Las Vegas Gleaner

34 percent and counting

The CBS News poll (pdf) showing Bush's approval rating at 34 percent has prompted Limbaugh and other Bush apologists to do what they do so much better than everybody else: whine. CBS talked to too many Democrats, or so goes the talking point.

So, ya ever check out Mystery Pollster? MP takes a swing at explaining/calibrating the CBS results and concludes, first, that "the difference in the party results does not explain the drop in the Bush job rating, which occurs across all three categories" (i.e., GOP, Dem and independent). Secondly, even if you recalculate the CBS results for average party composition, Bush's approval rating still rounds to 34 percent. (By the way, Mystery Pollster also checked in with Zogby about his poll of the troops and discusses, sort of, the difficulty in polling people during a war).

72 percent of troops in Iraq say enough already

A Zogby poll of U.S. troops on the ground in Iraq found that 72 percent say they should leave this year and only one in five agree with the Strong Leader that they should stay for as long as it takes. The poll also found quite a bit of divergent opinion as to what exactly "it" is; 58 percent say they see a clear U.S. mission in Iraq, while 42 percent say it "is either somewhat or very unclear to them, that they have no understanding of it at all, or are unsure." And then there's this: 85 percent said as near as they can tell, the U.S. mission is “to retaliate for Saddam’s role in the 9-11 attacks."

Asked to reflect on us non-troops who would like to see the U.S. out of Iraq yesterday, the largest single response, 37 percent, said they think Americans who want a rapid exit from the war are "unpatriotic." That, of course, is a goddamned shame, and it's hard to know how so many troops might have landed on such an idea. Unless it was the same place where they got the notion that they're there to retaliate for Saddam's role in 9-11.

Sigh.

Daily Glean: Clairvoyance, Kenny? The Nation, Jack? Secession, anyone?

• As everyone knows, people in the rural heartland are simply better than cityfolk, because in the rural heartland, moral and ethical values are deeply cherished. For instance, 'twas but a year ago that Rep. Jim Gibbons stole someone else's words and presented them as his own. Smarty-boots fancy people in the city might consider that a moral and ethical transgression. But the good folks of the rural heartland, their superior moral and ethical values on blazing display, are more than willing to forgive and forget, magnanimously allowing Gibbons to make a joke of committing plagiarism, and standing ready to support Gibbons in his effort to become governor of Nevada (LVRJ). Come to think of it, the god-fearing folks of rural Nevada, along with their reverence for traditional values and common sense, shouldn't have to be soiled by belonging to the same state as the icky secularist evildoer sympathizers in the city. Southern Nevada should do everyone a favor, break off, and become the 51st state.
• The local mainstream press gets around to noticing that Las Vegas wants to host the Democratic National Convention in '08. (AP/LVRJ) Again, we'd prefer to see Las Vegas host the Republicans. Meantime, Denver continues to be getting lots of buzz.
• Not only is George W. Bush a strong leader chosen by a Christian god to eradicate evil from the face of the earth once and for all, he also has the supernatural ability to see objects and actions beyond the limits customarily imposed by space and time. At least that's what Nevada Gov. Kenny Guinn learned at the National Governors Association meeting. LVRJ
• "Is there a more important federal issue being handled with less urgency than illegal immigration?" asks the R-J's editorial page. Hmm, let's see. Global warming? Health care? The botched invasion of an unarmed nation igniting a powder keg and no exit strategy in sight? Poverty? Race? Class? Tax fairness? The ongoing war being waged against American citizens by a corporate oligarchy? An economic house of cards buttressed by an unsustainable trade deficit and a monstrous national debt controlled largely by nations who may decide to, you know, start selling? Nope. Addressing the insecurities of xenophobic white male editorial writers appears to be the preeminent issue of the day.
• Jack Carter is hitting the road in the hopes of stuffing his pockets with money so he can buy ads explaining why Nevada should have a senator instead of a hair-do. First up is a New York fundraiser co-hosted by William vanden Heuvel, a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations but, more interestingly, perhaps, the father of Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor of The Nation. The hand-wringing earnestness of The Nation and its subsequent unreadability notwithstanding, the magazine has, by and large and over the decades, meant well, and we've every confidence it still does. And while we don't link Jack to every position advocated by The Nation editorial board because the paternal vanden Heuvel is hosting an event (we'll leave that to the wingnut blogs), we admit that we find such connections rather intriguing and encouraging, bolstering the ongoing suspicion that win or lose, this Carter-Ensign race is going to be more interesting than the customary political fare 'round here. Oh, Carter has fundraisers coming up in Nevada over the next few weeks, and in LA, Seattle and of course, D.C., too.
• Harry Reid Democratic War Room and Media Message Development Center, Sniffs an Issue Department, looks forward to congressional attempts to change the Republican/Pharma/Bush Medicare drug fiasco in this, an election year. UPI
• Via Flash, the news that an anti-monkey petition challenging the teaching of evolution in Nevada schools has reared its god-fearing head. Perhaps Nevadans should take a cue from neighbors to the north (er, east, mostly -- we're so Henderson-centric), where....
• Surprisingly strong pro-monkey sentiments surface in Utah Legislature. A bill to challenge evolution in schools dies -- despite the eloquent arguments of state Sen. Chris Buttars (Republican, of course), a truly magnificent spokesman for the anti-monkey cause: Disgusted at the notion that he evolved from a "lower species," Buttars explained, "There are a number of influential legislators who believe you evolved from an ape ...I didn't." SaltLakeTribune, NYTimes

Daily Glean: Saints get their garments in a bunch

• Arguably the most interesting thing in the local papers over the last three days was a letter in Saturday's R-J from UNLV professor William Epstein venting about the mediocrity of his colleagues -- particularly the "by and large failed scholars" who constitute the Faculty Senate. 'Tis a bit too much of an apologia on behalf of Lord High Chancellor Jim Rogers for our taste. But we suspect that there might be a sound point or three tucked into the piece that, as the cliche goes, needed to be said.
• R-J profiles the failed congressional career of Rep. Jim Gibbons, who thinks he's gubernatorial material. Even without mentioning Gibbon's miserably botched mining bill catastrophe of late last year, the paper still inventories several setbacks, defeats and disappointments that serve as the hallmark of Gibbon's obscure tenure as a congressman. "Learning how to deal with people in the legislative branch is something an effective governor must do," Gibbons said, though no indication was offered as to when that might be expected to happen.
• Anjeanette files dispatches from Gibbons' RV; Scandalmonger has the art; Ralston envisions life on the bus.
• "The press will want to know, for example, whether he wears the Mormon's secret and sacred undergarments beneath his politician's suit," the Guardian speculates. No, not Harry Reid ("Reid's Mormonism is unthreatening"), and not Jim Gibbons nor Jim Gibson for that matter. But Republican Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who thinks he's presidential material. "Polygamy makes lousy politics," but good TV, the article concludes, after noting that a new HBO series on polygamy has got the church leaders all riled up. Finally, a nonsensical injection of religion into politics that we can get behind.
• Billy Walters spokesman Brian Greenspun gives an interview to the paper that distributes his family newsletter, explains that such newsletters typically don't conduct investigative journalism, so consultants were hired and "they're not odor experts" -- an undeniably true observation, judging from the malodorous conclusion in the firm's report. LVRJ
  • R-J editor-for-now Tom Mitchell weighs in on the Sun's public relations work for Walters, and because who knows when the opportunity will next present itself, if ever, we are pleased to report that Mitchell's column is, well, funny.
• One UNLV professor writing a story on another UNLV professor for Harper's. And they say UNLV professors don't publish. LVRJ
• Somebody named Kathy Augustine is something called the state controller, but more importantly, she was impeached, and convicted, and she's still state controller, and now she wants to be state treasurer, and the state Republicans wish she'd go away. "We as a party need to stand for something," sez NV GOP chair Paul Adams. "We are a party that was incensed over the actions of Bill Clinton...If you have certain things in your background, you should be disqualified for office. You should not be running as a Republican." And so we eagerly await the resolutions from the Nevada Republican Party denouncing Tom DeLay, Bob Ney, Bill Frist, Scooter, Dick Cheney... AP, LVRJ

Reid, Berkley not liberals -- darnit

National Journal's annual stab at quantifying the ideological purity or lack thereof of members of Congress is nestling in cyberspace for your perusal. In some sort of perverse inversion of standards found in Wobegonian youngsters, none of Nevada's congressional delegation is particularly above average -- or below, for that matter -- at least for their respective parties.

On the Democratic side, neither Reid nor Berkley are raging liberals. If anything, they are, sadly, moderate, a fact already commonly understood in Nevada -- save among the editorial writers at the Las Vegas Review-Journal. It's mildly surprising, s'pose, to see Harry Reid, though the 25th most liberal senator (which is to say barely liberal), is just a hair more liberal than Chuck Schumer. On second thought, the surprise is to find that Schumer is just a hair more conservative than Reid.

As for the Republicans, Ensign is solidly conservative -- to the right of 42 of his Republican colleagues. That still leaves him the 14th wingnuttiest whack unit in the entire U.S. Senate. That's nothing to sneeze at, and we have every confidence that if Nevada voters give him another term, he'll crack the top ten.

In the House, Jon Porter and Jim Gibbons are both firmly and respectably in the middle to upper-middle of conservative whackery, with Gibbons being a tad more of a right-wing kook than Porter. They can -- and no doubt will -- use these rankings to suggest that they're not simply conservative drones. But, really, you've only got two wings of the Republican party in the House, the mainstream extremists and the extreme extremists, and the best that can be said of either Porter or Gibbons is that they're borderline.

The most conservative senator is Jeff Sessions of Alabama, and most liberal is Ted Kennedy. In the House, the wildest wingnut award goes to some Republican named Trent Franks, from across the river in Arizona. The representative most frustrated at the spectacle of never-ending assaults on social and economic justice, i.e., the most liberal, is California's Pete Stark.

Nevadans by the numbers (National Journal sez: The ratings rank lawmakers on how they vote relative to each other on a conservative-to-liberal scale in both the Senate and the House):

• Reid: Liberal 78.2; Conservative 21.8
• Hair-Do: Liberal 17.7; Conservative 82.3
• Berkley: Liberal 67.8; Conservative 32.2
• Porter: Liberal 34.3; Conservative 65.7
• Gibbons: Liberal 25.8; Conservative 74.2

The Hair-Do has a moment of candor

In his statement on the dust-up over a UAE-owned company operating U.S. ports, magnificent Hair-Do and Republican senator from Nevada John Ensign said the deal "sends the message that we are not being as diligent as we should in terms of America’s security, and that is not a perception we can afford to create.”

It is perfectly understandable that Ensign would be gravely concerned about the "perception" of America's security. The "perception" of Republicans as the muscular daddy party that will protect us from evil sold wonderfully with voters in 2002 and 2004, and that "perception" is central to GOP campaign strategy again this year. Of course Ensign wasn't on the ballot in 2002 and 2004, so if anybody was delighted to hear Karl Rove explaining last month that the Republicans would definitely be milking the national security issue one more time in 2006, it was Ensign. Finally, after longingly watching so many of his GOP Senate colleagues, as well as Bush, ride flag-waving chest-thumping patriotic fear-mongering to victory at the polls, Ensign gets his first post-9-11 campaign -- his turn to cash in on the "perception" that he's a Republican, ergo, he's, you know, tough on terror.

The reality is something altogether different. The best thing about the Dubai World Ports story has been the growing popular realization that overall port security has been woefully neglected by the Bush administration and its Republican apologists in Congress -- including Ensign (a point Ensign's Democratic challenger, Jack Carter, made Thursday). While  more than $20 billion in federal grants have been awarded for aviation security, only $700 million has been spent on port security grants, and "the lowest-paying jobs on the waterfront are security people" (Post).  Year after year, port officials and the Coast Guard -- along with many Democrats -- have identified the problem to the Bush administration, and asked for adequate funding to make ports more secure. And year after year, the administration and the Republican Congress have ignored the calls (Knight-Ridder), being, as they are, preoccupied with bolstering the "perception" that they're protecting us, as opposed to actually protecting us.

Ensign, as much a go-along get-along Bush sycophant as anyone in Washington D.C., is part of the problem; at least six times, Ensign has voted against increasing funding for port security, including:

• In March 2005, Ensign voted against a budget reconciliation bill amendment to restore $565 million in cuts to first responder programs, including $150 million for port security grants.
• In September 2004, Ensign voted against an amendment to the Homeland Security budget bill to provide an additional $150 million for equipment to detect nuclear weapons in containers entering U.S.ports.

• In July 2003, Ensign voted not once but twice against an amendment to the Homeland Security Appropriations bill to increase spending on port and border security by $238.5 million. While proposing the amendment, Sen. Robert Byrd explained why it was necessary: "In November of 2002, President Bush signed the Maritime Transportation Security Act which established new standards for securing our Nation's ports. Despite the fact that the Coast Guard had estimated it will cost the ports $5.4 billion over 10 years to implement those standards, including $1.1 billion the first year, the President did not request a dime for port security."

• And Ensign again voted not once but twice in April 2003 against efforts to allocate more than $1 billion to port security and other homeland security spending.

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, which helpfully catalogued those votes, notes that Ensign is the rule, not the exception, when it comes to Republican senators treating port security as if it were the weather, i.e., talking about it but not doing anything about it. “Anyone looking for a definition of the pre-9/11 worldview need look no further than at how leading Republican Senators have blocked Democratic efforts to improve port security since the 2001 attacks,” DSCC spokester Phil Singer says.  “If these Republican Senators are genuine about doing something to improve port security, they should stop voting against Democratic efforts to keep America safe and embrace them instead.”

Oh, Ensign and his GOP cohorts "are genuine" all right. They are genuinely convinced that they needn't really do anything serious about protecting ports -- or do anything seriously in the public interest on any other policy issue, for that matter -- so long as voters continue to buy the "perception" that the Republicans are, you know, the tough ones. And while the notion of Republicans cherishing "perception" more than reality isn't much of a surprise, it is a bit unusual to see Ensign admitting it so readily.

Important Gib-blogging notes

• If we were churchy, we'd be sending our prayers to the RGJ's Anjeanette Damon, who confides that she will be spending three days aboard a used RV with the gubernatorial campaign of GOP Rep. Jim Gibbons. Of the many thoughts that come to mind -- take a GPS, don't touch anything, watch your back, is maintenance current on the newspaper's decontamination chamber, etc. -- our overriding sentiment is: ewwww, yucky.
• Scandalmonger at VoteGibbonsOut has prepared a very thoughtful and insightful analysis of Gibbons' campaign strategy. We've looked at it two or three times now, and the more we see it, the more we like it. Sincerely, everyone, check it out. (And don't miss the accompanying audio link).

Miniglean

• The goofy tax and spend control initiative needs to be redrawn -- again -- after a suit brought by the AFL-CIO, NSEA and others earlier this month argued that the initiative wasn't being straight with voters (AP). TASC's supporters can complain that they are being jerked around, that this is just another delaying tactic by evil unions and bureaucrats who are sympathetic to runaway government spending, blahblahblah. But "so complicated it had to be rewritten three times" sounds like the kind of phrase you might hear in a TV ad.
• Meantime, TASCmaster Bob Beers, who runs for governor in his spare time, borrows a page from the Dick Cheney playbook. No, he didn't get drunk and shoot Grover Norquist in the face (not as far as we know, anyway). According to Anjeanette, when asked about health care at a candidates' forum up yonder, Beers said, "I'm not a big fan of socializing medicine. I’m not sure that is anything close to a crisis." Why are we busting out the Cheney reference? Cheney pioneered the no-crisis school of health care policy analysis in 1992 1996, when he was briefly considering a run for president. What? You didn't know Cheney was mulling a run for president in 1992 1996? Exactly. Sadly the no-crisis strategy will probably work just as well for Bob, which is too damned bad because we still want to see him catch fire and force Jim Gibbons to start spending money in earnest.
• The Professional Firefighters of Nevada endorse Dina Titus for governor. Darned firefighters. What a bunch of liberals.
• Scooter's lawyers want the charges against him dismissed because the administration screwed up the process of appointing a prosecutor to investigate the administration. Tricky, tricky Republicans. AP
• In a prime example of why it's just so hard to take much of anything seriously anymore, White House useful idiot Bob Novak still has a column. And the Washington Post -- the Washington Post, ferchrissake -- still runs it. Anyway, tucked in at the bottom of Novak's latest effort is the tip that Sen. John Ensign had a fundraiser the other night hosted by, among others, Verizon, Alltel, Comcast, and the National Cable and Telecommunications Association. Ensign's supcalifragilistic telecom bill, written by and for the cable and phone corporations, ain't going anywhere any time soon. But you can bet the industry wants to keep him on a leash for later.
• Richard Abowitz of the Las Vegas Weekly (and the LATimes' Vegas blog) is our new favorite writer.

Carter: UAE deal "tertiary" to general GOP neglect of port security

Following up on the Daily Glean, we shot an e-mail to Jack Carter under the subject line, "port deal--for or against" and it went like this: "Your father appears to be the only person openly supporting Bush on this ports deal, and Ensign opposes it, which raises the question, what's your position?"

Carter's e-mailed response:

"It is through our ports that nuclear or chemical weapons of mass destruction are likely to enter. Therefore, port security is one of the key provisions of any real homeland security package. Such a program should insure inspection of ships and containers that enter a port -- only about 5% are currently checked. A second consideration is verifying the identity of the employees, drivers, and other persons with access to our ports. The Bush administration has done virtually nothing on either of these matters. My opponent has supported their lack of effort.

"Apparently, the tax cut for the wealthy that has become its hallmark has made it difficult to cut enough from our poor, our veterans, and our elderly to fund real homeland security efforts at our ports. As a result, today's news -- the foreign operation of our ports -- has served to focus attention on the far more grievous omissions of security involving the lack of inspection or verification of the ports users. It provides a political opportunity for my opponent to be, for once, against his administration on this tertiary issue. Meanwhile, he continues to provide support for the major failures of this administration's port security  (non-)policy."

Though he might get hammered for saying so, Carter is right -- the UAE deal is secondary -- maybe even "tertiary" -- to the larger issue of Bush's neglect of port security. Though they've tried, Kerry and other Democrats have never been able to make the security issue connect with voters. Now they're trying to capitalize on, as Carter put it, "today's news." Congressional Quarterly reported Thursday (via Stakeholder):

Congressional Democrats are seizing on the controversy over a deal granting oversight of several U.S ports to a United Arab Emirates-controlled company to make a broader election-year case that Republicans have neglected port security.

The Democrats’ claims that the current level of port security leaves the nation vulnerable are bolstered by outside critics, reports from government auditors and interest groups such as the American Association of Port Authorities.

Ports have seen just 20 percent of their security costs reimbursed by the federal government and say they are beginning to cut back on security expenditures. It will take more than $5 billion to implement security mandates, the Coast Guard has estimated, but so far, only around $700 million has been spent.

While the administration boasts that it screens 100 percent of cargo that comes into the country, it only screens 100 percent of the cargo manifests. In reality, a much smaller percentage of cargo containers — no more than 6 percent — is targeted for a more vigorous inspection. And even the targeting method has come into question.

Meantime, as Carter points out, Republicans, too, are trying to take advantage of the ports deal. Congressional Republicans up for re-election nationwide -- along with one or two who think they're presidential material -- are clearly loving this opportunity. For years, they have abrogated every obligation and responsibility, obediently and blindly following Bush over cliff after cliff. Now, not only do they get to be against him and tout their "independence," it's on an issue where they can say how strongly they're "for" national security.

And that's why the Democrats need to move the discussion beyond the UAE, and on to the larger issue of port security, where the Republican Congress is vulnerable. So good for Jack.

Daily Glean: Paybacks are a bitch

• Remember Iraq? Progress toward the establishment of a freedom-loving stable democracy that will be our strong ally in a crucial part of the world etc., etc. seems to have hit a bit of a snag. Many indications, however, of progress toward full-on civil war. Reuters, LATimes, Post, NYTimes
• In today's dangerous times, we have to allow for flexibility in answering the question, How come we invaded Iraq anyway? So we've gone from weapons of mass destruction to spreading freedom and democracy to it would be inappropriate to discuss an ongoing investigation to, now, Scooter can't recall; His lawyers say Scooter can't be expected to remember if he disclosed classified information, putting Cheney's desire to slime an administration critic ahead of the nation's security, because Scooter was so darned busy doing all sorts of other super secret mysterious things. Post
• Bush finally found an issue that fulfills his long-stated claim to be a uniter not a divider. "It doesn't help (that) this idiot Jimmy Carter has just come out for this port deal,” Rush Limbaugh helpfully explains. “I mean . . . Jimmy Carter's just blown this deal sky-high by coming out and endorsing it” (Copley).  Nevada's entire congressional delegation is opposed to the ports deal (LVRJ) -- including one Sen. John Ensign, who is being challenged by Jimmy Carter's son Jack. Where ya at, Jack? Meantime, the LATimes rounds up some of the security experts who are suggesting that the deal is, well,no big deal. Be that as it may, Bush deserves the hammerin' he's taking from all fronts; sure, it's fun and politically profitable to whip the nation into a jingo-laden paranoid militarism and make every election about national security, until the pitchfork-wielding bloodthirsty mob comes back to bite you in the ass.
• Dancers aren't the only thing that's exotic 'round here. The Sun's Launce Rake inventories the invasive critters that are running roughshod over an ecosystem in which they do not belong. Perhaps Porter/Ensign campaign guru Darth Slanker could be enlisted to attack the creatures as carpetbaggers and destroy them with TV ads.
• In the course of musing about Tessa Hafen's congressional campaign, the R-J's Erin Neff offers a fun peak at how Harry Reid's famous Bush-is-a-loser line made it into the news in the first place.