Based on the Rassumssen tracking poll, Clarke seems to have done his damage against Bush. Between Sunday and today, Bush has gone from a three point lead to trailing by three points. I tend to agree with most analysis here: that this campaign will damage his second most important character trait -- being "honest and trustworthy" -- which is exactly what Howard Dean's talking points have been. At this point, a Bush re-election
Perhaps most importantly, the fact that a Viacom subsidiary published the book means CBS will be the network that pushes the story most, if it lasts any longer than this week. Previously, CBS has been the most conservative of the news networks -- remember, this is the network that decided not to air "The Reagans" because it wasn't flattering enough to Ronald Reagan, the network that refused to run MoveOn.org ads during the Super Bowl, the network that continued to run the Medicare ads (not the fake news, but the straight up 30-second ads) when all the other networks stopped running them -- and now its White House correspondents have a massive reason to question basically everything that comes out of the White House.
On the non-election front, Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow went to oral argument this week. This is the now-famous pledge case, where an aggresive atheist is arguing that the pledge should not be read in his daughter's classroom because it has the words "Under God" in it. Note that he's not arguing that his daughter should be allowed to leave the room, or not participate in the pledge, or say the pledge but skip the words "Under God" -- he's arguing that the existence of the pledge itself. It is almost certain that the Court will reverse the lower court's decision; Rehnquist and Thomas are certain "reverse" votes, Kennedy thinks he doesn't have standing, O'Connor thinks there is already precedent that allows Newdow's daughter to decline saying the pledge, Ginsburg is worried about a slippery slope where singing "God bless America" on a semi-regular basis is forbidden. Breyer seems to think this case might fall under "ceremonial deism" -- watered down religion that falls underneath the Establishment Clause, as does Souter doesn't have any remarks in the Times' transcript. Stevens doesn't say much, though his questions to the Solicitor General and the School District suggest he is the justice most receptive to Newdow's argument (he is also the most liberal justice, so that's not really in question). It is almost certain that the court will rule against him, at best 5-3, and probably 7-1, unless Souter is convinced by Newdow's response that the pledge is an affirmation that endorses religion and encourages children to endorse religion.
Having said all this, I learned a fair bit about the history of the pledge this week, and I now hope that some day we can remove the words "Under God" from it. The pledge was written in 1890 and part of the Reconstructionist movement to punish the old Confederacy -- you should listen closely to the pledge the next time you say it -- and it did not originally contain the words "Under God". They were added under the Eisenhower administration to add further contrast to God-fearing U.S. of A. with those atheist Communist folks in the Soviet Union. At the same time the "In God we Trust" appeared slogan on the dollar. Essentially, the pledge is the Southern Cross for the whole country, reminding us how different we are from Kruschev and his gang. Given the ability of the Confederate flag to wear out its welcome, I suspect it may be a while before we change the pledge. Not being an atheist, I would like to think that this small bit of ceremonial deism doesn't hurt anyone. But apparently it does. I hope that non-proselytizing religion still has a place at the public square, because I happen to think that most forms of religion tend to help people focus on doing good. But if I'm told that it's offensive to you, I'm happy to tone down my rhetoric.
Some folks who are far more libertarian than I am think that not just the phrase "Under God" should go, but the whole pledge should, Government should not have the right to require/coerce children to essentially take an oath until the age of 18, if at all. I disagree. First, I'm just not a libertarian absolutest. Social liberties, sure, but policies like gun control, prevention of drug use under certain circumstances, and faith based non-profit grants make too much sense to take the hardline view that the government should be as limited as possible. Second, I think there is some established precedent that the Government essentially has the right to preserve itself -- I know it's really sketchy of me to rely on Dennis v. United States, but I can't think of any other precedents that state this clearly, though I'm sure they're out there. Please let me know if you know of any.
Most of all, I think this was a chance to give the overburdened Supreme Court clerks a chance to take a break, since no one
Bad News Friday:
Rice to meet with 9/11 panel, in private, and not under oath -- there is talk that the commission now has leverage to put her under oath, if not under oath in public, if she's just doing this to rebut other witnesses. While I hope this happens, I am really starting to wonder what exactly the 9/11 commission is going to accomplish. Hopefully we will get some recommendations to improve FBI-CIA cooperation, and maybe some way of improving the process of escalating threat information to the President.
Snow says China currency should float -- what, you're going to wave a magic wand and suddenly China's just going to fall in line? Though I am not a monetary policy expert, my impression is that this is the right thing to do, but isn't it to China's great short term advantage to peg its currency to the dollar? How do you propose we convince them to get there, Mr. Snow?
Bush Administration criticizes Tiffany -- Because Tiffany criticizes the Bush Administration for drilling a three mile copper and silver mine. I don't know if these resources are really needed, but I tend to think the world's supply of silver is doing just fine. Besides, shouldn't they have the right to protest the Government's decisions if they are facing a boycott?
Sharon coming to Washington -- "as the administration sharpens its focus on Mideast peacemaking". I'm sorry, but the irony of Bush and Sharon meeting to talk about the Mideast peace process right now is more than I can take.
Bush: "I want to improve rural Internet access! Home ownership is up! Make my tax cuts permanent so we can cut discretionary spending to zero!". By the way, don't worry about your mounting household debt.
Kerry: "I will create 10 million jobs".
