Today’s shooting of Iraqi civilians by US troops is troubling. I don’t, can’t and won’t accuse the US troops of anything but self-defense, but surely this is only the first of what may become frequent he/she said stories regarding such clashes. I have no doubt that Arab news will play the story prominently, especially the quote from the hospital director estimating at least 80 casualties among the civilians.

What this eerily echoes are the stories about the Israeli occupied areas of Palestine. The US needs to do everything possible that this is a rare occurrence, not just because of the threat to our soldiers and the loss of Iraqi life, but also because of the larger implications of the rebuilding process; namely the US becoming an occupying force rather than a liberating and rebuilding force. Of course, since there are many forces in Iraq that have an interest in presenting us as only an occupier, this is a difficult task.

This just shows the importance of establishing a legitimate Iraqi government as soon as possible. (And by legitimate I mean accepted by the Iraqi people.) As many predicted before the war, the peace is beginning to prove more difficult than the war, it requires an understanding of the region and a finessed touch that is not the hallmark of this administration.
  ¶ 9:52 AM

  There is a very interesting situation brewing regarding the 2004 election. In an attempt to capitalize both on the September 11 tragedy and on campaign finance laws, the GOP has planned their nominating convention for very late August into early September 2004, with the President to be formally nominated on September 2nd. I am sure there was much backslapping over the brilliance of both these ideas.

However, they overlooked one not so small issue, according to the Washington Post; in at least 3 states (California, Alabama and West Virginia), and the District of Columbia, September 2nd would be too late to put the President's name on the general election ballots. There are already moves afoot to changes some of these state laws, but it raises two interesting questions:

1) Should the Dems fight this to keep the President off the ballot and force his supporters to use write in ballots, probably meaning the loss of 69 electoral votes, and possibly the election?; or

2) Should they threaten such a fight to get the GOP to move the date to at least last August?

I'm not sure of my exact opinions, but right now I think no to option 1, but maybe yes to option 2.

Thoughts?  ¶ 9:41 AM

  Today’s George Will's column (African American Inroads for the GOP) misses the key point regarding blacks and the Republican Party; even if there are some elected blacks who are Republicans (and he points out a grand total of 6 nationwide), blacks are still not any more likely to vote for Republicans, because of both the Party’s policies and perception.

The hidden point of the column is that Republican voters may now be more likely to vote for a black candidate (which is something that may be noteworthy in and of itself), but black voters are still not more likely to vote for a Republican candidate. Until black voters see a change in both policies, but even more importantly, the practices and politics of the Republican Party, they seem unlikely to get up to the lofty 15% goal that Will sets out. Until the Republican Party makes stands against symbolic issues such as the Confederate Flag, their hopes for attracting black voters seems to me to be wishful thinking.

UPDATE - Stories like this one, on the Georgia flag controversy, illustrate why the GOP has problems attracting black voters.  ¶ 8:08 AM

  The absurdity of this Washington Post story on diverting EPA investigators to serve as personal assistants for Christie Todd Whitman pretty much speaks for itself.  ¶ 7:51 AM

  All I could add to Tom Friedman's column in today's NY Times is AMEN.  ¶ 7:07 AM

  I am no economist, but anytime you get Bob Kerrey, Sam Nunn, Peter G. Peterson, Robert E. Rubin, Warren Rudman and Paul Volcker, to agree on what fiscal policy should be, it's worth the time to read. You can do so here. (They are against tax cuts, by the way.)  ¶ 4:00 PM

  A few things from last week:

1) Michael Kinsley likes to say that a gaffe in Washington is when someone says what they really think. Hence the controversy over what the Secretary of Education recently said. He stated that:

All things equal, I would prefer to have a child in a school that has a strong appreciation for the values of the Christian community, where a child is taught to have a strong faith

He has since backtracked from this statement, but I have no doubt that this is how he really feels. Indeed it can be fairly stated that this is the unstated position of the entire administration. My question is why the need to backdown, if it is what he/they really believe?

2) Another example of a gaffe is here by newly elected Senator Norm Coleman. He quickly, and wisely, backtracked.

3) Anyone who thought that now that the GOP controls all three branches of government, things would change, should read this story on how the Senate porked up the bill for Iraq war expenses. But then again, it is pretty important that Alaska salmon be identified as organic.

4) Congratulations to the UConn women's basketball team for another championship. The scary part is that they don't lose anyone from this team. Both them and the UConn men will probably be preseason #1s. Hopefully they can both be postseason #1s too!  ¶ 3:56 PM

  This Washington Post story about the investigation into Janet Rehnquist (yes, the Chief Justice's daughter) is truly inside Washington baseball. But I think that the Post has buried the lede in this story. The Post reports that:

Rehnquist told investigators she had the unloaded gun in her office less than a day. It was taken away from her by officials responsible for HHS firearms and replaced by a laser gun, which required no permit, the report said.

Since when does HHS have laser guns? Shouldn't the army, or at least NASA, have laser guns first? This is the real story!  ¶ 11:03 AM

  Somehow I doubt that the current administration will agree with Matthew Miller's opinion that the military that is winning in Iraq should correctly be identified as Bill Clinton's military.  ¶ 8:31 PM

  Another journalist,NBC’s David Bloom, has also died in Iraq, although it does not appear to be combat related. I always liked Bloom, his reporting from Iraq was simply the best on any other of the embedded journalists, and I thought that he had a very bright future.   ¶ 11:42 AM

  As I am sure that many of you know, Michael Kelly, who was a columnist and editor, was killed in Iraq yesterday.

Kelly had established himself as a strong, even vicious, conservative (especially when it came to Bill Clinton or Al Gore), who, nonetheless, could find a place among the more liberal opinion magazines and newspapers. I could never understand why someone who had such a passionate dislike for Democratic leaders and Democratic ideas would take a job, let alone several, in a more liberal environment. I could also not understand why these organizations would retain someone known for such visceral opinions, that sometimes seemed to border on hatred for many of the ideas and beliefs that they held.

His passing has, unfortunately, allowed us to see a window into this world, and helps explains this seeming paradox. Articles here, here, here, and here may help to show why people with such strong disagreements on political issues can, nonetheless, not only get along, but appreciate and prosper with each other .

The political environment can get very poisonous at times. And I think that since 1992, the situation has only gotten practically deadly. There has become little, if any, middle ground on any subjects. Politics is becoming more and more black and white, which is truly unfortunate, since reality is much more about shades of gray. It has become too easy to see people only for their political beliefs, and not for the people that they are.

Kelly's passing will result in much praise of his life, from conservatives, primarily for his opinions, and from liberal, primarily for him as a person. However, the paradox of his situation will probably not be appreciated as something as rare as it is. And this seeming contradiction is something that both conservatives and liberals should examine to understand how people of differing opinions should behave, if they really believe that the good of the country should come over the good of the party.

UPDATE -- Although I posted the link above, make sure you go here and scroll to the bottom to read Gregg Easterbrook's thoughts on Michael Kelly. His writing is simply amazing.

FURTHER UPDATE - Maureen Dowd does a column on Kelly, who apparently was a close friend.  ¶ 12:59 AM

  Also, the Packer's schedule is out. I am going to a game at Lambeau this year, I just have to pick one. I'm leaning toward the Bears game -- playing a rival in December -- what could be more authentic?  ¶ 9:37 AM

  The latest law school rankings from US News are out. (They look pretty much the same as every other year.)  ¶ 9:35 AM

  At some point you have to imagine that the SARS virus will be alleged to be a biological weapon, probably through the same path of your typical urban legend.  ¶ 1:02 AM

  If you haven't started reading Gregg Easterbrook's daily columns on the war, start doing so now. He writes great stuff.  ¶ 12:53 AM

  Interesting reporting/speculation by Nina Totenberg on why we don't have a lower court decision in the McCain/Feingold Campaign Finance case. Apparently the judges don't like each other (at least 2 don't like the other one).

I think (and I am hardly alone) that the Supreme Court needs to hear this case this term. Otherwise the possibility exists that there could be a radical shift in the rules in the middle of the Presidential Campaign. (If we aren't in fact already in the middle.) Of course the Supremes could take up the case whenever they want, but it may be hard to do so once they have recessed for the summer.  ¶ 12:14 AM