Let's recap what we know at the <$Ad$>moment.
This weekend Congress was working on a massive $388 billion omnibus spending bill that will cover all manner of federal spending. But at the request of Rep. Ernest Istook of Oklahoma, chairman of the House Appropriations Transportation Subcommittee, a special provision was inserted into the bill which allows the Chairmen of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees or their "agents" to review any American's tax return with no restrictions whatsoever.
Specifically, none of the privacy law restrictions -- or the criminal and civil penalties tied to them -- would apply when the Chair or anybody he or she designates as his or her "agent" looked at your tax return.
The exact language of the provision is as follows ...
"Hereinafter, notwithstanding any other provision of law governing the disclosure of income tax returns or return information, upon written request of the Chairman of the House or Senate Committee on Appropriations, the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service shall allow agents designated by such Chairman access to Internal Revenue Service facilities and any tax returns or return information contained therein."
The provision was slipped into the bill at the last moment. And, at least on the Democratic side, no one was told about it until some Dems caught it at the last moment.
Senate Republicans quickly backtracked, calling the provision a mistake or snafu and insisting they knew nothing about it. You can see some of the back-and-forth that took place on the Senate floor in this AP piece at CNN.
Sen. Stevens of Alaska, Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, originally blamed the provision on a 'staffer'. But later, according to the AP, Sen. Frist and "congressional aides" said it was inserted at the behest of Rep. Istook.
And in case you're wondering, Istook's staffers are apparently telling constituents that Rep. Istook had to step out of the room for a moment when the DeLay Rule was being voted on.
Maybe he had to finish reading over Ronnie Earle's tax return?
--Josh Marshall
Some things, like the DeLay Rule, are outrageous but not that surprising.
But what I'm about to describe is outrageous and almost literally unbelievable.
As you've probably heard, the congress is pushing through a big omnibus spending bill this weekend. And at the last minute, Republican leaders tried to slip in a provision that would give certain committee chairman and their staffers unlimited access to any American's tax return, with none of the standard privacy protections applying.
You heard that right.
They could pull anyone's tax return, read it over and do whatever they wanted with the information. Those who would have this power would be the chairs and ranking members of the senate and house appropriations committees and subcommittees and "their designees."
The key is that the privacy rights provisions, and criminal and civil penalties that go with them, don't apply for the appropriations committees.
At the last minute, Senate Democrats caught the language (keep in mind these omnibus bills can be like phone books), protested and the Republicans beat a hasty retreat. Some of it is discussed in this AP article at MSNBC, though they lamely call it a "tax-disclosure gaffe."
The Republicans are acting like it was all an innocent mistake. And it seems clear that there are Republican senators who didn't know anytihng about it and are pissed. But clearly this was no accident, unless provisions have started to write themselves.
More soon.
Late Update: Here is the text of the provision in question (emphasis added)
"Hereinafter, notwithstanding any other provision of law governing the disclosure of income tax returns or return information, upon written request of the Chairman of the House or Senate Committee on Appropriations, the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service shall allow agents designated by such Chairman access to Internal Revenue Service facilities and any tax returns or return information contained therein."
Even Later Update: Apparently the provision was placed into the bill at the request of Rep. Istook of Oklahoma. Istook is chairman of the House Appropriations Transportation Subcommittee.
I'm not sure if it's relevant to what happened here, but the Treasury Department falls under the jurisdiction of Istook's subcommittee.
--Josh Marshall
The anti-Ronnie Earle campaign is kicking off on the Texas Republican party website, along with a petition to strip Earle's office of jurisdiction over DeLay and Co.'s campaign finance and other in proper use of public office shenanigans.
Breaking the law has consequences. And Tom DeLay is going to do everything in his power to avoid them -- with the help of the House GOP caucus, the Republican party of Texas, and of course the DeLay Machine, which David Brooks rightly compares to the machine Boss Tweed ran in New York during the Gilded Age.
--Josh Marshall
Breaking DeLay Rule newsflash out of Minnesota, from the Minneapolis Star Tribune.
Like a scattering of papers around the country today (see below), the Star Tribune went down the list of their local GOP congressmen and put the question to them straight out: how'd you vote on the DeLay Rule.
As reported earlier on TPM, Jim Ramstad's in the Shays Handful voting against. Gil Gutknecht couldn't make it to the meeting but wants to be included in the Handful after the fact.
But Mark Kennedy and John Kline drawing a "private vote" line in the sand.
But in a hint at what Kline's private vote might have been, the congressman's chief of staff Steve Sutton says Kline is "perfectly comfortable with the compromise that's been reached."
--Josh Marshall
New Jersey Flash Update!
The Asbury Park Press tracked down Congressmen LoBiondo, Saxton and Garrett and got them to admit they supported the DeLay Rule. Chris Smith told the paper he couldn't make the meeting and wouldn't say whether he was in the Handful or down with DeLay.
Ferguson and Frelinghuysen couldn't be reached; though Ferguson staffers have already conceded to TPM reader-constituents that he supported the DeLay Rule.
For Saxton it's a hard but rapid fall from 'private vote' to letter-writer to just coming clean.
--Josh Marshall
Last night we brought you breaking news that the congresswoman from Rush Limbaugh's hometown of Cape Girardeau, Missouri, Jo Ann Emerson had hopped into the Shays Handful, coming out against the DeLay Rule.
But apparently not to the Bugman's face!
From this <$NoAd$> morning's update in the Southeast Missourian ...
The lawmakers, after hours of debate, adopted a revised rule that would require members of Congress to step down from leadership posts only if convicted of crimes."We debated that for three hours at least," Emerson said. The caucus was attended by more than 250 GOP lawmakers.
Emerson was out of the room when the vote was taken. The Southeast Missouri congresswoman said several lawmakers were out of the room when the party leadership suddenly called for a voice vote on the issue.
The 8th District lawmaker said she had stepped out of the room to meet briefly with Southeast Missouri civic leaders to discuss U.S. 67 road improvements.
"I was only out of the room for 10 minutes, maybe," she said.
When she returned, Emerson discovered that a voice vote had been taken.
While there wasn't a roll call vote, Emerson said that "at least a couple dozen" of her GOP House colleagues opposed the rule change.
The decision might have been different if the issue had been decided by secret ballot rather than voice vote, Emerson said.
She bugged out.
--Josh Marshall
Bob Novak on the DeLay Rule .<$NoAd$>..
The closed-door meeting of House Republicans Wednesday that was supposed to quickly protect House Majority Leader Tom DeLay from a political indictment turned into a contentious debate lasting several hours. Rep. Rob Portman of Ohio, the appointed chairman of the House Republican Leadership, came up with a compromise that won assent.The original proposal would have simply repealed the 1993 Republican rule requiring the resignation from the House party leadership of any member who is criminally indicted. The Portman compromise sets up a review by the House Republican Steering Committee of each case.
The change in the rule was inspired by the prospect that Democratic District Atty. Ronnie Earle in Austin, Texas, may soon indict DeLay in connection with his successful congressional redistricting in Texas. At Wednesday's conference, several Republican House members expressed fear that a straight repeal of the rule would send a bad political message.
I don't know who's on the House Republican Steering Committee in the next congress. But if I'm not mistaken, it's automatically chaired by the Speaker of the House, Denny Hastert, and comprised of members chosen by the leadership. And since Hastert works for DeLay (not on paper, but ...) and DeLay chooses who's on that committee, I doubt he's got too much to be worried about.
--Josh Marshall
Michigan's Dave Camp voted for the DeLay Rule.
But he tells the local paper that he'd recommend dethroning any caucus leader indicted on a "legitimate charge" rather than the politically motivated type coming from the likes of DA Ronnie Earle.
Camp's statement came after the Midland Daily News asked Camp's spokesman for comment on the DeLay Rule and how Camp voted.
--Josh Marshall
Tom DeLay, New Jersey's Mike Ferguson's got your back.
After a bit of hemming and hawing, Ferguson staffers have told a number of TPM reader-constituents that Ferguson voted for the DeLay Rule.
Maybe the $10,000 he got from DeLay's leadership PAC helped put the issue in a clearer light.
Late Update: Contrary to the number I noted above, the list of ARMPAC giving at the Campaign for America's Future (CAF) website lists Ferguson as the single biggest recipient of DeLay largesse in the entire congress -- clocking in at a whopping $42,403. You might say he got the largest largesse. Looking at the CAF chart, I'm not sure what explains the discrepancy between this number and that provided by the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP), which I listed above. The CRP number is for the 2004 giving cycle. So I assume the $42,403 includes the previous two cycles Ferguson ran in (2000 and 2002). In any case, no wonder Mike Ferguson's got DeLay's back. He's already in the guy's pocket so it's not far to travel.
--Josh Marshall
It seems that Illinois Congressman Henry Hyde couldn't make it to the House GOP caucus meeting to vote up or down on the DeLay Rule. No definitive word yet on whether he supports the rule or not.
The same goes for California's Richard Pombo. Pombo staffers are telling constituents he couldn't make it to the meeting either. No one can find out if he has a position on the DeLay Rule.
--Josh Marshall
Rush Limbaugh's hometown congresswoman coming out against the DeLay Rule?
The Southeast Missourian seems to be saying that Jo Ann Emerson is in the Shays Handful.
Here's the update they put up this evening ...
House Majority Leader Tom DeLay would retain his leadership post even if indicted by a Texas prosecutor under a GOP rule change opposed by a minority of Republicans, including U.S. Rep. Jo Ann Emerson of Cape Girardeau."I think that it sets a bad example," Emerson said today from Capitol Hill. "I just don't think that it passes the smell test."
For more on this story, read Saturday's Southeast Missourian.
We'll stand by for the big news in <$NoAd$> tomorrow's paper.
--Josh Marshall
One surreal element to the drama over the DeLay Rule is that practically every member of the Republican House caucus is arguing that Ronnie Earle's grand jury investigation into the DeLay Machine is so dubious on its face that it is presumptively partisan and illegitimate in nature.
Meanwhile, while that's going on, and Rep. DeLay is volubly proclaiming vindication, on the other end of the Capitol you've got the hearings into the rapidly expanding 'Indian gaming' scandal in which two chief capos in the DeLay Machine have had to take the fifth on every question they're asked.
(Actually, it might be better to say 'soldiers' than 'capos'. I don't have my org chart in front of me.)
For some insights into what the scandal's about, see this article by Lou Dubose in the Texas Observer. And for helpful running commentary on the matter, stop by our friend Marshall Wittman's BullMoose blog. Finally, for a good primer on how the DeLay Machine works, see this article by Nick Confessore.
--Josh Marshall
Staffers for Minnesota Congressman Jim Ramstad spent the last two days telling constituents that they didn't know how he voted, that he was a letter-writer and even that it was a 'private vote'.
But late this afternoon Rep. Ramstad sent out emails letting constituents know he was in the Shays Handful voting against the DeLay Rule.
--Josh Marshall
House Ethics Committee round-up ...
There are five Republicans on the Ethics Committee (and five Dems).
Of those, Chairman Joel Hefley of Colorado is in the Shays Handful. He voted against the DeLay Rule. Missouri's Kenny Hulshof is in there too.
Ohio's Steven LaTourette is telling constituents that he's in the Shays Handful; but as of yet we've seen no press reports that confirm this.
As we reported earlier today, Illinois Congresswoman Judy Biggert seems to be hanging tough with the 'private vote' line, refusing to say how she voted.
We had Washington state's Doc Hastings down as a letter-writer. But late this afternoon we received word that a Hastings staffer told at least one constituent that Hastings supported the DeLay Vote but wouldn't reveal how he voted because it was a 'secret' vote. (I guess he sort of wanted to mix up the categories a bit.) If anyone hears more on Hastings, let us know.
--Josh Marshall
Washington state's Doc Hastings is not only a member of the House Ethics Committee. We had him down as a letter-writer. But now we're hearing that while he won't disclose how he voted because it was a 'secret' vote that he does support the DeLay Rule.
If other Hastings constituents have gotten a clearer word, please let us know.
As of yet, we haven't seen any press reportage about how Hastings voted.
--Josh Marshall
This local Milwaukee blog has Wisconsin's Tom Petri down as voting for the DeLay Rule and Paul Ryan in the Shays handful.
They couldn't get a straight word from James Sensenbrenner or Mark Green.
From last night, we have Sensenbrenner down as a letter-writer.
--Josh Marshall
Couldn't make it.
Illinois Congressman John Shimkus couldn't make it to the GOP House caucus meeting. So he didn't vote on the DeLay Rule.
His staff is telling constituents that he he has no position on the matter.
So far, there seems to be no press reportage on Shimkus and the DeLay Rule.
--Josh Marshall
We had Michigan's Joe Knollenberg down as a letter-writer. But now we've heard from two constituents who tell us that under determined questioning, Rep. Knollenberg's staff concedes that he did vote for the DeLay Rule. So far, we've seen no press reportage about how Knollenberg voted. But we'll let you know if we see any.
--Josh Marshall
Also of interest is this list of GOP House members who got money from Rep. Tom DeLay last cycle (actually from his 'leadership PAC' ARMPAC) and how much they got.
--Josh Marshall
From Rep. DeLay's pro-DeLay Rule press <$NoAd$>conference this morning ...
Tom DeLay: Thank you, Henry. That's touching and I appreciate it.By the Ethics Committee's action yesterday, they confirmed Chris Bell's utter contempt for Congress. And by continuing their announced strategy to forego the battle of ideas and instead personally attack Republican leaders, the Democrat Party has confirmed its utter contempt for the boundaries of political discourse. DELAY: Yesterday, the bipartisan House Ethics Committee found Representative Chris Bell, Democrat of Texas, in direct violation of rules for his part in a premeditated, partisan and malicious campaign to undermine the majority and the integrity of the House of Representatives.
Mr. Bell's libelous complaint against me, which the committee disposed of on a unanimous, bipartisan basis, without finding me in violation of any rule, has resulted in that same bipartisan committee finding Mr. Bell guilty of nine separate counts of rule violations.
The committee found, as we have always held, that Mr. Bell's complaint contained inflammatory language, exaggerated charges and serious misstatements on both fact and the law.
He acted out of anger at losing his seat in Congress, blamed everyone but himself for his loss, and turned his obsessive rage on me. In other words, Mr. Bell has been exposed for the partisan stalker that he is.
I understand the Democrat Party's adjustment to their national minority status is frustrating, but their crushing defeat in the elections earlier this month, after two more years of Democrat obstruction and vicious personal attacks, should show them that the American people are tired of the politics of personal destruction.
It is a shame that Democrat anger at their loss of power has manifested itself in contemptible behavior like Mr. Bell's, but hopefully the Ethics Committee's nine-count, categorical, bipartisan rebuke will finally end Democrats' obsessive desire to undo the last six national elections.
Later, after praise from various House colleagues (Blackburn, Bonilla, Carter, Doolittle, Dreier and Linder), Rep. DeLay took questions ...
QUESTION: Mr. DeLay, six weeks ago, when the Ethics Committee sent you a letter, some of the same members standing up here said that the committee had been influenced by partisan pressures and that it was inaccurate in finding against you. Now we see everybody saying it's bipartisan and it's accurate in this nine-count, as you say, rebuke of Mr. Bell.What's happened in six weeks?
DELAY: First of all, your question, frankly, shows the problem here. I think there's a double standard in the media that has been going on here.
The only two members of the House of Representatives that I know of right now that have actually violated the law is Nancy Pelosi and Jim McDermott.
Your question insinuates that I had a sanction brought against me in that letter. In that letter, if you took time to read it, you would see that all the charges -- the frivolous charges that is in this letter against Chris Bell were dismissed by the bipartisan committee. And all that the committee said was a mild warning about fund-raising activities and using government resources, a warning that is not a sanction in the House rules nor the rules of the Ethics Committee.
In this case, in this letter, the Ethics Committee has stated -- and I can't find the quote right now -- but it has stated unequivocally that Mr. Bell has violated the rules of the House. He has violated the rules of the Ethics Committee -- actual violations.
There has not been one story about Nancy Pelosi or Jim McDermott that I know of; certainly not on the front page of the New York Times or The Washington Post. And I bet you this story isn't going to find its way on the front pages of the New York Times or The Washington Post.
The point here is, is this is a concerted strategy announced in September a year ago by the Democrats that they were going to do these things. They were proud of it. And in March they even said they were going to neuter DeLay and announced it publicly, and yet it got little or no coverage.
DELAY: The point is I'm just demanding the same treatment that I have received for the last two and a half years in this case.
First, I ask that you write the facts. And the facts are that the Ethics Committee dismissed all these frivolous charges that they are now rebuking Chris Bell about.
The facts are, I have not been indicted in Austin, Texas. And the facts are the indictments that have been brought by this partisan D.A. in Austin, Texas, against three of my associates are frivolous. And if you'd spend any time at all and read the one-sentence indictment, you would see so and understand it.
This is a process of politics of personal destruction. It's quite obvious. And now the Ethics Committee has said so.
QUESTION: You've been admonished three times by the Ethics Committee. You were admonished in the (OFF-MIKE) and now this. Are you saying admonishment doesn't (OFF-MIKE)?
DELAY: Admonishment is no different than letters that we get from the Ethics Committee when all of us write to the Ethics Committee to make a decision as to an action we're about to take, whether it is within the rules or not.
Admonishment is not a sanction of the House rules, although you treat it like it is. It is not a sanction. And it is a mild warning about -- and if you read the letters -- about impression.
It has nothing to do with admonishment of violating the House rules. There has been no violation of the House rules. And all the committee said was, "You ought to take a look at when you go to fund- raisers when legislation is pending and you ought to take a look at how you interface with government entities in trying to answer questions for your constituents."
QUESTION: Mr. Leader, you singled out that the Democrat leader, Nancy Pelosi, by name here. First of all, do you see her as behind some of these -- what you see as attacks against you?
And second of all, how does this bode for the next Congress? Can you even work with Nancy Pelosi? You basically called her a criminal. You said she's violated the law.
DELAY: She has violated the law. It's in the facts. The facts are she violated federal law. Jim McDermott has violated federal law. And yet no one seems to run to write anything about that.
And the point is is that I don't know if she's in collusion or not. That's a question you ought to ask her.
But it's quite obvious to me, particularly when the NRCC, which she is the head of -- and she's the minority leader, she's responsible for everything that goes on in the Democrat Caucus -- DCCC, I'm sorry. DCCC.
(LAUGHTER)
Right. Yes.
(LAUGHTER)
QUESTION: Can you work with her?
DELAY: Of course, I can work with her. I can work with anyone that wants to help us with America's agenda.
And I have been focused on -- and, as Mr. Dreier said, we are finishing an incredibly productive 108th Congress. We're very proud of what we've been able to do. And we're looking forward to even a bolder 109th Congress. And we will work with anyone -- any willing coalition that we can put together to accomplish the people's business.
QUESTION: Why do you not (OFF-MIKE) against her?
DELAY: I have never participated in this politics of personal destruction. I think it's detrimental to the institution and to both Democrats and Republicans in the institution. It looks bad for all of us. And so I've never done it.
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) violated federal law leading the other party, why not? Isn't that a case where you should go ahead and push a case?
DELAY: That's not for me to say. I don't like getting involved in those kinds of things. I like doing the people's business and accomplishing their agenda.
QUESTION: Do you think that Chris Bell should pay your court fees or your legal fees?
DELAY: Well, I think Mr. Bonilla and Mr. Carter have raised an interesting question.
If Mr. Bell is as ethical as he claims to be, then that would be the only right thing to do.
Thank you.
Tom DeLay, all he asks for is a level playing field, a fair shake.
--Josh Marshall
I know the most probable immediate beneficiary of such a change would likely be California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. But I'm coming around to the view -- expressed today by (foreing-born) former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright -- that naturalized American citizens should be eligible to run for president.
Certainly, a long period of citizenship should be required -- perhaps twenty or twenty-five years. But this is a nation of immigrants. And with the great surge of immigration in recent decades, this provision of the constitution leaves a substantial minority of American citizens permanently ineligible to serve in the highest office in the land. That is increasingly difficult to justify.
--Josh Marshall
Minnesota's Gil Gutknecht couldn't make it to the caucus meeting to vote on the DeLay Rule. But now he wants in to the Shays Handful after the fact. So says the local paper, the Post-Bulletin (subscription required).
But, according to the quote he gave the paper, he still manages to be for delay.
"I thought it was an enormous mistake to draw more attention to this issue. I think we are far better off dealing with it if and when ... I don't think it serves any constructive purpose to highlight an issue that may never become an issue. If it does become an issue we're going to have to deal with it, if it's Mr. DeLay or whoever."
--Josh Marshall
Kevin Drum and Mark Kleiman have a good point about Travis County DA Ronnie Earle.
--Josh Marshall
In case you hadn't noticed, the voice of inter-generational brainiac conservatism has spoken.
Jon Podhoretz in the New York Post: thumbs down on the DeLay Rule.
--Josh Marshall
Congresswoman Judy Biggert is a Republican member of the House Ethics Committee, which handed out those multiple admonishments to Rep. Tom DeLay. And there's been a lot of constituent interest in how she voted on the DeLay Rule. For the moment, according to constituent calls placed with her office this morning, Biggert seems to be hanging tough with the 'private vote' line, but leaving open the option of becoming a letter-writer.
--Josh Marshall
Late Word: New Jersey's Jim Saxton comes out of the 'private vote' category. As of this morning, he's a letter-writer.
However, constituents who've spoken this morning to members of Saxton's staff got the impression that the Saxton letter may say that it was a 'private vote' and not reveal how he voted.
We'll bring you more information on Saxton when we receive it; or perhaps we'll just need to come up with a more granular set of categories.
--Josh Marshall
Letter-writers no more!
It seems like three of those congressmen from Upstate New York could run but they could not hide.
According to this morning's Post-Standard, James Walsh, Sherry Boehlert and John McHugh each support the DeLay Rule, though Boelhert and McHugh managed not to attend the meeting where the vote took place.
Boelhert was at Bethesda Naval Medical Center getting a follow-up check-up tied to heart surgery from last September and McHugh was at another meeting. But when pressed on the matter, both said they supported it. James Walsh was there in the flesh and gave the thumbs up in person.
See the article for the details.
--Josh Marshall
It took our readers a while to get the scoop. But it seems that Pennsylvania's Melissa Hart was there when the Hammer needed her. She voted for the DeLay Rule, according to her staff.
--Josh Marshall
We were getting unconfirmed reports about this all yesterday afternoon. But now Rep. Heather Wilson of New Mexico makes it official. She says she was in the Shays Handful.
[ed. note: As you might imagine we've got a mound of emails and updates in from readers giving us information on their reps., new news reports, new awkward phone calls with congressional staffers, and so forth. (And please keep the updates coming.) But it will take us a bit of time to get through all the new information. Stay tuned; we'll be providing more updates through the day.]
--Josh Marshall
"Regardless of the outcome of this election, once all the votes are counted -- and they will be counted -- we will continue to challenge this administration. This is not a time for Democrats to retreat and accommodate extremists on critical principles -- it is a time to stand firm.
I will fight for a national standard for federal elections that has both transparency and accountability in our voting system. It's unacceptable in the United States that people still don't have full confidence in the integrity of the voting process.
I ask you to join me in this cause."
That's a passage from a message Sen. John Kerry will be sending out to supporters later this afternoon.
--Josh Marshall
On Deck for Tomorrow: Hardly any New York state Republican members of congress (beside Rep. Peter King) are willing to say whether they voted for the DeLay Rule.
--Josh Marshall
Red state editorials give the thumbs-down to the DeLay Rule: Springfield News-Leader, Roanoke Times, Charleston Gazette, Indianapolis Star.
--Josh Marshall
Alaska's sole member of the House, Don Young, voted for the DeLay Rule. Says Young: "Everybody says it's to protect Tom DeLay. That may be so. But it also protects anyone else from an elected attorney general, thank God Alaska doesn't have one, that can use their position as a bully pulpit and prosecute an elected official."
--Josh Marshall
Early on Thursday, staffers for Colorado's Bob Beauprez were telling constituents that the DeLay Rule vote was either a secret or that they didn't know how the congressman had voted. By mid-afternoon, though, Beauprez's office had come clean: He voted for the DeLay Rule.
--Josh Marshall
Even the Manchester Union Leader gives the DeLay Rule the thumbs down!
What will we tell the children?
--Josh Marshall
Just to show they're still on the case, the House Ethics Committee has now rebuked DeLay's accuser, outgoing Texas Rep. Chris Bell (D-TX). Bell's charges led to DeLay's earlier admonishment. But the Ethics Committee is now cracking down on him for using "innuendo and speculative assertions" in levelling his accusations.
Bell was redistricted out of his seat in last year's DeLay sponsored redistricting power-grab.
--Josh Marshall
Of all the members of the House Republican caucus, the guy who seems to have heard from the most TPM readers (or at least high on the list) is Greg Walden of Oregon.
Oregonians who called, but weren't from Walden's district, apparently got a bit of a tongue-lashing. But those who were his constituents got either a 'we don't know how he voted' or some version of 'the person who answers that question is away from their desk', etc. Pretty much all of Walden's constituents got the run-around and none of them got a straight answer. Lots of them got promises of calls back. But nobody seems to have gotten one.
There was apparently at least one rather hard-boiled staffer in one of the Walden offices, though. Because, in at least two cases, callers were told that in the staffer's opinion Walden almost certainly gave DeLay the nod.
--Josh Marshall
This is rich.
Florida's Adam Putnam voted for the DeLay Rule on Wednesday. And here in the local paper he's explaining how he stood up for principle by voting for the 'compromise' ...
U.S. Rep. Adam Putnam, R-Bartow, said he voted for the compromise in Republican House rules covering suspension of House GOP leaders, who are indicted in state courts, but that he would not have voted for the proposal that would have totally exempted committee chairs and other leaders from state indictments.The issue has arisen because of a potential Texas grand jury indictment on political corruption against Majority Leader Tom DeLay.
"It would have been to me rather hypocritical to have said that we are above state law, but not above federal law," Putnam said. "The initial package stated that House Republican leaders would be excluded from state courts, but not federal courts. But there is total agreement on the final package (with the compromise)," he said.
I'm glad he clarified<$NoAd$> that.
--Josh Marshall
Media Matters has a nice run-down here of how the media is uncritically picking up and running with the DeLay machine's claims that Ronnie Earle is pursuing a partisan agenda by investigating DeLay and his already-indicted associates. That unsubstantiated charge, of course, is their rationale for the DeLay Rule.
--Josh Marshall
We have a few more notations of loyal DeLay soldiers from Texas who not only supported the DeLay Rule, but happily said so publicly.
Not a surprise really. After all, he owns these guys.
The three are congressmen Joe Barton, Kevin Brady and John Carter.
--Josh Marshall
Putting together an itemized tally of who's in the Shays Handful, who's a letter-writer, who's down with DeLay is somewhat beyond our capacities here at TPM. But the folks at The Daily DeLay are doing it at their site. They have a running tally based on some of our reporting here. And they even have a handy explanation of the DeLay Rule lexicon we've been developing to explain who did what.
--Josh Marshall
We hadn't noticed, but the man who made it the Shays Handful, Rep. Chris Shays, put out this press release yesterday regarding his no vote on the DeLay Rule.
--Josh Marshall
We've been getting conflicting word throughout the day on how Minnesota's Mark Kennedy voted on the DeLay Rule.
This morning his staffers said they didn't know how he voted. Later he was a letter-writer. Later still we heard they were saying it was 'closed vote' and the 'no vote was taken' line.
The last TPM reader who got through to the congressman's office was told that the vote was by "unanimous consent", which should come as some surprise to those in the Shays Handful, who say they voted against it.
--Josh Marshall
Way, way, waaaayyy on the DeLay-low. That's Rep. John Sweeney of New York. So far we've had a half dozen TPM constituent-readers call and still no answer on how he voted on the DeLay Rule.
And while we're at it, Ohio's Steve Chabot? A letter-writer.
--Josh Marshall
A whole slew of different answers on how she voted on the DeLay Rule from Rep. Judy Biggert of Illinois.
--Josh Marshall
A little side note on the DeLay Rule vote.
If we can go by comments released by congressional offices, quite a substantial number of Republican members of congress happened to have stepped out of the room (to get food, go to the bathroom, attend to constituent business, etc.) right about the time they did the voice vote on the DeLay Rule.
Illinois's Tim Johnson, for instance, just couldn't make it. He was there for most of the meeting but had to step out for a "constituent meeting," according to TPM readers who've called his congressional office. He has no official position on the DeLay Rule at all.
Presumably they still had a quorum.
--Josh Marshall
Hmmmm... Big talk from the Iowa delegation.
After some initial hemming and hawing, Reps. Leach, Latham and Nussle have each told TPM readers they're safely esconced in the Shays Handful.
Only Rep. Steve King is still down as a letter-writer.
--Josh Marshall
Ohio's Pat Tiberi says he's in Shays Handful. California's Elton Gallegly says the same. Missouri's Kenny Hulshof too.
--Josh Marshall
Besides DeLay Rule letter-writers, there's also a growing list of members who simply tell their constituents it was a "private vote" and refuse to answer any questions.
High on that list is Vernon Ehlers of Michigan, Jim Saxton of New Jersey (though we have some conflicting word there), Howard Coble of North Carolina (though again his staff has made some conflicting statements), and Denny Rehberg of Montana.
For many offices, as you can see, there are overlapping and conflicting answers given out to different callers and constituents -- sometimes to a single constituent. So often it's 'it was a voice vote, we don't know how he voted, but it's not recorded, and it's private, and give us you're address and maybe we'll send a letter later.' So, as you can see, it sort of challanges TPMs categorizing abilities.
In the case of Denny Rehberg, one his staffers apparently went so far as to tell one TPM reader that GOP caucus rules forbade him from disclosing his vote on the DeLay Rule.
I guess that means Chris Shays and the whole of the Shays Handful is in a heap of trouble.
--Josh Marshall
A short note about the vote. The DeLay Rule vote, that is.
A number of congressmen (no congresswomen yet) are now telling their constituents that there's no question to answer because the DeLay Rule never came to a vote. (Staffers from Congressmen Tom Davis and Tom Feeney offices have both used this line, according to TPM readers.)
Nice try.
As we noted earlier, the rule was put to a voice-vote in the GOP caucus meeting. That means they asked for yeas and nays. And the yeas had it.
So it's true that there was no recorded vote. So there's no truly definitive way to know one way or another what a particular representative did unless they conspicuously said one thing or another and other members saw them say it.
All we really have to go on is how they say they voted.
Based on published accounts of members in the meeting, the number of 'nays' has been described as anything between a "handful" of members to between 30 and 50.
As we've already noted, it seems there are more members who now claim to have been in the Shays Handful than anyone saw voting 'nea' at the meeting. But what can you do?
In any case, the relevant point is that there was a vote. It wasn't recorded. There's no official tally. But everyone who was there was asked to say yea or nea. Why shouldn't they be willing tell their constituents what they said?
One final note: If your member of congress tells you there wasn't a vote, ask them whether those in the Shays Handful are lying when they say they voted against it.
--Josh Marshall
Arizona round-up ...
J.D. Hayworth -- Credit where credit is due. Hayworth is a real 'winger. But he's in the Shays Handful. He even spoke against it in the meeting. Say it loud, say it proud, J.D.!
Jim Kolbe -- Apparently a letter-writer.
Trent Franks -- I'm willing to give this guy props. He voted for the DeLay Rule. But he says so prominently right on the front of his website. He's not hiding.
No word yet on Reps. Renzi and Shadegg.
Late Update: We've now gotten word back on Rep. John Shadegg. He's taking the 'private vote' line.
--Josh Marshall
West Virginia's Shelly Moore Capito, was a no-comment, now a letter-writer.
--Josh Marshall
As of 2:30 PM this afternoon we've had TPM readers contacting quite a few Republican members of congress about how they voted on the DeLay Rule. And it seems fair to say that aside from members of congress from tomato-red districts, a very large percentage of Republican representatives find one way or another of not answering their constituents when they ask how their rep. voted.
Whether it's Pennsylvania's Jim Gerlach, whose office won't say how he voted, or Roscoe Bartlett in Maryland, who also won't say, most just find some way to dodge the question or insist the answer is private.
Apparently there's one Republican rep. from Florida who claims a vote never even took place. We'll follow up on that and report back if we hear more.
More to follow shortly.
--Josh Marshall
New Jersey's Scott Garrett, another letter-writer like Sherry Boehlert. So's Chris Smith.
Late Update: Rodney P. Frelinghuysen appears to be a letter-writer, though constituents have gotten conflicting accounts from his office about how he'll respond to their queries.
--Josh Marshall
The Manchester Union Leader is reporting that both New Hampshire reps., Charlie Bass and Jeb Bradley are part of the Shays Handful.
Bass seems to be making comments to the press while Bradley is trying to lay low. But both are in the Shays Handful.
[ed. note: If the 'handful' is starting to look rather large to you, yes, we've noticed the same thing. It has occurred to us as well that there may be a slight discrepancy between those who voted for the DeLay Rule and those who are willing to admit they voted for the DeLay Rule. But then, as we've seen, exit polls sometimes do not match up with the actual tally.]
Late Update: Pennsylvania's Phil English also seems to be a letter-writer.
--Josh Marshall
More news on the DeLay Rule.
It turns out that all three Republican members of congress from Connecticut (Rob Simmons, Christopher Shays and Nancy Johnson) are members of the Shays Handful, according to this article in the Hartford Courant.
But neighboring New York seems like a different story. TPM readers have been told that Rep. Sherwoood Boehlert has a policy of only discussing his position on the DeLay Rule in letters to constituents. Rep. Sue Kelly and James Walsh are keeping mum. And Rep. John McHugh seems to be a letter writer as well.
Let us know if you've heard from your New York Republican rep. We're hoping at least one of them is in the Shays Handful.
Late Update: After several refusals to answer to TPM Readers, a staffer for Virginia's Tom Davis is now putting him in Shays Handful. We'll wait for more definitive word about Davis.
--Josh Marshall
Well, we've been getting all sorts of reports from readers about how their representatives voted on the DeLay Rule. First, we should announce that we've found two new members of the Shays Handful. The first is Mark Kirk of Illinois. The second is a possible member. A staffer for New Hampshire's Charlie Bass told a TPM reader that he opposed the DeLay Rule. But, as yet, I have not seen his opposition noted in any published report.
What we're hearing a lot of are cases where the Rep. in question either says the vote was private or their staffers claim not to know how they voted. Interestingly enough, there seems to be a high correlation between these responses and whether the member is a moderate and/or in a swing district. We're also getting a slew of reports of members who will only respond to constituents in writing about whether they supported the DeLay Rule.
Staffers for Rep. Judy Biggert of Illinois have so far pulled off a trifecta, managing to give different readers each of the three versions of no answer noted above.
We'll bring you more shortly.
One final point: We already have our name for the folks who bucked DeLay and are willing to say so publicly. They're the Shays Handful. But what do we call the Reps. who are afraid to tell, or refuse to tell, their constituents how they voted? Send us your suggestions.
Late Update: So far, I think the best bet is to call them the Shamed Handful, but I'd like to do better.
--Josh Marshall
One final thought on the DeLay Rule passed on Wednesday in the House GOP caucus.
The Republicans' argument for passing the DeLay Rule is that Travis County DA Ronnie Earle is on a partisan witch-hunt against DeLay and that all they're doing is taking steps to prevent Democrats from dictating the leadership of their caucus.
DeLay himself says that Earle is "trying to criminalize politics and using the criminal code to insert himself into politics." And to further this argument his lieutenants have enlisted members of the caucus to make various defamatory remarks about Earle. New York's Peter King calls him a "runaway prosecutor." (DeLay earlier called him a "''runaway district attorney''; so presumably King got it from him.) Henry Bonilla of Texas calls him a "partisan crackpot district attorney." There are many other examples.
So DeLay is getting members of the Republican caucus to accuse Earle of being an unethical district attorney and pursuing a prosecution to advance a political agenda.
Now, is there any evidence of that?
In Texas, the DAs are elected, not appointed. And Earle is a Democrat. Because his jurisdiction includes Austin, the state capital, his office runs the state's Public Integrity Unit, which gives him jurisidiction over this case. But that's the system in Texas. Earle's been in office since 1976. And his website lists various awards he's won that seem to show that he's held in high regard by fellow DAs. But of course, who knows what these awards mean?
The Times profiled Earle recently and this is the graf most revelant to our question ...
''The only people I antagonize more than Republicans are Democrats,'' Mr. Earle said later. He said the record showed he had prosecuted 12 Democratic officials and 4 Republican officials, although for much of his time in office, he acknowledged, Republicans were on the outs. ''We prosecute abuses of power,'' he said, ''and you have to have power to abuse it.''
So let's open it up. Does Earle have a history of more aggressively prosecuting Republicans than Democrats? Are there valid arguments that the indictments already handed down against the three DeLay aides are legally questionable? Or does Cong. DeLay just think he's above the law?
--Josh Marshall
Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) criticizes the DeLay Rule: "Republicans have reached a new low. It is absolutely mind-boggling that as their first order of business following the elections, House Republicans have lowered the ethical standards for their leaders."
Trent Franks (R-AZ) on why the old rule wasn't right: "In my sincere opinion, it [the possible indictment of DeLay] only provoked the timing. When you look at the rule, it is an outrageous rule."
Denny Hastert (R-IL): DeLay Rule "fair and equitable"; voting for DeLay Rule a "a good decision."
Henry Bonilla (R-TX): DeLay Rule "takes the power away from any partisan crackpot district attorney who may want to indict" House leadership.
Kevin Brady: (R-TX): DeLay Rule is "a recognition that the rules of politics have changed. The courts and judges and prosecutors are all now part of what used to be the voters' decision. We're in an ugly world."
Pravda: "The controversy surrounding DeLay does not seem to have dented his considerable power. He is credited with helping Republicans increase their majority in the House in this month's elections and many Republican lawmakers feel indebted to him for his fund-raising prowess."
--Josh Marshall
Congressman Darrell Issa of California come onnnnnn dowwwwwwnnnnnnnn!
What'd you do wrong? Nuthin! I just picked you at random. Congressman Issa, did you support the "Delay Rule" in the GOP caucus today? You know, the one that allows members of the House leadership to keep their leadership posts after they've been indicted for felonies.
Congressman Frank LoBiondo, how about you?
Jeb Bradley of New Hampshire?
Ahhhh ... I could go on an on. And by all mean let's go on and on. There are so many members of the GOP caucus to choose from (often a matter of regret, but in this case suddenly a blessing). Here's a list of every member of the House of Representatives.
Do you work for a local newspaper or TV Station? Want an easy story? Call up the local Republican member of congress to see if they supported the DeLay Rule. Believe me, this one writes itself.
Rep. Chris Shays (R-CT) says a "handful" of members of the caucus opposed the rule. Let's be extremely generous and say that's 20 members. That still leaves 211 supporters. Who are they?
Not a journalist? Afraid you can't play? Fuggetaboutit ... You can play too.
Just pick a Republican member of Congress, call the number on their website and ask. Don't be rude or confrontational. Just a simple question: Did Congressperson such-and-such support the DeLay Rule in the GOP caucus meeting on Wednesday. After you get your answer, drop us a line and let us know what you hear. Did they vote for the DeLay Rule or are they members of the Shays Handful?
They refused to answer? We wanna know that too.
Late Update: Congressman Zach Wamp (R-TN) turns out to be a member of the Shays Handful.
Even Later Update: This AP article says that Chris Shays "estimated 30 to 50 members voted against" the DeLay Rule. All I can say is, that's quite a "handful." But then maybe Shays has big hands. Who knows? In any case, the game continues.
Later Than You Can Imagine Update: Ray LaHood (R-IL) also says he was a member of the Shays Handful. He explained why his colleagues voted for the DeLay Rule: "It was the result of the fact that he increased our numbers, he takes care of members when they need legislation passed, his fund raising and, in Texas, his drawing people a good district."
--Josh Marshall
Just a few moments ago I asked whether the House GOP caucus had any rule in place that would force Tom DeLay (R-TX) to step down post-conviction.
And that raises the following possible scenario.
After getting convicted, DeLay could manage to stay free on bail for some time pending appeal -- probably multiple appeals. And while his appeals are dragging out month after month, or even year after year, what's to stop him from getting his enforcers in Texas to get the elected DA, Ronnie Earle, redistricted out of office?
That way DeLay gets convicted. He gets the conviction overturned on appeal (if possible). And while that's happening, he gets Earle thrown out of office. The new DA who takes over is a DeLay crony. And the new guy decides not to refile the case.
Now, I know you're thinking that this is too much even for the DeLay machine. But consider this: There was so much funny-business that went on in DeLay's redistricting power-grab last year that Earle opened an investigation soon after the events took place. On May 23rd, 2003, for instance, he told the Fort Worth Star-Telegram that he had already opened an inquiry into another aspect of the case (specifically, a matter of some mysteriously 'destroyed' records.)
So the DeLay machine already knew trouble could be coming from Earle by late spring of last year. And, low and behold, a few months later, as Earle's investigations started to pick up steam, the guy who executed DeLay's redistricting power-grab, House Speaker Tom Craddick, began working on new legislation to redistrict the state's 300-odd elected DAs and elected prosecutors. As this article from last November in the Austin Chronicle makes clear, the widely-assumed real target of the move was none other than Ronnie Earle.
A far-fetched scenario? Maybe. But would you put it past the Bug Man?
Late Update: A few TPM readers note the point that redistricting Earle out of a job would be an awfully difficult proposition. Far easier would be to strip the Travis Co. District Attorney (Earle) of the state's Public Integrity Unit, which would accomplish DeLay's end just as well. (Again, see the article linked above.)
--Josh Marshall
I'm eager to find out more about who in the GOP caucus was for and who was against the "DeLay rule" -- the new rule allowing Tom DeLay (R-TX) and future indictees to continue in their House leadership roles after being indicted.
Rep. Chris Shays of Connecticut seems to be the only Republican who says he didn't support the move when it was put to a voice vote today. And he says he was one of only a "handful" of Republican House members who also spoke out against the change in today's closed door meeting.
Here's my question. And it's a genuine question since I don't know the answer. Does the Republican caucus currently have a rule which would force DeLay to relinquish his post after conviction if he remains free on appeal?
The earlier rule would have made such a rule superfluous since any leadership office had to be surrendered on indictment. But with that changed, is there such a rule? And if not, does the GOP caucus plan on imposing one?
And in the interest of completeness, is there any stage in the criminal justice process when a GOP caucus member in a leadership office has to resign his post? If the judge sentences DeLay to wearing one of those radio beacon collars around his ankle so that he doesn't leave the vicinity of the Capitol, could he continue as leader then too? Or would that be too much?
An extreme scenario, I grant you, but as long as we're plumbing the depths ...
--Josh Marshall
Rep John Dingell (D-MI) on Majority Leader Tom DeLay (TX-R): "These folks talk about values and decency, but then think it’s okay to change the rules once it appears one of their own may have broken them. This amounts to a work release program for the ethically challenged. We should all remember that a decade ago, Mr. DeLay helped to create this rule. Republicans said at the time they were the party of reform and good government. Now they’ve become the party of moribund hubris."
--Josh Marshall
In regard to Steve Clemons' quote from Richard Perle noted earlier today, several readers have suggested that what Perle must have meant was that the UN Inspectors -- because of their alleged fecklessness and/or because they had to operate while the regime still existed -- would never find WMD and that our drive to war would thus be thwarted.
That thought occurred to me too. It was a common argument with Perle and other neo-cons in the run-up to war that the inspections process was worthless either because Saddam could too easily bamboozle the inspectors or because even finding evidence of banned weapons would only lead to a renewed game of 'cheat and retreat'.
But when I spoke to Clemons this afternoon and then again this evening, he said that this distinction (i.e., between what inspectors might find before the war and what the US might find after the war) was at least not clear in what Perle said and that he seemed to be speaking more broadly.
The feckless inspector argument is certainly one explanation. But I'm curious to hear more.
--Josh Marshall
Before John Bolton gets to try regime-change in Iran or North Korea, first he has to pull it off at Foggy Bottom.
The latest <$NoAd$> intrigues from this evening's Nelson Report ...
Since all Beltway Insiders really think people ARE policy, here’s the latest gossip from sources joyfully playing the game. In the foreign policy community, TOTAL focus is on whether Undersecretary of State John Bolton can force Secretary-designate Condi Rice to take him as the Deputy, replacing Rich Armitage. Bolton has been working Capitol Hill for support (not the kind of thing the Bush White House likes), and his former AEI colleagues are trying to create the image of a done deal. For example: rumors at State today have Bolton with his own list of new INR staffers, ready to clean house. Reality check: Rice has made it clear she is aware of, and does not want to endure, the leaks and separate agenda behavior which characterized Bolton’s service to Powell. Outsiders are portraying this as a “test” of whether VP Cheney is the “real” foreign policy boss, or does Condi truly have the mandate from President Bush that Powell never secured. Some “insiders” argue that to put it that way shows how little one understands the real play in the Bush Administration. For what it’s worth, Rice deputies are telling friends that she is not a neo-con, but a realist in the Scowcroft tradition, from whence she came originally.
Probably not worth all that much. Remember, this is Condi we're talking about. But we'll see.
--Josh Marshall
Did Richard Perle tell colleagues as early as October 2002 -- some six months before the beginning of Operation Iraq Freedom -- that he didn't believe we'd ever find Weapons of Mass <$NoAd$>Destruction in Iraq?
That's what Steve Clemons says in The Washington Note today.
Here's the key passage from the post ...
Armitage has been fighting for balance within the interagency process for some time -- and for that is probably considered disloyal to the President. When I met Richard Perle in France for a debate in October 2002, Perle recounted to Edward Luttwak and me that he couldn't stand Powell any longer.He said that the French Ambassador to the U.S. Jean-David Levitte had had a dinner welcoming new French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin at his home -- which Perle attended, as did Colin Powell. Perle reported that Powell gave an interminably long and unbelievably obsequious and sycophantic toast in honor of Villepin.
Perle continued by saying that Powell had served his President poorly by getting the President to take what Perle then saw as a disastrous course through the United Nations to get at Saddam Hussein. Perle told us that he believed we would find no weapons of mass destruction. When I asked what he meant -- he said that Hussein had hidden the weapons so well or killed or scared those who knew to such an extent that we would never find the WMDs.
Did Perle ever say something like that publicly? The logic of the statement also indicates that he didn't believe Saddam would use chemical or biological weapons against US or coalition troops since having them used against us would certainly count as 'finding' them.
The idea that US troops or CIA weapons detection teams would never be able to find illicit weapons even after the regime had been overthrown has never made much sense to me. So why was Perle making these excuses in advance? What did he know? And who did he tell?
--Josh Marshall
I'll be talking about this more in my new column in The Hill, which will be out later this evening. But with the nomination today of White House Domestic Policy Adviser Margaret Spellings as Education Secretary (see her bio) the pattern is now unmistakably clear. As was the case with with Gonzales and Rice, President Bush is transposing his White House staff out to head their analogous federal departments and agencies.
Gonzales goes from White House Counsel to Attorney General; Rice goes from NSC to State; Spellings goes from Domestic Policy Advisor to Education Secretary.
Each of them defined mainly by their loyalty to President Bush.
As we wrote earlier, the shift is not toward right, left or center, but toward more direct White House control and the silencing of dissident voices in the civil service.
--Josh Marshall
From Jonathan Kaplan's piece in The Hill on the House GOP's <$NoAd$> proposed DeLay rule ...
Republicans have used Democrats’ ethical lapses, including a check-kiting scandal at the House bank, to their political advantage. In 1987, then-Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) told The Washington Post: “[You] now have a House where it is more dangerous to be aggressive about honesty than it is to be mildly corrupt. … We have in Wright, [Majority Leader Tom Foley (D-Wash.)] and Coelho a third generation of Democratic leaders, the first that has never served in a minority. … You now have a situation where I think people feel almost invulnerable.”Cantor said, however, that by inoculating DeLay in the present case the Republicans will not lose the moral high ground gained by instituting the rule in the first place.
“That line of reasoning [accepts] that exercise of the prosecutor in Texas is legitimate,” he said.
Ye olde rule of law line of reasoning. Of course.
--Josh Marshall
House Republicans embrace new pro-crime agenda!
WaPo:"House Republicans were contemplating changing their rules in order to allow members indicted by state prosecutors to remain in a leadership post, a move designed to benefit Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) in case he is charged by a Texas grand jury that has indicted three of his political associates, GOP leaders said today."
Surely but one of many Actonian moments to come.
--Josh Marshall
A new site to check out: The Daou Report, a running round-up of what's on all the blogs, left, right and center.
--Josh Marshall
Rice replaces Powell; Hadley replaces Rice; Armitage to depart State with Powell. Longer version here at the Post.
--Josh Marshall
Brilliant!
Ed Kilgore comes up with the one sure way, and perhaps the only way, for Arlen Specter to hold on to the Judiciary gavel.
Convert to Christianity ...
About the only thing I can think of that would do the trick is for Specter to dramatically announce a conversion: no, not just to Movement Conservatism, or to the views of the Right to Life Committee, but to Christianity. Imagine the cries of joy that would ensue in Virginia Beach and Colorado Springs and other precincts of the theocratic Right! It would be like that scene in The Apostle when Billy Bob Thornton succumbed to the Call just as he was preparing to bulldoze Robert Duvall's church! Victory is mine! Victory is mine!
I had a hard time resisting reprinting the whole post. See it here.
--Josh Marshall
WaPo painfully coded and/or tortured lede watch ...
Secretary of State Colin L. Powell's resignation announcement Monday evoked a mixed international reaction of personal sympathy, political disappointment and intense concern over whether his replacement will be another moderate or a hard-line ideologue.
Does that reaction sound 'mixed'?
President Bush's reelection evoked a mixed Democratic reaction of bitter disappointment, insensible depression and sheer terror.
Another mixed reaction.
Got any others?
--Josh Marshall
So is Bush moving to the right or the center in term two?
Wrong metric. He's moving to exert greater control.
Look at the pattern.
Neither Ms. Rice nor Mr. Gonzales are the neo-cons' or the conservatives' choice for their respective offices-to-be. In each case they're acceptable; but no more.
What distinguishes each is their connection to the president, their loyalty and their fealty. Neither has any base in the city or standing anywhere else absent their connection to him. And in appointing them he has placed the State Department and the Justice Department under his direct and unmediated control as surely as the various members of the White House staff already are.
Which is certainly a good thing since if there is one thing this president sorely needs it is more yes-men.
--Josh Marshall
Chump watch ... (from The Times of London)
JACQUES CHIRAC dealt a blow to Tony Blair’s attempt to heal the wounds between the US and Europe last night by saying that the Prime Minister had won nothing for supporting the war against Iraq. As Mr Blair used a keynote speech to present Britain as a “bridge across the Atlantic”, President Chirac doubted whether anyone could play the “honest broker”. Speaking before he visits London on Thursday, he said that it was not in the nature of this Administration to return favours.Mr Blair suffered another setback when Colin Powell, the US Secretary of State and the administration figure most trusted by Europe, resigned. There were doubts over whether his successor, possibly Condoleezza Rice, the National Security Adviser, would be as accommodating.
M Chirac, speaking to British journalists, including The Times, soon after General Powell’s announcement, revealed that he had urged Mr Blair to demand the relaunch of the Middle East peace process in return for backing the war.
“Well, Britain gave its support but I did not see anything in return. I’m not sure it is in the nature of our American friends at the moment to return favours systematically.”
I'm not sure poodle is the word anymore. <$NoAd$>And what's with giving poodles a bad name?
--Josh Marshall
Is it really a paradox?
The lede from a piece in tomorrow's Post ...
Condoleezza Rice, who will be named as Colin L. Powell's replacement as early as today, has forged an extraordinarily close relationship with President Bush. But, paradoxically, many experts consider her one of the weakest national security advisers in recent history in terms of managing interagency conflicts.
I'm gonna assume there was a smirk on someone's face.
--Josh Marshall
Dateline: Oct. 29th, 2004, from Hollinger International Inc. <$NoAd$>...
Hollinger International Inc. (NYSE:HLR) (“the Company”) today announced that the Special Committee of its Board of Directors (“the Special Committee”) has filed a Second Amended Complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (“the Court”) on behalf of the Company in its lawsuit against certain directors and former directors and officers, as well as the Company’s controlling shareholder and its affiliated companies. The total amount of damages sought in this Second Amended Complaint is approximately $542 million, which includes pre-judgment interest of $117 million....
The Second Amended Complaint adds Hollinger International Director Richard N. Perle as a Defendant. The suit claims breaches of fiduciary duty by Perle related to his service as a member of the Company’s Executive Committee.
We know the MO ...
--Josh Marshall
From the summary section of today's Nelson Report ...
When is everyone’s expectation still a surprise? When Colin Powell resigns months before HE thought was going. Who will succeed Powell? Senate sources say National Security Advisor Condi Rice. House sources say UN Ambassador John Danforth. As Powell learned last week, it’s President Bush who makes the decision. Best bet? Rice. If she takes over State, expect her deputy, Steve Hadley, to run the NSC. (Interesting “dark horse” for NSC? OMB’S Josh Bolton, with management skills which have eluded the NSC operation for some time.) Why not Wolfowitz for NSC? The President doesn’t know him all that well, and doesn’t like him all that much. Is Powell’s sudden departure part of a larger pattern? You bet. Pair this with the bloodbath ongoing at CIA. Porter Goss and his ex-Hill staff are carrying out a brutal purge of the career professionals seen as an impediment to carrying out political orders. If Rice is offered State, expect her to remove the entire top layer of Powell/Armitage career professionals. But didn’t Rice tell friends she didn’t want State? So what...see this as part of the complete national security overhaul which Powell told Bush was needed. Powell just didn’t think it would start with him. Implications for Iran? North Korea? Watch to see if John Bolton (not Josh) moves up to Deputy Secretary, or perhaps to Deputy NSC. As long as VP Cheney stays (note his heart flutter this weekend) so does Scooter Libby, otherwise a possible NSC chief. Bet bet? Hard line continues. No ray of hope today? Depends...some folks think Powell’s strong right arm, Deputy Secretary Rich Armitage, might be asked to take on the new National Intelligence Coordinator’s role. Other folks think this is delusional...stay tuned.
Watch Bolton <$NoAd$> indeed ...
--Josh Marshall
A reporter just called me to get some follow-up comments/quotes on my earlier post on Bill Safire's retirement and his recent 'mendacity'. So I thought I'd take a moment to elaborate here as well.
As I told this reporter, I've been reading Safire's column for upwards of twenty years. And I thought highly of him, even if I frequently disagreed with him and not-infrequently thought he too easily made arguments I didn't think he quite believed.
Yet the last year or eighteen months or so has seemed very different to me. And, specifically, here's why. Over the course of the last year Safire has written about several topics -- most centering on some aspect of Iraq and/or the bad intelligence meta-story -- which I knew in minute detail.
It won't surprise you to hear that he and I disagreed on most of these matters. That goes without saying. But again and again I saw him making specific factual claims or allegations that he only could have made if he were acting with negligent sloppiness (i.e., not knowing even the basic factual information on the topic at hand) or knowingly misleading his readers.
--Josh Marshall
At TNR online, a run-down of the various theories of Kerry's defeat by TPM alum Alexander Barnes Dryer.
--Josh Marshall
Safire to exit OpEd page early next year.
It's not a day for criticism, I guess There were many good days in the past, no doubt. But in the last year the mendacity has just been overwhelming. There's no other way to put it.
Who will replace him?
Hopefully, someone smart and outside the box. If I had my druthers I'd pick Chris Caldwell. But perhaps there are others I'm not thinking of. Who has other suggestions?
[ed. note: A number of emailers don't seem to agree and/or realize this, though I could be wrong of course. But I'm assuming that Safire needs to be replaced by a conservative of some variety. A number of readers suggest Andrew Sullivan, which seems like an excellent idea. Still others suggest that I'm hopelessly behind the curve and that David Brooks is actually Safire's replacement.]
--Josh Marshall
Briefly, on the purge underway at the CIA ...
Given all that has happened over the last four years, it is easy for critics of the president to fall into the comforting but mistaken assumption that intelligence, foreign policy, or military 'professionals' always know more or are wiser than outsiders and political appointees. Go back and read a biography of Franklin Roosevelt or Winston Churchill to see how mistaken that assumption can be.
All bureaucracies -- whether designed to make widgets, issue drivers licenses, run spies, or drop bombs -- have tendencies toward risk aversion and group think.
But here we have a record.
There has been a running battle along these 'political appointees' versus 'the professionals' lines at the Pentagon, the CIA and, to a much lesser degree, the State Department for more than three years. And by and large the Bush administration's 'political appointees' have been wrong almost every time. There are a few exceptions at the Pentagon -- the early stages of the Afghan campaign being the best example. But at the CIA it's really been pretty much a shut-out. And a number of those screw-ups have been ones of catastrophic proportions.
Yes, some of the commissions and investigations have worked to muddle or obscure this fact. And that's not to say that the CIA has gotten everything right. But in the cases where they got things wrong, it was always the case the the White House and the rest of the administration was pushing for wrong+1 or more likely wrong-squared.
In our reporting on the Niger uranium fiasco, we tried to get very deep into what people at the State Department and the CIA were thinking about the Niger claims in the final months before the war. And the answer you hear in most cases when you ask why this or that problem with the evidence wasn't scrutinized more closely in those dwindling days, the answer you get, after you push past the rigamarole is that there wasn't much point. The die was cast. We were going to war one way or another, better to spend time preparing for it than churning over evidence the reliability or authenticity of which no one cared about anyway.
We will continue to cover and discuss the particulars. But the larger point is simple and clear. On every significant point of conflict between the Bush administration and the country's cadre of intelligence professionals, the Bush political appointees turned out to be wrong. Often very wrong, and with disastrous consequences. Sometimes the intel folks were wrong too; but when that was so, the appointees were always more wrong.
This is not argumentative or hyperbole or even up for much serious dispute.
And the upshot of all that we've seen, the result of all those struggles over the last three years is that the 'appointees' are purging the 'professionals'. Another way to put it is that the folks who were always wrong and often catastrophically wrong are rooting out the folks who were often right and sometimes somewhat wrong. The answer to politicized intelligence, it turns out, is a more thorough politicization of intelligence and the elimination of those who resisted political pressure.
If you think this is just a Washington squabble or political debating point you'd be mistaken. Because your lives, and those of your families and friends, may very well be on the line.
--Josh Marshall
Forget about the other three, who replaces Powell? The signs we're seeing now from out of the CIA paint a pretty dark picture.
--Josh Marshall
Dignity loss watch (from AP/CNN)...
Sen. Arlen Specter must prove to his Republican colleagues that he is the right man to head the Senate Judiciary Committee in the next Congress, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said Sunday.Frist, R-Tennessee, would not say if he backed Specter, R-Pennsylvania, for the job. Specter will make his case to GOP colleagues this week when Congress returns for a postelection session.
To be a fly on the wall ...
--Josh Marshall
A letter from a reader in <$NoAd$>respose to yesterday's post about the Democrats' consultocracy. With the letter writer's permission, I've removed certain portions of the letter to maintain the person's anonymity ...
Excellent post on the state of the Democratic party, its operatives and its message. I think there are two separate points here, each of which is worthy of far further discussion. The idea of an aristocracy of Democratic consultants and operative has been a huge problem for a long time, and I will comment on that mostly in this post, since that is something with which I have experience.[Here the letter writer explains that he is a mid-level political operative, roughly TPM's age, and notes the various positions he's held in the infrastructure of the Democratic party, its various committees and campaigns, over the last ten or fifteen years.]
I give you this background because I want to point out that many of us mid level political hacks who no one has ever heard off have been having these conversations for a long time. And the problem you identify has sent many of them to lucrative and non-political lives elsewhere.
Its is a depressing fact that for a candidate to become credible in Democratic politics, they have to hire from among a group of consultants who give them credibility with the fundraisers on K St.. The problem from my perspective? None of these firms are new. It’s the same group of consultants who have been running Dem. campaigns since the late 1980’s. If you look at the partners of the major media firms, for example, you can almost guarantee that they were players for someone in the 1988 campaign.
This creates a different problem. For those of my generation of political operatives, the searing election experience was 1994. And the animating ideas, strategy, and tactics of the Republican House majority still dominate the way the Republicans do their politics. Unfortunately, for most of the folks still at the top level of our party, the 1994 election was just one of many elections, and you win some and lose some. For example, it would have been impossible for anybody who lived through 1994 as their baptism into politics to assume that the Swift Boat Veterans attack was anything but harmful and required any reaction but a vicious and immediate counter attack. Yet, that is what the Kerry campaign did….inexplicable. But clearly a decision made by our “older” party hands…one that I believe proved decisive.
The further problem is that in order to succeed with careers in Dem politics – well, you got to join the big boys -- i.e., the young successes in Dem politics tend to hold the same ideas as the people in charge.
I have many, many more thoughts about this, as it’s been a ongoing conversation for some of my close colleagues and I for years. Hope this is helpful a little.
It's not about right or left. It's not an argument that things would have turned out differently if we'd only had better consultants and spin-meisters. But it's a conversation that Democrats should be having.
--Josh Marshall
One of the historical arguments for retaining the Electoral College -- and an argument still made today, though in slightly different terms -- is that a straight national vote would allow the big states and large cities to 'overwhelm' the small states and rural areas.
And it's true after a fashion. The population of Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, North Dakota and South Dakota -- almost a whole region of the country -- amount to just more than 4 million people. Almost as many people live in the puny state of Connecticut. Almost ten times as many live in California.
If every voting American were simply poured into the cauldron of one unified national electorate, how would these states make their voices heard?
It's not a new argument. Go back into the 19th century and you find many debates in state constitutional conventions or other venues in which it is argued that lightly populated or socially or culturally unique regions deserve political clout out of proportion to their population numbers. And similar claims for preferment surface in seminal court cases in the 1960s.
I was particularly struck though by this article which appeared in the Sarasota Herald Tribune.
At one level the editorial simply notes the undeniable fact that the Red state/Blue state division we talk so much about is really an rural/urban divide. But the particular spin on the issue is close to given away in the headline: "Big cities can override state's votes."
The Red State/Blue state discussion is "misleading", continues the editorial, because it obscures the "the large-city vs. rest-of-the-county reality."
From there on out we're treated to a discussion of the election in which the effect of the franchise in large cities amounts to a sort of hidden and nefarious loophole to the democratic process. Let me quote at some length (with emphasis added) ...
Without votes in just 11 cites, Kerry won only eight states, and Bush, 42. Without those 11 cities, Bush won by 55 percent to 45 percent nationally, while Kerry won those cities by 61 percent to 39 percent.The states Kerry won, due solely to votes in just one or two cities each, are California, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Iowa, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Washington and Wisconsin. The cities that out-voted the rest of their state or adjacent areas are the District of Columbia, New York City, Philadelphia, Chicago, Detroit, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, Portland and Seattle.
Kerry won just eight states (Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont) with balanced votes, and only two of these (Delaware and Hawaii) are outside of New England. These states gave him just 41 electoral votes.
The 11 cities listed above gave him 208 such votes, against wishes shown elsewhere statewide. Four more states could have had similar results due to city voting in Cleveland, Denver, St. Louis or the Miami to Palm Beach- area. Add D.C.'s three electoral votes and just 15 cities can award 278 electoral votes.
Thus, cities can pick our president, against the wishes expressed elsewhere nationwide. Clearly, this is not a blue-state vs. red-state issue; it is a large-cities vs. the rest- of-the-country issue.
On the "mandate" issue, with Bush winning 42 states, by 55 percent to 45 percent, and his opponent winning just eight states and 11 cities, there should be no question.
The thought that lots of people live in cities seems to pale beside the notion that cities amount to a sort of interest group, one among many, and certainly not one entitled to dominate all the others. After all what kind of democracy are we running if "cities can pick our president, against the wishes expressed elsewhere nationwide"?
--Josh Marshall
The long castration (from the AP) ...
Sen. Arlen Specter must prove to his Republican colleagues that he is the right man to head the Senate Judiciary Committee in the next Congress, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said Sunday....
Frist, R-Tenn., said he expected a chairman to understand that he is responsible "to the feelings, the wishes, the beliefs, the values, the procedures that are held by the majority of that committee."
He added that Specter, as chairman, "has a clear obligation ... to take what the president nominates (and) get that nomination through committee."
Frist would not say if he backed Specter for the job.
...
Frist said Specter's comments were "disheartening to me. They were disheartening to a lot of different people," Frist told "Fox News Sunday."
So <$NoAd$>disheartened ...
--Josh Marshall
