Reidblog [The Reid Report blog]

In a more significant sign of the weakness of the President’s numbers, more “Red State” voters—that is, voters living in the states that cast their ballots for the Bush-Cheney ticket in 2004—now rate his job performance unfavorably, with 50% holding a negative impression of the President’s handling of his duties, and 48% holding a favorable view. The President also gets negative marks from one-in-four (25%) Republicans—as well as 86% of Democrats and 58% of independents. (Bush nets favorable marks from 75% of Republicans, 13% of Democrats and 40% of independents.)

Bloggers on the left , right and center are slamming Time's decision to turn over Matthew Cooper's notes in the Valerie Plame case.

Gotta say, as a former member of the MSM myself, I am surprised with the reaction, and the hewing to "journalistic principles" involved in Cooper and Judith Miller's refusal to name their source(s). Cooper and Miller aren't protecting some good-egg Whistleblower in the Bush White House, they're shielding a potential felon and in my opinion, a two-bit traitor who cared more about political advantage than America's national security. And Time is simply protecting its bottom line, its reporter, and -- well -- upholding the rule of law. If the two reporters had known the identity of the Unabomber and refused to give that up to authorities, even with a court order and a Supreme Court ruling backing up the prosecutors, would it then be OK for one of their publications to give up the goods?

It would be different if there were a federal privilege, but there isn't, which is why the SupCo refused to hear Cooper and Miller's case. Jeff Jarvis makes some good points on the subject of privlege here.

Either way, I'll bet somewhere in a D.C. drink spot, Matt Cooper is downing a fifth of scotch and thanking God Time gave him up so he doesn't have to marry some guy with jailhouse tats.

Previous post: What about Bob?

RUSH: I just have to get blue in the face. I got an e-mail today. "Why do you call Wesley Clark 'Ashley Wilkes'? You're going to have to start explaining some of these nicknames for people." I guess. (sigh) How many of you people have seen Gone With the Wind? There's a character in this movie that's an absolute candy ass and his name is Ashley Wilkes, and the more I heard Wesley Clark speak, the more he reminded me of Ashley Wilkes, ergo we call him Ashley Wilkes. ... It's a long four-hour movie. I don't have time to tell you the whole story here, but go buy it, that way you don't have to take it back or rent it if you have the time to take it back. With gas prices as high as they are, you might want to think about buying these movies and getting them over from FedEx or whatever. But that's up to you.

But as for the assertion that the Iraq war is responsible for increased terrorism my first reaction is: There isn't any terrorism happening in America right now. There hasn't been a repeatof 9/11 right now, and I know full well why there is terrorist activity in Iraq, and why there's terrorist activity in Afghanistan, and it's precisely because we're trying to wipe 'em out, and they are fighting for their survival.

Now in Iraq specifically, what they were doing was trying to prevent what's happening. The president was right last night, folks. They have failed everything. They've tried to do. Their biggest friends appear to be liberals in this country. The terrorists failed to stop the elections. They failed to stop sovereignty. They failed to keep Saddam in power. They failed to put him back in power.

Of course, this slap comes from the guy who, while "candy ass" Clark was serving his country in the jungles of Vietnam, sat out the war in the 'States with a nasty boil on his butt... and who, while Clark was rising to the rank of general, directing the wars in Bosnia and Kosovo in which not a single American life was lost in the completion of regime change, and then, after 34 years in the service, retiring and running for president, was spending his time telling Black radio listeners to pull the bones out of their noses and getting hooked on pain meds.

Yeah, he's the guy we should be listening to on the war stuff...

MONDAY MORNING QUARTERBACK. Natalee Holloway disappeared mysteriously 21 days ago. It must be tough on the family. From the sidelines it seems to me they’re only barking up the Aruba tree, as if the girl had no history at all. One of my friends suggested the following scenario. School’s prettiest girl comes to Aruba on a graduation trip. If you are a pretty girl, you have a boyfriend. Or two. Boyfriend from Alabama gets his heart broken when he sees dream girl out and about with island boy. He has a violent outburst, an accident, not pre-meditated, yet he goes home with the group Monday morning and sits tight, while the island here is ripped apart in the name of a search, an investigation. I wish I knew the FBI/Police is scrutinizing the kids back home, and questioning them . . .

... growing up in Aruba implies the boys are sweet; obnoxious, si, mean, no! These kids, if they knew anything, would have spilled their guts three weeks ago. You would have gotten a confession the day following their arrest, these kids aren’t tough. They just look veneer coated, in reality they are mush and you will have to let them go . . . Perhaps we will never know what happened to Natalee Holloway. It doesn’t always have to be someone’s fault. She went swimming, escorted or not. God help me how many times I went swimming in the dark and endless ocean at the end of a late-into-the-night affair . . .

As a young student, Ahmadinejad joined an ultraconservative faction of the Office for Strengthening Unity, the radical student group spawned by the 1979 Islamic Revolution and staged the capture of the US Embassy. According to reports, Ahmadinejad attended planning meetings for the US Embassy takeover and at these meetings lobbied for a simultaneous takeover of the Soviet Embassy.

... Ahmadinejad's election is a major defeat for reformists of all tendencies. The reformist discourse of fundamentally remaking Iran's political institutions has been eclipsed by a more parochial and practical concern over the growing inequalities in society. Ahmadinejad's landslide victory proves in a dramatic way that reformist rhetoric in many of its aspects is mainly an intellectual pursuit without deep resonance in Iranian society. At a practical level, the defeat will further deepen divisions in the reformists' ranks, making them even less capable of shaping Iranian politics. The reformists have been sustaining electoral defeats since 2003, and it will take time for them to effectively challenge the electoral prowess of the Abadgaran and other right-wing groups.

• He is backed by a group of younger, second-generation revolutionaries known as the Abadgaran, or Developers, who are strong in the Iranian parliament, the Majlis.
• His website says he joined the Revolutionary Guards voluntarily after helping to found the student union which took over the US embassy in 1979.
• He is reported to have served in covert operations in Iraq.
• He was born in Garmsar, near Tehran, in 1956, the son of a blacksmith.
• He holds a PhD in traffic and transport from Tehran's University of Science and Technology, where he was a lecturer.

Mohsen Mirdamadi, who was the leader of the hostage takers, told the BBC that Mr Ahmadinejad had never been with them even for one minute. Another top student leader, Abbas Abdi, also denied the allegations as did Hamid Reza Jalaiepour, another hostage-taker. Mr Jalaiepour said the president-elect was a student from the science and technology university which was more radical than them.

The three former students are now reformists who oppose hardliners like Mr Ahmadinejad, and would have no reason to hide his involvement now.

Photographs have appeared on the internet showing a young bearded man leading a blindfolded American hostage - alleging that this was Mr Ahmadinejad a quarter of a century ago.

But the man in the photograph appears much taller than Mr Ahmadinejad, and looks nothing like other pictures of him as a student which can be found on his website.

In an interview yesterday, Al Hunt, a former columnist for The Wall Street Journal and a colleague of Mr. Novak's on the recently canceled CNN program "Capital Gang," said he supported Mr. Novak's decision not to discuss his sources publicly.

But Mr. Hunt said Mr. Novak, while protecting his sources, could probably shed some light on why Ms. Miller and Mr. Cooper were facing jail on contempt charges, while he, apparently, was not.

"It does beg the question why Matt and Judy, and not Bob," Mr. Hunt, an editor for Bloomberg News, said. "It's just so confusing to citizens and people in our business. If Bob could provide some context, I think it would be helpful." [N.Y. Times, 6/30/05]

While Time Magazine has now stepped in to save its reporter, Matthew Cooper, from jail over his (and NYT's Judith Miller's) refusal to name names in the CIA name-drop case, the media has, so far, been loathe to step into the face of the main recipient of the leak that reduced the national security of the United States to just another political football: Robert Novak.

The Chicago-Sun Times and Creators Syndicate columnist, sometimes dubbed the "prince of darkness" by detractors and admirers alike, has so far skated merrily along the pavement while his colleagues Miller and Cooper, who unlike him, didn't write a column or story naming the CIA operative wife of White House scourge Joe Wilson, face the imminent threat of jail.

And while some, myself included, fail to see the nobility in defending the confidentiality of a government lowlife who not only jeopardized the identity of a covert operative, threatening not only her life but the lives of others, not to mention American national security, most of the journo pack has thus far laid off Novak. Watching the recently canceled "Capitol Gang" has become an increasingly surreal experience, as only on the rarest occasion do any of the other gang members seated at the table with Novak build up the cheek to ask him why he isn't the one going to jail. Did he talk? And if he did cooperate with the grand jury investigation, why shouldn't Cooper and Miller do the same? Most important, why so much deference to Novak from the MSM establishment?

After all, Novak isn't exactly a saint. This the fellow, after all, who:

• Was the leak bucket of choice for classified information from then "Scoop" Jackson aide Richard Perle during the 1970s, including a leak that Henry Kissinger and President Ford were preparing to make consessions on the Salt II treaty with the Soviets. Then-as-now Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld apparently stepped in to squash the deal.
• Published a phony quote in 1972, supposedly from a Democratic Senator labeling candidate George McGovern as being for "acid, amnesty, and abortion";
• Called the Iraq war a proxy fight by the U.S. on behalf of Israel's Ariel Sharon, just like Pat Buchanan and others, but without the outcry from Jewish groups;
• Revealed convicted spy Robert Hanssen as the confidential source for some of his columns, including one in 1997 accusing then attorney general Janet Reno of covering up supposed Clinton fundraising no-nos (Novak said he felt justified in outing Hanssen "because he was a traitor," as if the current leaker isn't?);
• Accused Bush administration whistleblower Richard Clarke of writing his book because he harboed racist, sexist resentments against Condi Rice during an episode of "Crossfire";
• Failed to mention, until just months before the 2004 election, that his son was the marketing director of Regnery Press, the publisher behind the Swift Boat stories, which Novak vigorously supported in his columns and "Crossfire" commentary.
• Wrote the column, called "Mission to Niger," in which Valerie Plame's cover as a CIA operative was blown.

Novak -- who is also the guy who demanded that CBS out its source in the Rathergate story on George W. Bush's spotty National Guard service -- has so far refused to answer direct questions about the case, although he claims that he's not the reason Cooper and Miller are facing jail, and that "after it's all over," he'll write a column about it, (and "people will be surprised.") Novak has previously denied being one in a group of seven reporters "cold called" with the Plame leak by an administration official, writing in a later column: "The published report that somebody in the White House failed to plant this story with six reporters and finally found me as a willing pawn is simply untrue."

But as Slate's Chris Suellentrop asked way back in October 2003, "how does he know the calls to the six reporters didn't happen? Does he know something about the Washington Post story that the rest of us don't? If so, why is he sitting on this scoop?) We've since learned that Cooper and Miller were among the scoop, and some claim Chris Matthews and Andrea Mitchell were in the group, too. But Novak is the only one -- however many people were given the information -- who used it.

And yet, he's not facing jail time. I'm betting somewhere out there is a grand jury transcript with his name all over it.

Links:

BustBob petition

Though one poll showed that the speech drew the smallest audience of any Bush presidential appearance, another poll by Gallup found that it may have served its purpose in bolstering the resolve of viewers, at least temporarily.

Of an estimated 23 million who watched, 54% thought the US was winning the war, compared with 44% before the speech. But only 23% were registered Democrats - and the boost the president received was weak compared with the upsurge following similar set-piece speeches in the past.

The address was also savaged abroad. A Labour MP, Lynne Jones, said any attempt to suggest that it was a response to the September 11 attacks was "absolute nonsense".

"What they have ensured, in invading Iraq, is they have actually promoted al-Qaida's involvement in other countries, including Iraq."

Update: at least one Jawa has jumped off the Iraq-9/11 bandwagon...

8/06/03: (Information Clearing House) Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, one of the main architects for the war in Iraq, admitted for the first time that Iraq had nothing to do with the September 11 terrorist attacks, contradicting public statements made by senior White House and Pentagon officials whose attempt to link Saddam Hussein and the terrorist organization al-Qaeda was cited by the Bush administration as one of the main reasons for launching a preemptive strike in March against Iraq.

In an interview with conservative radio personality Laura Ingraham, Wolfowitz was asked when he first came to believe that Iraq was behind the 9-11 terrorist attacks.

“I’m not sure even now that I would say Iraq had something to do with it,” Wolfowitz said in the interview, aired Friday, a transcript of which can be found at http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/tr20030801-depsecdef0526.html

Wolfowitz’s answer confirms doubts long held by critics of the Iraq war that the Bush administration had no evidence linking Iraq to 9-11 or al-Qaeda, but simply used the horrific terrorist attacks as a reason to overthrow Saddam Hussein and his Baathist regime.

“I think what the realization to me is -- the fundamental point was that terrorism had reached the scale completely different from what we had thought of it up until then. And that it would only get worse when these people got access to weapons of mass destruction which would be only a matter of time,” Wolfowitz said in the interview. “…What you really got to do is, eliminate terrorist networks and eliminate terrorism as a problem. And clearly Iraq was one of the country -- you know top of the list of countries actively using terrorism as an instrument of national policy.”

- FNC: Number one, it goes without saying. The pre-show coverage from 7:55 to 8:02pm attracted 2,293,000 viewers; the speech itself averaged 3,410,000; and the Brit Hume post-game show delivered 3,266,000. At 9pm, Hannity & Colmes held onto 2,332,000 viewers; and Greta stayed strong at 10pm with 2,507,000. The 11pm speech replay delivered 1,162,000.

- CNN: Anderson Cooper averaged 547,000 viewers; the speech coverage, from 8 to 8:43pm, averaged 917,000; a few more viewers tuned in for the last quarter-hour, with 988,000 between 8:43 and 9pm. Larry King delivered 1,090,000, and NewsNight averaged 885,000. The 11pm speech replay averaged 539,000.

- MSNBC: The Hardball Church Tour averaged 267,000 viewers. The speech itself, from 8:02 to 8:30pm, delivered 316,000. More viewers tuned in for the post-game show: Chris Matthews attracted 384,000 viewers between 8:30 and 9pm. (For some strange Nielsen reason, that time period also includes two minutes at the top of the 8pm hour.) The 9pm Hardball held onto 258,000, and Scarborough Country had 312,000. The 11pm reair did 291,000.

- HLN: Nancy Grace ignored the President and delivered a big 722,000 in the 8pm hour. (She had 407,000 during the 10pm replay.)

- Also: Drudge says CBS delivered 5.8 million viewers during Bush's speech, while NBC had 5.3 and ABC had 5.0...

"It was an artificial event; Bush was standing at the podium and reading words off a TelePrompTer that were written by a speechwriter not because he had anything new or significant to say but because the White House had no better PR alternatives at this moment." [David Corn]

I think we ought to get the hell out of Iraq as soon as possible. But here's the thing - "as soon as possible" ain't next week, next month, next year or even next decade as far as I'm concerned.

We're there. You can hate George Bush all you want for taking us there, but dammit, we can't throw up our hands in disgust now and leave the whole thing for somebody else to clean up. There are very real threats in the world, and not just from terrorists with car bombs and automatic weapons. No, people, there are still actual
countries out there with evil on their minds and sharp objects in their hands, North Korea and Iran coming foremost to mind.

Turning tail in Iraq would embolden these idiots to make mischief, and that ain't empty rhetoric. Good lord, anybody with a four-year-old can tell you that if the boy thinks he can do something bad with impunity, he's damn well gonna try it.

MAGICIAN Penn Jillette has traveled all over the world with his partner, Teller, and he hates every trip. "Every place outside of the U.S.A. is an absolute hellhole," Jillette rants to Mean magazine. "As much as we can complain about the U.S.'s lack of freedom, I just can't stand when they force women to dress like Batman, when they leave little girls out to die. I mean, at least we address the issues of equality and freedom, which are not even addressed in a place like Egypt or China or India . . . Other countries are pieces of s - - -, so they have a holier-than-thou attitude. I think the most insulting thing you can say about anybody is that they're more popular in another country."

Sheesh ... Guess we shouldn't expect to see him at this year's Live 8... Of course, it could be that Ole' Penn's disgust with the world has something to do with a nasty reaction to a certain comedy routine he tried out in Monte Carlo in 2003...

A sacrilegious stunt by Penn & Teller that offended some at a major magicians convention was defended Thursday by fellow local headliners.

A group walked out of a roast of Amazing Johnathan on Monday after Teller, dressed as Christ on a full-sized cross, entered the room on a cart. A midget dressed as an angel performed a simulated sex act on the near-naked Teller. Penn Jillette, in a Roman gladiator costume, unveiled the scene by pulling away a "Shroud of Turin" that covered the cross.

Rick Neiswonger, a longtime magician and local marketing executive, said "the majority" of the 400 who attended the roast were offended.

"They (organizers) warned everybody that something offensive was going to happen, but my God, where do you draw the line? I've seen Friar's Club ... Sam Kinison and Andrew Dice Clay, but this was beyond bad taste."

Good thing he only tried that in a shithole like Monte Carlo, and not in the good ole' U.S.A...

The Freepers unearth more Penn goodies way back in 2004 ...

• Bush on eminent domain and baseball
• Lurching toward Havana
• Kelo rising, part 2
• Liberals rating low on the Kelometer?
• Kelo rising
• Don't come back now, y'hear?
• Their eminence
• Adventures in Eminent Domain
• Eminent nonsense
• This land is your land ... or not
• In America?

I love how some FReepers believe putting a P.R. speech into context is propaganda: "CNN has not completed a fairly effective if formulaic set of pre-speech programming, intended to twist people's minds so that their mental filters interpret the President's speech as bogus," one person writes...> A blog commenter says: "Er...I think I've heard this record before. Over...and over...and over...again."

Lancaster, Pa.: Hi Robert, I personally would like to hear this administration acknowledge that they were poorly prepared for the aftermath of the initial invasion. I believe it was Dick Cheney or Donald Rumsfield who before the invasion predicted that it would take five days, five weeks, or five months but no longer. That statement contrasts sharply with what they’re saying now –- which is up to 12 years. Would it be political suicide for them to acknowledge errors?

Robert G. Kaiser: You know, I think it might be political salvation at this stage for the administration to admit what we all know - that this war didn't go the way our senior officials thought, and said, it would. There's a real disconnect now between public opinion (as measured, for example, in the latest Post-ABC Poll, to which I hope we can link here) and the assertions of the administration. That is a formula for continued political trouble for the president.

'Lessons of Sept. 11' Again Take Center Stage

One year after the transfer of power in Iraq, President Bush found himself in a familiar, if unsettling, position last night, as he sought to reinvigorate public support for his policies in the face of almost daily suicide bombings and continued U.S. casualties that have called into question whether the administration has a workable strategy for success and exit there.

Bush signaled no shifts in policy, as Democrats such as Sens. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (Del.) and John F. Kerry (Mass.) have called for in recent days. Instead his goal was to reeducate Americans on his view of the stakes involved in Iraq and the consequences to the Middle East and U.S. security if the insurgents prevail.

His clearest message was to argue anew that Iraq is the critical battle in a war against terrorists that began with the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. He made repeated references to those attacks to underscore that U.S. security depends on defeating the insurgency in Iraq. "After September the 11th, I made a commitment to the American people," he said. "This nation will not wait to be attacked again. We will defend our freedom. We will take the fight to the enemy." He then added, "Iraq is the latest battlefield in this war."

Sept. 11 remains Bush's most reliable argument with the public when he faces political headwinds; it gave him the highest-rated moments of his presidency and helped sustain him through a difficult reelection campaign. Surprisingly, given how effectively he has used the collective emotion of that day in the past, Sept. 11 has been largely missing in the administration's discussions of Iraq this year. His critics
long have accused Bush of falsely drawing a connection between Iraq and Sept. 11 as a way to justify the original decision to launch the war in Iraq. That was not the point Bush made last night. Instead it was that Iraq has now become such a magnet for foreign terrorists that winning the current battle there is every bit as critical as was the fight to depose Saddam Hussein.

Specialist Worrell and her father did find some things to like in the speech. "That last part was good, telling people to fly the flag, and thanking the soldiers," said Mr. Worrell, a locomotive engineer for Union Pacific Railroad who described himself as a Democrat. Mr. Worrell also seconded the president's position that it is better to fight terrorism abroad than it is on American soil.

"He's right - I agree that we want to fight them over there not here," he said.
Then Specialist Worrell spoke: "But you can't destroy a country because you think they might come over here."

Specialist Worrell said she came to love many of the people she met and was able to help during the 5½ months she spent in Iraq before she was injured. She said she agreed with Mr. Bush that building roads and schools was a positive contribution to the world. "I don't feel it was a waste because of the people I got to meet and help," she said. "But we went over there for war, and now I think he's just telling you what you want to hear."

Petty Officer Garcia, whose battalion moved heavy equipment around the country, does not want to return to Iraq. In April 2004, he said, insurgents bombed a convoy he was traveling in, killing two members of his battalion. Days later, five more died when mortar fire hit their base. But he supports Mr. Bush's plan even if it means he must go back.

"I didn't watch seven of my buddies die just to withdraw without finishing the job," he said, adding that among other things, that would make terrorists think they could attack the United States again. As a human being, yes, "bring our boys back home," he said. "But this nation was built on standing up for itself. The terrorists came in and trashed our house, and it's on us to take care of them so it doesn't happen again."

...

Does he believe critics of the war who say Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon?

"I remember hearing that in the movie 'Fahrenheit 9/11' " he said. "But in the end, it's all one big net. The bottom line is terrorists are everywhere out there, and all this stuff that came out afterwards about whether we should be in Iraq - you know what? What's done is done. We are in there, so let's finish the job and let them get back on their feet."

Col. David Slotwitski, a former chief of staff for recruiting who retired in 2004 and watched the speech from his home in Olympia, said: "He just did a great rehash of everything that's been said so far.

"The last part of it, where he came out strong and thanked the troops, that was well done. But in the end, there still was not really that call for service. There was no call to arms. He didn't say 'America, I need your sons and daughters to support us in the fight.' "

Bush says Iraq war worth it

US President George W. Bush has acknowledged American doubts about his Iraq strategy but argued it was worth the costs. In a keynote address one year after the US transferred power back to Iraqis, Bush repeatedly invoked the September 11 attacks and cited al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden as a reason for staying the course. Bush also rejected calls for a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq or sending more troops. Meanwhile, just hours before Bush's speech a suicide bomber killed a prominent member of the Iraqi parliament, along with his son and three bodyguards. Dhari al-Fayadh was the second Iraqi lawmaker to be assassinated since a new government took power in April.

Updating yesterday's post: "CBS, NBC and Fox all said they would decide sometime
Tuesday whether to carry the speech," Paul Gough reports. "Concerns centered on the potential newsworthiness of the speech and the fact that it was being given not in the Oval Office but far from Washington."

The 6-3 decision means that cable Internet providers won't have to face competition from smaller rivals who don't have the resources to build their own networks. And the Baby Bell phone giants, who are required to share their lines, are already clamoring that yesterday's ruling means they should get the same treatment.

That's just what we need -- even less choice. It means that situations like the one that happened to me last week will continue to occur across the country. ...

I live in Alexandria, Va., where last week I made an appointment to get Comcast to outfit my apartment with broadband Internet access. The first appointment didn't work out; the customer service rep said they called me to reschedule, though I never received a call. The second appointment foundered on similar grounds. By the time I got around to finding a human being to schedule a third appointment, I was ready to go with the competition.

But there wasn't any. The best I could do was splutter about how if this behavior continued, I'd... I'd... I'd choose Verizon DSL. But I didn't want DSL. I wanted cable. I like how reliable it is once it works, and I have enough friends who told me DSL horror stories that I didn't want to take the chance.

You see where this is going.

If I were a right-winger, I would be offended by both Klein and Rove. But I am
not a conservative, and so I can only wonder at their gullibility. Right-wingers are the useful idiots of our times and while they have their occasional left-wing counterparts, the lefties will not buy essentially the same book over and over again -- if only because they lack the funds.

More on the Post Three: Frank Rich reported Sunday that CPB hired a guy to evaluate guests on the public radio shows of Diane Rehm and Tavis Smiley. "Three of The Washington Post's star beat reporters (none of whom covers the White House or politics or writes opinion pieces) were similarly singled out simply for doing their job as journalists by asking questions about administration policies."

My investigation reveals that the three are Dana Priest, Walter Pincus and Robin
Wright. Rich is right--they're all hard-working beat reporters. Is public broadcasting now afraid of such people?

Did you hear about this Dallas Morning News story about a conference of young Republicans? "Party strategist Grover Norquist lambasted three Republicans who broke party ranks over the issue of judicial filibusters. He referred to them as 'the two girls from Maine and the nut-job from Arizona' - Sens. Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe and John McCain."

Wed. April 6, 2005, Miami Herald

Marlins' ballpark plan gets resistance

-- againAs the Florida Marlins take to the field for opening day, the effort to build a new ballpark with public money gets more difficult.

County numbers crunchers insist the stadium will generate between $7 million and $8 million in sales tax annually, but Fabricant blasted claims that professional teams boost public coffers.

He suggested that the money consumers spend at new stadiums is money that would have been spent elsewhere. He noted that some 40 economic studies conducted by independent researchers ''unambiguously and clearly'' agree: ``There is no net positive economic benefit from publicly supported professional sports teams and
stadiums.''

Were stadiums good for the economy, Fabricant suggested, ``the Bronx and Detroit would be stellar examples of economic development. They're not. 'From an economic development perspective,'' he added, ``it's very rare to find positive economic development in these projects.''

...

The county has said it may need to take as many as 50 homes near the site to build the ballpark under its power of eminent domain -- a government's authority to force a sale of property when it will use it for a public purpose.

The move, Bush said, gives him ``pause.'' ''We have to be careful about how we go about using [eminent domain] or expanding its use,'' Bush said. ``Mark me down as pondering and reflecting on the subject.''

• Lurching toward Havana
• Kelo rising, part 2
• Liberals rating low on the Kelometer?
• Kelo rising
• Don't come back now, y'hear?
• Their eminence
• Adventures in Eminent Domain
• Eminent nonsense
• This land is your land ... or not
• In America?

Allowing the government to take property solely for public purposes is bad enough, but extending the concept of public purpose to encompass any economically beneficial goal guarantees that these losses will fall disproportionately on poor communities. Those communities are not only systematically less likely to put their lands to the highest and best social use, but are also the least politically powerful. If ever there were justification for intrusive judicial review of constitutional provisions that protect "discrete and insular minorities," United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U. S. 144, 152, n. 4 (1938), surely that principle would apply with great force to the powerless groups and individuals the Public Use Clause protects. The deferential standard this Court has adopted for the Public Use Clause is therefore deeply perverse. It encourages "those citizens with dis-proportionate influence and power in the political pro-cess, including large corporations and developmentfirms" to victimize the weak.

Those incentives have made the legacy of this Court's "public purpose" test an unhappy one. In the 1950's, no doubt emboldened in part by the expansive understanding of "public use" this Court adopted in Berman, cities "rushed to draw plans" for downtown development. B. Frieden & L. Sagalayn, Downtown, Inc. How America Rebuilds Cities 17 (1989). "Of all the families displaced by urban renewal from 1949 through 1963, 63 percent of those whose race was known were nonwhite, and of these families, 56 percent of nonwhites and 38 percent of whites had incomes low enough to qualify for public housing, which, however, was seldom available to them." Id., at 28. Public works projects in the 1950's and 1960's destroyed predominantly minority communities in St. Paul, Minnesota, and Baltimore, Maryland. Id., at 28-29. In 1981, urban planners in Detroit, Michigan, uprooted the largely "lower-income and elderly" Poletown neighborhood for the benefit of the General Motors Corporation. J. Wylie, Poletown: Community Betrayed 58 (1989). Urban renewal projects have long been associated with the displacement of blacks; "[i]n cities across the country, urban renewal came to be known as 'Negro removal.' " Pritchett, The "Public Menace" of Blight: Urban Renewal and the Private Uses of Eminent Domain, 21 Yale L. & Pol'y Rev. 1, 47 (2003). Over 97 percent of the individuals forcibly removed from their homes by the "slum-clearance" project upheld by this Court in Berman were black. 348 U. S., at 30. Regrettably, the predictable consequence of the Court's decision will be to exacerbate these effects.

• Kelo rising, part 2
• Liberals rating low on the Kelometer?
• Kelo rising
• Don't come back now, y'hear?
• Their eminence
• Adventures in Eminent Domain
• Eminent nonsense
• This land is your land ... or not
• In America?