Progress Illinois

This morning, the House passed The FISA Amendment Act of 2008 by a vote of 293-129. Authored by House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, it was billed as a bipartisan compromise. The Media Consortium's Brian Beutler writes that while it certainly did garner support from both sides of the aisle, calling it a compromise "is a total farce." Salon's Glenn Greenwald agrees. Mark Agrast at the Center for American Progress has more:

Nevertheless, despite these welcome improvements, the bill fails at the most fundamental level to restore the independent judicial check on executive power that the Bush administration has done so much to undermine. Now, instead of determining whether probable cause exists for the issuance of a surveillance order, the FISA Court will be reduced to reviewing the adequacy of the surveillance procedures established by the Bush administration. Instead of evaluating the sufficiency of the assurances that were given to telecommunications companies to obtain their cooperation, the federal district courts in which the lawsuits against the companies have been filed will be authorized to do little more than determine whether such assurances were in fact provided.

Unfortunately, four members of Illinois' Democratic congressional delegation voted in favor of the measure -- Melissa Bean (8th), Rahm Emanuel (5th), Dan Lipinski (3rd), and Luis Gutierrez (4th).

But praise is in order for Democrats Phil Hare (17th), Jesse Jackson Jr. (2nd), Jan Schakowsky (9th), Danny Davis (7th), Jerry Costello (12th), and newcomer Bill Foster (14th), all of whom voted to ensure the civil liberties of Illinoisans.

Citing one of his infamous unnamed sources, syndicated columnist Robert Novak wrote on Sunday that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi wanted to see Rahm Emanuel take over as Illinois' junior senator if Barack Obama is elected president.

According to Novak, Emanuel expressed zero interest in such a move:

Emanuel told this column he is not interested in the Senate and has not talked to Pelosi about it. He also suggested that Pelosi might be saying she would regret losing him from her leadership team. However, the source quoting the speaker indicated she was enthusiastic about Emanuel's elevation to the Senate.

Emanuel would be a counter-intuitive replacement for Obama for two reasons: 1) a Clinton protege, he was the only member of the Illinois congressional delegation who did not endorse Obama until the primary was essentially over; and 2) Open Left's Chris Bowers notes that Emanuel is such a high-ranking House member that he would be "one of the few people who would actually lose power by moving to the Senate."

Bowers -- who, like many progressives, has been disappointed by Emanuel's centrist positions -- goes on to offer some reasons why naming Rahm to Obama's seat "might actually be very good from a progressive movement perspective."

That being said, while Pelosi's opinion on this matter is interesting, it's also meaningless. If the need to replace Obama arises -- and hopefully it will -- Gov. Blagojevich is going to be the one making the call. The only public official who would really have an effect on that decision is Obama himself.

From the Tribune:

Rep. Rahm Emanuel is endorsing Barack Obama, after months of avoiding the choice between his fellow Illinois Democrat and his old friends Bill and Hillary Clinton.

"He has endorsed," said Nick Papas, an aide to Emanuel. Emanuel and Obama are together at the conference of the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee in Washington this morning.

According to The Hill, Rep. Rahm Emanuel dropped in on a closed-door meeting of House Republicans last week:

The unusual appearance of the partisan Democrat was triggered when Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.) passed out fliers to GOP members on the House floor about the meeting.

“He said, ‘I’m going to come to this thing,’ ” Kingston said, noting that he and Emanuel have a good rapport. “And he showed up.”

Kingston said the Illinois Democrat was well-received by the group and even offered some advice: that President Bush and the GOP’s lack of an agenda would continue to haunt the party in November.

“Rahm was merely showing conservatives some compassion,” said Nick Papas, a spokesman for the Democratic Caucus chairman and the former head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

While Emanuel’s visit to the GOP roundtable group was in jest, his message was serious — and Republicans know it.

Rahm's "advice" is fairly common these days. A lot of observers are emphasizing that the GOP needs to distance itself from Bush if they hope to avoid a Democratic landslide this November. But as Atrios and Josh Marshall both point out, it's not clear how the Republicans actually do that. Most voters are fed up with the country's direction and the GOP is inexorably tied to the administration that's been steering this ship for the past seven years.

Speaking at The New Yorker Festival this morning, Rep. Rahm Emanuel called Barack Obama the "presumptive nominee." From the Huffington Post:

"At this point, Barack is the presumptive nominee," said Rep. Rahm Emanuel during the New Yorker's magazine conference. "Hillary can't win but something could happen that could effect that Barack could lose the nomination."

Emanuel wouldn't go so far as to say that Clinton should drop out. "Next question!" he declared when asked. But his voice does carry political sway.

The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder offered the following analysis of Emanuel's remarks: "[H]is words reflect the developing consensus of many high-profile Clinton supporters. The race is over, but let's let Clinton will determine when and how to exit."

Shortly after Ambinder blogged about Rahm's comments, House Democratic Caucus communications director Sarah Feinberg walked them back a bit:

I would like to clarify two points:

1. All Rahm said was that Senator Obama is clearly now the frontrunner, which by and large means, because of the calendar, he is the presumptive nominee, at this point. He was stating the obvious. Its about the calendar.

2. The "presumptive" quote is only accurate if you ignore the several sentences proceeding this half sentence and the several minutes of conversation that followed it. I'd call it selective quoting. Congressman Emanuel also stated about 90 seconds after this that he thought Senator clinton can still win the nomination and he stands by that.

Of course, if it were only about the calendar, Barack should have become the "presumptive nominee" a good while ago.

Meanwhile, what MSNBC's Rachel Maddow is calling the "superdelegate drizzle" (not yet a flood) continued today.

Lynn Sweet talked to Rep. Rahm Emanuel today about his undeclared status during the Democratic primary season and he made clear he's not going to step into the battle for the nomination until all the primaries have concluded. Not surprisingly, he seems to realize that, if and when that day comes, he's going to be in a unique position to end this thing:

Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.), an uncommitted superdelegate torn between two friends, told me Friday he is waiting “for the voters to issue their verdict” before making any decision.

“When the primaries are done,” Emanuel said, “If that process is over and if there is not a clear nominee, I suppose I’ll have to do something.” He said he was not sure what yardstick he will use to measure voter preference—popular vote, delegates won, etc.

It's been five long years since President Bush stood on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln with a "Mission Accomplished" banner unfurled behind him and told the American people: "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed."

As Bush explained it, the banner had virtually nothing to do with the war. It signified the return of the literal ship on which he was standing, which had just returned from Iraq after an operational tour of 290 days. "The banner was a Navy idea, the ship's idea," he said. "The banner signified the successful completion of the ship's deployment." The BBC complicates that account:

However, it was not quite that simple. It also turned out that the banner was made, by a private contractor, with the help of White House staff.

And there can be little doubt that those White House staff ensured that the banner was correctly placed for the cameras.

So much about that visit was planned for effect - the location, the president dressed in combat gear, landing in the co-pilot's seat of a Navy S-3 when he could have used a helicopter, the television cameras.

To mark the occasion, MoveOn has released an effective advertisement tying John McCain's support for Bush's war policy to the banner fiasco. Media watchdog Media Matters for America and Greg Mitchell at Editor and Publisher both printed thorough accounts of how the press covered Bush's speech as well. The results, as one can imagine, aren't very pretty. From Mitchell's piece, which looks specifically at the New York Times:

One snippet: “The Bush administration is planning to withdraw most United States combat forces from Iraq over the next several months and wants to shrink the American military presence to less than two divisions by the fall, senior allied officials said today

Democrats in Washington are commemorating the somber anniversary in a different way. According to The Politico, "Congressional Democrats are preparing a flurry of activity on Thursday to mark the five-year anniversary of President Bush’s now infamous 'Mission Accomplished' speech marking an end to major combat operations in Iraq." Illinois' own Rahm Emmanuel got in on the act:

"It’s been five years since ‘Mission Accomplished,’ and seven years, three months and 10 days since America had a president who was not in a state of denial about the economy and his legacy,” said House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.).

Talking to The New York Times about the ongoing Democratic primary, Rep. Rahm Emanuel offers up some fortune cookie wisdom:

The results from Pennsylvania also left senior Democrats in the House and Senate resigned to the likelihood that the nominating contest will stretch on at least into June.

They sought to play down the potential damage to the party, emphasizing instead the enthusiasm shown by voters in state after state. Democrats who are fervently committed to either candidate, they said, will eventually rally to the party’s nominee when the alternative is Senator McCain rather than another Democrat.

Yet there was a clear sentiment that the conduct of the remainder of the campaign and the way it is resolved will be crucial.

“The way the loser loses,” said Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, who is close to both candidates but has made no endorsement, “will determine whether the winner wins in November.”

"The way the loser loses will determine whether the winner wins."

As Kos commented: "One guesses who he's talking about. Though really, why not just say it explicitly already?"

Rahm Emanuel has gotten his fair share of criticism from the left blogosphere lately, ourselves included. But we're more than happy to give him some props when they're due. For instance, in a Politico op-ed today, he makes a succinct argument that Democratic-leaning suburbanites could make all the difference this election cycle. He argues that the 2006 midterm elections -- in which Democrats picked up 16 congressional seats in districts that were suburban or exurban -- was not an aberration. The GOP has thrown themselves into an ideological bind, one from which they unlikely to emerge anytime soon, paving the way for a new brand of "suburban populism":

This approach has left Republicans on the wrong side of key issues. Suburban voters are increasingly concerned about the growing threats to their standard of living. These voters have found little comfort in Republicans’ laissez-faire approach to our economy and apparent willingness to protect corporations at all costs. Whether it’s college costs, energy costs or health care costs, Republicans continue to ally themselves with the same special interests that suburban voters believe are the source of the problem, not the solution. At the same time, Republican activism on seemingly private matters has hurt the GOP at the polls. Republicans have lost votes in suburban and exurban communities by consistently opposing potentially lifesaving stem cell research.

What's most encouraging is the number of newly-registered suburban Democrats this cycle. Illinois is a prime example, as Emanuel points out:

In the 2008 Illinois Democratic primary, voter turnout increased by 67.4 percent statewide. With a favorite son on the ballot, that figure isn’t terribly surprising. But dig deeper, and you find that turnout in large suburban counties exploded. DuPage County turnout increased by 116.2 percent, Lake County turnout was up by 103.2 percent and Will County turnout shot up by 121.9 percent.

The trend isn't limited to the Land of Lincoln, either:

Statewide Democratic turnout in Ohio increased by 82.9 percent. In Clermont County, Ohio, turnout was up 170.2 percent. Statewide turnout in Virginia rose by 148.9 percent. In Loudoun County, Va., turnout increased by 272.2 percent. Statewide turnout in Maryland was up 82.4 percent. Charles County, Md., saw turnout grow by 163.5 percent. All three of these counties can be described as suburban or exurban. All three have seen a significant influx of voters, and those voters are voting Democratic.

For more on the the rising tide of suburban Democrats, read our feature on the increasingly blue collar counties and our post on spreading urbanization.

"On a day when oil hit $112 a barrel for the first time, lawmakers said that energy-rich Iraq should be footing more of its own bills. 'We've put about $45 billion into Iraq's reconstruction . . . and they have not spent their own resources. They have got to have some skin in the game.' "

That's Rep. Rahm Emanuel last week, parroting an increasingly popular criticism of the situation in Iraq -- that Iraqis themselves are to blame for the chaos in their country. For war supporters turned critics like Emanuel, it's a convenient way to deflect blame from one's role in enabling this disaster. Republicans have used the talking point consistently since the invasion, and some Democrats have been quick to join them.

But putting "skin in the game"? I guess the 90,000 civilian deaths (some put the figure much higher) and 5 million displaced don't count. And we better not mention our own actions that facilitated the breakdown of Iraqi civil society: the “shock and awe” bombing campaign, our decisions to promote de-Baathification, disband the Iraqi military, and close massive amounts of state-owned industries, and our utter ignorance about Iraqi history and culture. If only those darn Iraqis would put in some extra effort!

This week's lead editorial in The Nation, behind a sub-wall but posted graciously by D.C. editor Chris Hayes, says all that needs to be said:

Why, they asked, won’t the people we’re occupying do what we want? They aimed some of their most heated rhetoric at Iraqis who refuse to “take responsibility” for the future of their country. Criticism of the Maliki government is legitimate and warranted. But these criticisms slid all too easily from the government to the Iraqis themselves, creating a bizarre and unjust framing of the war’s victims as its beneficiaries. “We’ve done a lot for the Iraqis in terms of just the numbers themselves,” said Barbara Boxer. “And we are losing our sons and daughters every single day for the Iraqis to be free.”

You would almost think that in 2003 Washington dispatched 160,000 caterers to Iraq to wait on the population hand and foot, with the US taxpayer picking up the check. It couldn’t help but call to mind an earlier era: “Take up the White Man’s burden—/Send forth the best ye breed—/Go bind your sons to exile/To serve your captives’ need.” Despite an estimated million civilians killed, 5 million displaced and the country hollowed and destroyed by sanctions and bombs, too many of our Congressional representatives seem to conceive of the war as something we did for the Iraqis, not something we did to them.