) supporters must have voted against it.

  • Comments are closed.