Republicans vs. Bush

Good morning. Today's big story is the domestic spying hearings in DC yesterday.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/07/politics/07nsa.html

The New York Times' Eric Lichtblau and James Risen quote Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez:

"Our enemy is listening, and I cannot help but wonder if they aren't shaking their heads in amazement at the thought that anyone would imperil such a sensitive program by leaking its existence in the first place, and smiling at the prospect that we might now disclose even more or perhaps even unilaterally disarm ourselves of a key tool in the war on terror."

This is the same enemy that killed thousands of people--on 9/11 alone--in the name of God. Should we really be influenced by the idea that they might be surprised by how liberal we are? I'd be a lot more concerned if the terrorists look at what our country is doing and say, "Hey, that's how I'd do it," before adding, "Honey, where do we keep the dyamite and masking tape?"

Somewhat surprisingly, Republicans have joined Democrats in criticizing the program. Republican Senator Arlen Spector of PA has been aggressive in challenging Gonzalez.

On the program's legality, Mr. Specter told the attorney general, "You think you're right, but there are a lot of people who think you're wrong."

Mr. Specter said the attorney general's interpretation of the FISA statute [concerning the legality fo the spying] "just defies logic and plain English."

Nice to see the Republicans criticizing Bush, for once. Too bad it feels like they (and I'm speaking of all the Senators here) are mostly upset that Bush disrepected their power by not allowing the Senate to vote to approve his actions... which they probably would have done, for fear of being labeled soft on terror.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/07/politics/07assess.html?hp&ex=1139374800&en=a1c8770e9ac7e7c6&ei=5094&partner=homepage

In other news, more tax cuts and budget cuts are on the way, but the Senators are fighting back!

Robin Toner writes for the Times:

Democrats assert that the country simply cannot afford extending all those tax cuts, especially since their benefits would go largely to upper income people.

Haven't we heard this before? As Chris pointed out in a message on this board last week, setting up the fight as tax cuts for me or help for the poor--a group that people rarely see themselves as a part of--has been a losing argument for the Democrats for several generations now. Contrast that with this:

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee quickly dispatched talking points tailored to hot Senate races. "White House budget forces Santorum to choose between Pennsylvania and Bush," said one set of talking points focused on Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, a Republican facing a difficult re-election fight.

This seems like an good line of attack for the Dems. Perhaps the Bush vs. Us argument will be a winner, especially in a state like Pennsylvania (where the ultra-conservative Santorum is struggling to fight off a more modeate challenger in the moderate Philadelphia suburbs where Bush probably has low approval ratings).

But the bigger question is, how would this type of argument play in the red states? I'm not convinced that it wouldn't be effective, if the Democratic candidate can make a real case that Bush's cuts hurt everyone, across the board.

It seems like there some Republican Senators are already trying to shield themselves from this line of attack:

Senator Olympia J. Snowe, Republican of Maine, said she was "disappointed and even surprised" at the proposed restrictions in Medicare and Medicaid, which she said would "dramatically affect people's access to care" in Maine.

Wow, Republican Senators criticizing Bush on two different subjects in one day!

In sports news (sort of)...

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/07/sports/baseball/07chass.ready.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Interesting article taking a look at Michael Lewis's baseball manifesto, "Moneyball," three years later. "Moneyball" is a fascinating book that studies how low-budget teams--okay, the Oakland A's-- compete with big money teams--okay, the Yankees--by evaluating players based on less obvious statistical categories like On-Base Percentage (as opposed to more typical categories like Batting Average and Home Runs). The theories Lewis presents, which mostly belong to Oakland General Manager Billy Beane, literally changed the game, revolutionizing the way teams are developed and managed. The Times article takes a look at how Beane's ideas have played out since the book was written, and the results aren't very convincing. Oh well, it's still a great read.

More later...