The second-coming of Manuel Miranda? The operator still being investigated for stealing Democratic staff memos seems to have resurfaced to help his old boss press ahead with the 'nuclear option.'
--Josh Marshall
Victims ...
Josh, You have to tell the whole story of anything or you are not credible. I never take anything democrats say because in the last 10 years the Minority is trying to force everything down our throats. You speak in such disrespect about Delay, the bug man, that I have suggested to many senators by email, that Delay should quit and start running or the presidency. He is just what we need. With his style we could ram down your throats. DELAY FOR PRESIDENT
DeLay in '08.
--Josh Marshall
The LA Times and the Post today both have run-downs of President Bush's invitation-only Bamboozlepalooza event in Ohio yesterday. And at the end of the article in the Times there's this odd passage ...
In a pitch directed to Democratic lawmakers, who are nearly unanimous in opposing Bush's plan to create Social Security personal accounts, the president called for "political amnesty" for those who joined his drive to retool the retirement program."All ideas are on the table," he asserted at several points in his remarks.
His declaration appeared to reinforce a suggestion made Thursday by his top economic advisor, Allan B. Hubbard, that the voluntary retirement accounts might be acceptable to Bush even if they were offered as an "add-on" to Social Security, instead of being financed by current payroll taxes, as the president was advocating.
Political amnesty? Is he trying <$NoAd$> to help Rep. Allen Boyd cop a plea? Or get off with time served? There are so few other Fainthearted members of Congress left that I was really a little unsure who the president was talking about. Perhaps it's private accounts men, who now want to get on the add-on bandwagon, who need a pardon? Perhaps we need a Social Security Phase-Out Truth and Reconciliation Commission?
--Josh Marshall
Let me encourage you to take a look at Professor Warren's sum-up post on our Bankruptcy Bill blog. The bill passed, of course. The lesson here is that money talks. Or, as Bob Dylan more aptly put it, it swears. But it didn't happen silently or without anyone knowing what was afoot. And the critics managed to get their message heard too. Professor Warren further notes that the late focus on the inequities of this legislation may even prompt some amendments or revisions to be passed during the 180 before the law goes into effect.
She also mentions something we hope to be discussing more in the ensuing weeks. We've been very happy about how the Bankruptcy Blog experiment has worked out. So we're going to keep it going.
We haven't worked out all the details yet. But Professor Warren and her team are going to keep up their blogging, expanding the focus from the specifics of the bankruptcy legislation to the broader panoply of economic changes and legislative enactments which are making middle class life in America less secure. Their blog -- which will probably have some snappy new name -- will have a permanent home at our new companion site tpmcafe.com.
--Josh Marshall
A toe in the water?
Rep. Tancredo (R) of Colorado says a DeLay exit is "probably not the worst idea."
Doesn't roll off the tongue exactly. But it's a bit less than DeLay-True.
The full quote is: "I don't think we should try to oust him. Right now, I would not encourage him to leave. If he chose to resign as majority leader until these matters are resolved, that's probably not the worst idea."
--Josh Marshall
As you may have heard, Rush Limbaugh has<$Ad$>been branching out from talk radio into jurisprudence and constitutional law. He recently penned the foreword to Mark Levin's Men in Black: How the Supreme Court Is Destroying America, a polemic about how Republican court appointees are destroying American through their out-of-control liberal judicial activism. About the book the irreplaceable Dahlia Lithwick noted that "the reason it may take you only slightly longer to read Men in Black than it took Levin to write it is that you'll experience an overwhelming urge to shower between chapters," which doesn't sound like a very nice thing to say.
But however that may be, earlier this week Limbaugh was back to the law books commenting on the recent conference at Yale on progressive jurisprudence put on by the American Constitution Society where ...
some people got together to rewrite the Constitution. A bunch of liberal elitists gathered up at Yale to have this little pretend new Constitution. What it should say, what it should be, what the principles and guidelines of the new Constitution ought to be. So while there are those of us who are devoted to defending the current US Constitution, there are a bunch of leftists and liberals out there that are toying around with the idea of rewriting and changing it. (interruption) Well, I don't know if they've banned me, I haven't read everything that everybody there posited or wrote. Let me get the piece at the next break and I'll share with you some things that people are saying.
We'll pass over the current Republican party's rather demonstrable anti-constitutionalism or the fact that conservatives put together a very similar enterprise only a few decades ago. But we did notice that Rush went in for the usual victim vamping, imagining that his style of constitutional interpretation or rather he himself might be banned by these folks. And now, as it turns out, the sponsors of the conference, specifically the ACS's Yale chapter, has sent Limbaugh a pocket-sized copy of what he calls the "little pretend" constitution (i.e., the United States Constitution), a letter reassuring him that he is very much not banned and an invitation to hold an event featuring Limbaugh on campus. Indeed, on top of that, through our indefatigable sleuthing we have managed to acquire a copy of the letter (which you can view here), which we understand was sent to the legendary gabster just this morning.
--Josh Marshall
Sick, dark and demented. Hyperbole? I don't think so. According to a piece by David Kirkpatrick in tomorrow's Times, Bill Frist is going to participate in a big anti-filibuster telecast, sponsored by the Family Research Council, in which Democratic opposition to President Bush's most conervative judicial appointments will be cast as a Democratic war against believing Christians.
A flier advertising the event refers to "the filibuster against people of faith" and says: "The filibuster was once abused to protect racial bias, and it is now being used against people of faith."
So Frist wants to cast this, literally, as a war between the believers and the unbelievers. I guess this is part of toning down the rhetoric.
(How much do we have to endure so that this guy can run for president?)
Also on hand for the event will be arch-wingnut and SpongeBob persecutor James Dobson, a man with hands about as clean as Torquemada's, Chuck Colson and various others.
I don't know which is more amusing -- the wingnut jihad against a federal judiciary that is already predominantly Republican or the fact that the intellectual and often literal descendents of the upholders of Jim Crow now seek to enlist the dark legacy of segregation as some sort of arrow in their rhetorical quiver.
Actually, perhaps it's even more amusing that the same folks spent the 1990s using the same methods to thwart numerous Clinton judicial appointments.
At the confab I assume we're likely to hear more like this from the likes of the Rev. Louis P. Sheldon, whose Traditional Values Coalition warns us that "Atheist billionaire George Soros is funding a number of the organizations that are attacking DeLay. Soros is a one-world socialist who hates Christians and seeks a one-world government and legalized drugs. DeLay is a solid Christian and conservative legislator who is an important player in the culture war. He understands the issues and the battles we’re fighting against homosexuality, abortion, pornography, judicial tyranny, and other issues of concern to traditional values activists."
Alas, more of the fantasies of victimization that are now the defining motif of such much conservative politics. As Jonathan Edwards might have put it, helpless wingnuts in the hands of angry liberal judges.
--Josh Marshall
This is a just a brief update on the new site we're gearing up to launch: tpmcafe.com. We've been doing various sorts of planning for this new project -- some figuring out money stuff, but mostly just thinking through how to design the site to make the content and discussion areas compelling to readers. And in the course of thinking through both of those parts of the equation I finally decided that I would actually take the plunge and hire a real live bona-fide paid employee.
Now, that may not seem like such a big thing. But you have to understand that this site had been around for about three years before I decided to hire myself as a paid employee. And that wasn't anything I'd ever planned on doing. Actually, and you'll have to pardon my getting a little nostalgic, but some of you might get a kick (or, admittedly, perhaps a laugh) about what this site looked like when it first went live in November 2000. All the old material has been reformatted into the new design. That's what you'll find if you look back into the archives. But the actual design at the time looked like this --- a thin white strip of text against a background of blue, the archeo-tpm, you might say. Over the years, I slowly gave way to adamant and sometimes pointed reader pressure for widening the text area until it ended up as it is now.
In any case, for the first couple years I did the site, I did everything by myself. Then for each of the last two years it's been me and one part-time unpaid intern, first Zander Dryer and now Avi Zenilman. But the new site is going to include a bunch of new administrative responsibilities. So that's what's behind the decision. A good deal of that will be dealing with the discussion areas where readers will be able to hash out the big questions and challenges the country is facing today. In addition, as I mentioned earlier, we're going to try to do a lot more of the tracking of particular stories and legislative issues. More specifically, we're going to open up that part of what this site does to readers themselves.
I don't have to tell you that starting at the end of last year I turned almost all my energy at TPM over to following the Social Security story and tracking just where everyone on Capitol Hill was on the issue. By and large, TPM Readers strongly supported that decision. But in addition to the few who just found it too monotonous, which I can understand, there were others who wrote in asking why there wasn't more attention to all the other important issues.
Now, to me, Social Security was the defining issue of the beginning of the second Bush administration. I think it still is. But the reason I focused entirely on that one issue wasn't simply because I thought it was so important. On a more mundane level, it's just not possible for one person to immerse him or herself so deeply in more than one issue at a time. So one of the things we're trying to accomplish with the new site is to give groups of people venues to dig into these issues on their own as well as to host individual, topic-focused blogs that will zero in on particular issues. (Some parts of the site are going to come online slower than others and I've no doubt that a lot of experimentation and tinkering, much based on your insights and feedback, will be involved.) And helping organize that is going to require at least one more set of hands.
A few times in the past we've had little mini-fundraising drives for reporting trips to New Hampshire and the conventions and more recently for our contest T-Shirts. Next week, we're going to do another big round of fund-raising to put together some start-up funds for the new operation. So we'll be bringing you more information about that shortly.
Finally, we've gotten a lot of emails with questions about the new site and, even more helpfully, suggestions. So please keep them coming. They're very helpful and much appreciated.
More news soon.
--Josh Marshall
An interactive listing of the Bankruptcy Bill vote roll call, sortable by caucus, vote, party and Representative, as well as by the median household income of their districts. The same for the Inheritance tax abolition vote. And Steve Soto's list of the 31 House Dems who voted for both.
--Josh Marshall
Former Senator John Edwards (D) of North Carolina has a guest post over at our Bankruptcy Bill blog.
--Josh Marshall
DeNote to DeLay: We've got so much love to give. Isn't this our time?
Today ABC's The Note today gives Tom DeLay an advance exoneration and asks for an interview with the bug man.
Saith the Notesters: "And/but without a functioning House ethics committee, there is no natural forum in which Leader DeLay can clear up the legit unanswered questions about some of his conduct. And/but his unwillingness to do it in the feeding frenzy of a packed press conference seems reasonable. May we suggest an interview with The Note, Dan Allen?"
It's such a tough spot for the bug man, having all these unanswered questions swirling at a time when there's no functioning ethics committee. How could he have known that purging the ethics committee of its three non-DeLay loyalists and forcing through a re-write of the committee's rules to prevent it from issuing any more 'admonishments' of his behavior would lead to such an unhappy impasse?
They say power is the greatest aphrodisiac. And The Note's (as, for that matter, does much of Washington) got it bad.
(Perhaps we can set their moment to Dusty Springfield: "You don't have to say you love me/Just be close at hand. You don't have to stay forever/I will understand.")
You'll want to see the whole thing.
--Josh Marshall
Is it the fruit of the Iraq war? The death of Arafat? The Brits think it's due to their patient lobbying through the course of the first Bush administration. Whatever the reason, the US, and that means the Bush administration, is more closely involved in peace negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians than it has ever been before. And for a host of reasons, there is actually some reason for hope on the ground where there has not been going back inot the last year of Bill Clinton's presidency.
At 2 PM today at the National Press Club, a new organization CALME (Campaign for American Leadership in the Middle East) is announcing an online petition drive for an open letter to the president commending his renewed attention to the issue and urging him to stay the course, to stick to it, in the face of what are certain to be setbacks in the negotiations and complications in other parts of the region.
(One might less charitably suggest the tendency of some in administration camp to get distracted by more fun ventures like invading other countries. But that's me talking, not them. They're very bipartisan.)
The event today will be emceed by former Joint Chiefs Vice Chair Joe Ralston. And on hand will be former Rep. and 9/11 Commission Co-Chair Lee Hamilton, former Secretary of State Larry Eagleburger and others. And if you go to the website you'll see that they've already compiled an impressive and very politically and religiously diverse least of signers.
The point, however, is not so much to get the bigwigs on board as to get ordinary Americans from across the country to add their voice. It's neither to bash the White House nor rally around it, but commend the recent progress and to get as many Americans as possible to make clear that settling this issue once and for all, with a two state solution, is not just a concern for Arabs and Jews, peaceniks or likudniks, or some peripheral concern, but something the great majority of Americans recognize as both the right thing to do and in America's vital national security interests.
If you'd like to add your voice, visit the site.
--Josh Marshall
Amazing. Fascinating. I'm not sure what else to say, but please do it.
According to Ralph Z. Hallow of the Washington Times, there's a building movement among House conservatives to push ahead with passing a Social Security phase-out bill this year.
The thinking to this point, you'll remember, was that the House wouldn't move until the senate did. Phase-out is a much dicier proposition in the senate than it is in the House. So House Republicans did not want to make a risky vote on phase-out until they were certain the thing actually had some chance of becoming law. Otherwise, they'd run the risk of getting mauled in November 2006 for a wasted vote that Senate Republicans would likely run away from.
But now it seems a few of the ultras in the House have convinced themselves that it's actually good politics to vote on it, send it over to the senate, and if it dies there blame the Democrats.
"Some Senate conservatives privately agree with their House counterparts," writes Hallow, "that the Social Security debate has swirled out of control and that the situation is now playing into the hands of Democrats, who adamantly oppose partial privatization of Social Security. These conservatives say the only way to save the situation is for the House to pass a private-accounts bill and let the Democrats take the blame for blocking Senate passage."
This would be a smart and gutsy strategy if phase-out were popular. But since every public poll available seems to show that it's not popular at all, it's not immediately clear why letting the Democrats stop this unpopular bill in the senate would necessarily be a bad thing for them. Indeed, common sense would suggest that stopping an unpopular piece of legislation would be something they'd be happy to do.
For what it's worth, I doubt very much that it would currently be possible to get a phase-out bill through the House at all. But in purely political terms I have little doubt that the Democrats would love to see them try.
--Josh Marshall
Mike Allen in Thursday's Post: "People who are working in support of DeLay's position said the next several days would be critical, as leaders wait to see whether any other House Republicans call for his resignation."
--Josh Marshall
The House that DeLay built. Over at our Bankruptcy Bill blog, Jason Spitalnick reports that the House is planning to schedule a whopping 30 minutes for the Household Repossession and Foreclosure Empowerment Act of 2005 (aka the Bankruptcy Bill.)
--Josh Marshall
The point is simple, the logic unassailable. Republicans say they care about Social Security but claim there won't be enough money to make good on the money (your payroll taxes) borrowed from the Social Security Administration.
Today, however, House Republicans voted overwhelmingly to abolish the inheritance tax, a tax that, by definition, only impacts people who inherit money from extremely wealthy forebearers. If passed by the senate this new legislation, which would come into effect in 2012, will cost the Treasury $745 billion dollars during its first ten years. Figure in associated interest on the added debt and the number comes closer to a trillion dollars.
That is about a trillion fewer dollars in the US Treasury over the course of the same decade in which the Social Security Trustees say the SSA will begin (2017) to start drawing on the Treasury notes in the Trust fund to cover scheduled benefits (2020, if you go by CBO estimates.)
There's no hidden complexity here. It's a zero-sum game. They say Social Security is in trouble because we don't have enough dollars to make good on the Trust Fund (which today holds roughly $1.7 trillion in Treasury notes). And here they are voting to take a trillion more dollars off the table.
In other words, they could not care less about Social Security and everything they say on the subject is a joke.
If someone tells you that at least the Republicans have a plan and the Democrats don't, laugh in their faces. The Republican agenda (the actual bills they are passing right now) is to keep weakening Social Security at every opportunity, just like they're doing today. The most constructive thing anyone can do under present circumstances to protect Social Security, the only 'plan' that isn't a joke, is to oppose the Republican agenda in Congress, to stand up and say "do no more harm."
--Josh Marshall
DeLay apologizes for 'inartful' threats against federal judges. "Sometimes I get a little more passionate, and particularly during the moment, and the day that Terri Schiavo was starved to death, emotions were flowing. I probably said — I did, I didn't probably — I said something in an inartful way, and I shouldn't have said it that way, and I apologize for saying it that way."
--Josh Marshall
This above all: to thine own bug man be true.
That's what the Syracuse Post-Standard is hearing from Reps. Boehlert, McHugh and Walsh.
Meanwhile, the Albany Times-Union channels Don Quixote in hoping to convince Rep. John Sweeney (R), a staunch DeLay Rule man, to lead the charge against the ignoble bug man.
--Josh Marshall
A reader hits the nail on the head: "Hey -- one wrinkle on this DeLay stuff. Worth exploring on TPM. Remember that, although liberals think of DeLay as a tyrannical conservative who oppresses moderates and centrists and is an #$@*&$% ...most of the GOP's centrists and moderates really like having him as majority leader and appreciate him. Why? Because he is very good at running Congress in such a way as to keep them from having to make tough votes, and thus makes it more tenable for them to remain in office under a conservative GOP prez. Remember -- they are part of his majority and part of his power. He makes an effort to protect them. So those who are weighing whether or not to speak against him have a lot on their minds."
Of course, he also gives the moderates lots of cash.
--Josh Marshall
Ahh, a new blog from the kind of Republican we at TPM can love (basically just the old-fashioned sane kind), Robert George.
He even came to my birthday party a couple months ago. But I don't want to get him in trouble with the Falange. So don't tell anybody.
--Josh Marshall
A thing of beauty: johnson-watch.com. How long will it take DeLay loyalist Nancy Johnson to turn the spray on the bug man?
--Josh Marshall
Reader mail ...
Josh...Being born and living my whole life in Connecticut I have to say I am damn proud of Chris Shays. I am liberal, from the 1st district and Chris isn't my Rep. But he is the only northeastern moderate republican to have the backbone (or at least nothing else to lose) to step up and take on DeLay.
Our former Governor John Rowland has started to serve his sentence for corruption at a Federal prison in western Pennsylvania. I look at Tom DeLay and feel his transgressions were far worse then Rowland's. But Tom DeLay is neither under indictment, or in jail, and the GOP is rushing to his defense to keep him in power. The GOP seized control of the Congress in the mid 1990's. Their vow was to "clean up Washington". Fast forward 10 years and we have the majority leader misusing the FAA, he is knee deep in the Indian casino shakedown, his PAC has made 6 figure payments to family members, and threatening federal judges, just for starters. He is far more corrupt then any of the democrats who were in power in the mid 90's. In a sense I hope "The Hammer" stays in power. There will be more scrutiny on DeLay and the people who support him in Congress. And it will become apparent that he and his fellow republicans are far more corrupt and dirty then the democrats ever were. He will single handedly give the democrats the house back in 2006. Right now he represents the best tool the democrats have at their disposal...
Chris Shays is right about DeLay and I have pride that he is a politician from my state, but I hope he is unsuccessful in getting DeLay out...at least until the democrats, hopefully, fully exploit his malfeasance.
JC
Bug man of <$NoAd$> Alcatraz?
--Josh Marshall
Reader mail ...
Just an oldish memory of Nancy Johnson--immediately after the first ethics "victory" of DeLay: I recall a televised press conference (I'm guessing I saw it on CNN) with a grinning like a baboon Nancy as part of DeLay's adoring gaggle. I'd love to see that clip used in a campaign commercial should a CT-05 Dem. of consequence run against her. If Nancy does more than hem and haw DeLay is doomed.
Note that the <$NoAd$> reader says this is an "oldish memory." So let's not take this as a certainty that this happened or happened precisely as she remembers it.
But I wanted to ask if anyone knows of the event in question or if and where the video feed might be available.
--Josh Marshall
Perhaps you can help us with our collection. We're keeping tabs on various examples of Republicans lashing out at financier and philanthropist George Soros using anti-Semitic code language. We're calling it The Tony Blankley Project. Your assistance is, of course, appreciated.
--Josh Marshall
Lincoln (Nebraska) Journal Star editorial: "It been heartening the past few days to hear a few Republicans finally voicing public criticism of Rep. Tom DeLay. More should join the chorus. It's time for Republicans to renounce his leadership and choose a more principled and temperate representative as House Majority Leader."
(ed.note: Thanks to TPM Reader JT for the report from the field.)
--Josh Marshall
Duce! Duce!
My life is yours Tom DeLay!
Rep. Joe Wilson (R) of South Carolina in his statement out today: "Congressman Tom DeLay has been called one of the most effective leaders in the history of the House of Representatives, and it is his effectiveness that motivates his critics. Radical liberals, such as George Soros, are leading a desperate smear campaign against a decent man who has delivered remarkable results. His critics are inspired by bitterness, hatred, and partisanship."
--Josh Marshall
Brown Poli-Sci Prof, Jennifer Lawless, to challenge Rep. Langevin in Dem. primary.
--Josh Marshall
Associated Press: "To House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, the Republican Party's "Contract With America" ranks right up there with the Magna Carta, Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights among the "great documents of freedom." So says DeLay's Internet Web site. It describes that 1994 campaign treatise, credited with helping the GOP end four decades of House rule by Democrats, 'a written commitment that presented to the people an agenda for the House of Representatives.'"
--Josh Marshall
Cheney brings Bamboozlepalooza to South Jersey this Friday.
(ed.note: Thanks to TPM Reader MV for the report from the field.)
--Josh Marshall
The Hartford Courant says Nancy Johnson and Rob Simmons should join Shays' (new) Handful.
--Josh Marshall
Representative Tiahrt (R) of Kansas auditions for our new GOP nutball watch (from the Times) ...
At a House Appropriations subcommittee hearing on the court's spending request, Representative Todd Tiahrt, Republican of Kansas, veered from the budget issues to press Justice Kennedy."Lately we've had rulings that seem to go beyond the rule of law" and that reflect "outside influence," the congressman told the justice. He pointed to a Supreme Court decision last month barring the execution of those who were juveniles when they committed their crimes. That decision, which was written by Justice Kennedy and which cited international treaties and practices abroad, appeared to reflect "pressure put on by the United Nations and other agencies," Mr. Tiahrt said.
Mr. Tiarht said the court was "not interpreting the Constitution and laws that govern America anymore," and added that his views were shared by people "across the United States."
Justice Kennedy, appearing unruffled, replied mildly that disagreements over the meaning of the Constitution were "a very important part of democratic dialogue." He added, "This give and take is very healthy."
I guess we're into the black helicopters phase of the anti-judiciary crusade.
A question, though. Are we allowed yet to point out that a party whose members routinely make threats against members of the federal judiciary and suggestively dangle hints of violence has no claim to being a constitutionalist party?
There's a legitimate and healthy debate over whether contentious issues like abortion are best hashed out in the courts or in legislatures. But to say that the trend is moving toward greater judicial assertions over and against legislatures is foolishness. That's not what this is about. These people are uncomfortable with the rule of law itself.
Across the board, Tammany rule in the House, <$NoAd$> keystone kops loyalty tests at presidential events, tolerance and emulation of crankish attacks on sitting judges. This Republican party just isn't a constitutionalist party. It's just not.
--Josh Marshall
Looking for love in all the wrong places?
Too big for just one House of Congress?
In Wednesday's Post Mike Allen brings the slightly bizarre news that Tom DeLay held a lunch meeting with the GOP Senate caucus on Tuesday at which "implored Republican senators yesterday to stick with him while he addresses questions about his travel and his dealings with lobbyists."
Attendees told Allen that DeLay "told the senators that, if asked about his predicament, they should blame Democrats and their lack of an agenda."
This move seems so outside-the-box that the bug man has temporarily stymied my ability to mock him. But I'm rallying.
It's great to know that DeLay not only gets Republicans in the House to say 'how high' when he says 'jump' but that it works with senators too. Who was at this luncheon exactly?
Allen suggests most of the Republican caucus was there. Certainly Rick Santorum was, since DeLay, in Allen's words, "thanked Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) for supportive comments on ABC's 'This Week' on Sunday."
That must have been a fun moment.
Was Linc Chafee there? Olympia Snowe? Gordon Smith? Do they have to do the DeLay happy talk now too?
--Josh Marshall
TPM Reader Paul Gulino gets his letter published in the Times. And he seems to have a better handle on the Social Security debate than David Brooks. Take a look.
--Josh Marshall
Louisville Courier-Journal editorial: "[T]he House majority leader is a frighteningly toxic and corrupt presence in American public life.He is also authoritarian and vengeful. In the current one-party rule that prevails in Washington, only his fellow Republicans can take him down."
--Josh Marshall
You remember the In This Together Campaign. They're the New York state anti-Social Security phase-out coalition.
Last month they were protesting outside the offices of phase-out supporter Rep. Peter King (R) of New York when he said that "groups such as [In This Together] have no regard for senior citizens or for their country."
Now, ITTC has enlisted FDR grandson and former Social Security Associate Commissioner James Roosevelt to record a robo-call calling King out for questioning the group's patriotism.
We've already heard from a few TPM Readers who've gotten the call.
Let the phase-out fisticuffs commence!
--Josh Marshall
Perhaps you remember Jon Leiberman. He was the young DC Bureau Chief of Sinclair Broadcasting who decided to give an interview to the Baltimore Sun in which he lambasted Sinclair's planned Swift Boat smear documentary as "biased political propaganda, with clear intentions to sway this election."
Solid journalistic ethics, perhaps questionable career planning.
Lieberman was promptly fired.
Subsequently, it seems, he applied for unemployment issue in Maryland. But he got turned down. According to a document released today by Sinclair the Maryland Department of Labor found that Lieberman was canned for "speaking to the press/media without permission and sharing of propriety information outside the company," which, I take it, means he was fired for good reason and thus isn't eligible.
(Why is Sinclair releasing the MDOL's statement?)
I'm no expert on unemployment insurance, how and why you have to be fired to collect, or whether this is at all out of the ordinary.
Nonetheless, we thought you'd like to know.
--Josh Marshall
The GOP imperiling Social Security, Medicare, the national fisc and everything else yet again.
--Josh Marshall
About one thing, that gaggle of ultras and moneymen rising to David Keene's call to save Tom DeLay is right: it doesn't stop with DeLay. And not just because Democrats wouldn't want it to, which goes without saying.
Much depends on whether DeLay gets nailed on particular instances of criminal conduct. But he isn't a Majority Leader who happens, possibly, also to be corrupt. The GOP Majority in the House is built on his corrupt practices, his money machine. They define its modes of operation and priorities.
The oft-mentioned Jack Abramoff may be the prime examplar of that species of Washington operator -- Homo bagmanus. But there are so many more, all cogs in the DeLay machine.
I don't mean that the Democrats would be in the majority if it weren't for DeLay (though it is worth noting that the Republicans only made their modest advances in the House last year because of the criminal conduct DeLay's lieutenants employed in Texas to get the state redistricted). But the cash-n-carry rules he's used to run the House have compromised most of the leadership of the caucus as well as many of its marginal members. DeLay has built a political machine that runs on corrupt, pay-for-play money -- it's the water that floats the river boats he makes run on time.
What about Rep. Bob Ney (R) of Ohio, who is knee-deep in the Abramoff/Scanlon Indian tribe shakedown? He's chairman of the Committee on House Administration. How about the Ethics Committee which was purged of all three Republican members who wouldn't change conference rules to help DeLay deal with impending criminal indictments.
They're right. It doesn't end with DeLay. He and the House Republican party are one and the same.
--Josh Marshall
As we noted yesterday, Rep. Chris Shays (R) of Connecticut says Tom DeLay should go. Reps. Nancy Johnson (R) and Rob Simmons (R) -- his two colleagues from Connecticut -- are apparently on the fence. So I've been wondering where other folks stand. Where does your Republican member of Congress stand on DeLay? Do they think he should stay as Majority Leader?
I notice that the Campaign for America's Future has a page up on their site encouraging folks to call their member of Congress and just ask what they say on DeLay.
So if you call, I wouldn't mind hearing too. But also, if you see something in the local paper or hear your representative say something at a townhall meeting or whatever, let us know. I'd love to know if any of them are willing to join Shays in saying the bug man should go or, for that matter, stand up and stay they support him and want him to stay. I suspect most just won't want to answer at all.
--Josh Marshall
Did I miss Denny Hastert's public vote of confidence in Tom DeLay?
The DCCC blog notes that Sen. Lincoln Chafee has now publicly called on the bug man to explain himself (or some such meaningless paraphrastic remark). This suggests a different possible role for the bug man, even a new function he can serve for the GOP: that of a ready-made issue for any Republican from the Northeast who needs a poster boy for Republican corruption against whom to define themselves and highlight their independence. Of course, that may sound a bit more like a Democratic issue. And you're probably right. But I'm trying to help the best I can.
--Josh Marshall
Chris Shays' two Republican colleagues from Connecticut -- Reps. Rob Simmons and Nancy Johnson -- both go finger in the wind on DeLay.
While Shays says DeLay should go, reports the AP, the "state's other two GOP moderates said it's too soon to make such a judgment."
Since the question is whether the Majority Leader should resign, that's rather less than a vote of confidence.
(ed.note: I have no doubt the Democrats will be hammering Rob Simmons for a hundred different reasons over the next 18 months. And good for them. But though it may not be worth much, this is one case where I don't think I'll be joining in. Whatever else you can say about the congressman from eastern Connecticut, he played a small but important role torpedoing Social Security phase-out.)
--Josh Marshall
President Bush hitting up the Small Business Administration for a loan to fund Bamboozlepalooza? Seems so.
--Josh Marshall
Genuine, certified nutcase. James Dobson compares the "men in white robes, the Ku Klux Klan" to the "black-robed men" on the Supreme Court.
You can hear the replay of the show here -- advance to timestamp 22:52.
First they came for Spongebob ...
(ed.note: Thanks to TPM Reader KS for previewing this drivel on our behalf.)
--Josh Marshall
If you're following the Bolton hearings, Steve Clemons' The Washington Note will certainly be the go-to site.
I'm just waiting to see if Sen. Chafee is concerned that Bolton was the guy who pretty much single-handedly resurrected the Niger uranium monkey-business at the State Department.
--Josh Marshall
Another interesting dynamic is how many key Social Security switch-hitters are also high on the list of cash recipients from Tom DeLay. Perhaps the best example is young Rep. Mike Ferguson (R) of New Jersey, the biggest DeLay money recipient in Congress, who clocked in at a cool $42,403.
On Social Security, Ferguson is a first class bamboozler. He says his "principles on Social Security are clear: he opposes privatizing Social Security." On the other hand, he supports private accounts.
When President Bush brought the Bamboozlepalooza Tour to his district on March 4th, Ferguson's spokesperson Abby Bird said "The congressman still has a lot of questions that he's looking to get answered about the plans and proposals that are being talked about to strengthen Social Security." Ferguson, she said, thought private accounts were "part of the solution," but not the whole answer.
Ferguson repaid DeLay when it came to the DeLay Rule since he not only apparently supported the Rule but he even went so far as to lie about it to his constituents. In a November 19th, 2004 to a constituent asking how he voted on the DeLay rule, Ferguson claimed that the House Republican Conference "unanimously approved" the DeLay Rule, which is of course false. If it was approved unanimously why do Chris Shays and a couple dozen others say they voted against it?
In the letter Ferguson also went on to repeat the DeLay talking points blaming DeLay's problems on a runaway prosecutor from Texas. The DeLay Rule was needed, he says, because "without the new rule, partisan or self-serving district attorney could threaten or disrupt committee chairman or elected leaders in the House."
Whether all of Ferguson's ridiculousness will weaken him in 2006 is hard to say. He won solidly in 2002 (58%) and 2004 (57%).
--Josh Marshall
How long before we hear Hastert make a clear show of support for the embattled DeLay?
--Josh Marshall
It's always fascinating to see how a news meme migrates through the nation's dense ganglia of headline writers and copy editors. Rep. Chris Shays' (R) call for DeLay to resign is not that unexpected, for reasons we'll discuss momentarily. And Rick Santorum's comments on the Stephanopoulos show weren't quite as harsh in their totality as they read in the headlines.
The whole quote was ...
I think he has to come forward and lay out what he did and why he did it and let the people then judge for themselves. But from everything I've heard, again, from the comments and responding to those, is everything he's done was according to the law. Now you may not like some of the things he's done. That's for the people of his district to decide, whether they want to approve that kind of behavior or not. But as far as the focus on him, I think clearly, when you have a leader of Tom DeLay's passion and Tom DeLay's effectiveness, you have a media that's very much going after him and tracking him and dogging him and trying to find what they can about him.
Still, Santorum's no fool. So he knew how those remarks would play in this volatile climate. For all the padding, the bottom line subtext is revealed in the first two sentences and into the third. <$Ad$> In so many words, Santorum says that the bugman is a sleaze, even if he may not have been so sloppy as to violate the law. And DeLay has to mount the pulpit before his constituents, confess his sleazy ways and hope they forgive him.
Not exactly a ringing endorsement and certainly out of step with the Bugman cult of personality David Keene, et. al. are trying to gin up.
("Bugman today, Bugman tomorrah, Bugman forevah.")
What I'm wondering is whether Chris Shays is a leading indicator in the judgment he seems to have made. Shays may be outspoken and independent. (After all, he spoke up about the DeLay Rule before it was cool.) But he ain't stupid. And I think his remarks yesterday and today, dropped like a big water balloon down on to the Sunday shows, reflects a judgment on his part that he can survive or DeLay can, but maybe not the both of them.
At a minimum his political survival now seems closely tied to define himself by his opposition to DeLay and the ultras in the House GOP caucus.
In the article in yesterday's Greenwhich Time on Shays' townhall meeting in which he called DeLay an embarrassment, this passage appeared ...
Town resident John Howard, 39, said he has supported Shays in the past and knows that the congressman is not a defender of DeLay. Even so, Howard said, he wouldn't continue to support Shays if he voted to keep DeLay in power."I was very proud of you for standing up to the Republican caucus," Howard said. "However, you do vote for the Republican leadership in Congress -- and you must know that you have a lot of constituents, like myself, who deeply respect you, and agree with you on many different issues -- but I can't vote for a congressperson who would vote to keep Tom DeLay in power. You must understand that he's a liability for you."
Shays had a pretty close call in November. The woman who gave him a run for his money is, I suspect, going to run against him again. And he's already showing signs of wilting in his support for private accounts. In swing districts in the Northeast next year it's hard to believe there won't be a strong anti-House majority tide. And the most obvious way for him to avoid getting swept up in that is to make himself the Republican who stood up to Tom DeLay.
I'm not saying it's all so clear cut or immediate or intentional in every respect. But the balancing act that Shays has played for years gets more difficult as the national politics grows more partisan and the House Republicans decline in popularity. And his own survival might depend heavily on being able to go into next year's election with a dynamite response to any opponent who tries to connect him to DeLay.
--Josh Marshall
Bug man in winter? Hmmm, too much empathy. Twilight of the bug man? No. Bug man Agonistes? Definitely, not. Käfermanndämmerung? Bears more thought.
Late Update: TPM Readers chime in with their own headlines. The bug man goeth, says one regular. Hammerdämmerung, suggests TPM Reader AS.
Later Update: The Eugene O'Neill version of this farce might also be Long bug's journey into night.
--Josh Marshall
Shays says DeLay's a handful, calls the Majority Leader an "embarrassment" who won't survive through this term as head of the caucus.
"He is an absolute embarrassment to me and to the Republican Party," Rep. Christopher Shays (R) of Connecticut told a constituents at a townhall meeting in Greenwich on Saturday.
"Do I think Tom DeLay will be the majority leader by the end of this term? No," Shays went on to say. "I don't think Tom DeLay is going to survive."
Meanwhile, arch-bag-man Jack Abramoff, is telling friends, "Everyody is lying," according to a new piece out from Newsweek's Isikoff.
"Those S.O.B.s. DeLay knew everything. He knew all the details."
--Josh Marshall
Mark your calendars.
According to Mike Allen's piece in tomorrow's Post, next week David Keene and a gaggle of conservative leaders "will show their solidarity by announcing this week that they are holding a tribute dinner for DeLay on May 12 at the Capital Hilton, complete with a film 'summation of what Tom has done for conservatives.' Keene said 1,000 people are expected, and tickets will be about $200."
Duce! Duce!
Actually, if I were down in DC on the 12th, I could see laying down $200 to be on hand for this train wreck.
--Josh Marshall
DeLay's allies say the future of DeLay is the future of conservatism, reports Mike Allen in tomorrow's Post ...
Allies and friends of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (Tex.) have concluded that public attention to his ethics is unlikely to abate for months to come, and they plan to try to preserve his power by launching an aggressive media strategy and calling in favors from prominent conservative leaders, according to Republicans participating in the strategy sessions.The Republicans said the strategy combines leaks from DeLay allies about questionable Democratic trips and financial matters; denunciations of unfavorable news stories as biased, orchestrated rehashes; and swift, organized responses to journalists' inquiries.
The resistance was launched two weeks ago when DeLay flew back to Washington from Texas during Easter recess to speak to a group of about 30 conservative leaders who had gathered in the conference room of the Family Research Council for a call to arms on his behalf.
Officials working with DeLay said he is trying to lock in support by sowing the message that an attack on him is an attack on the conservative movement, and that taking him out would be the Democrats' first step toward regaining control of the House and Senate. These officials said they believe the attacks are part of a strategy by Democrats, aided by watchdog groups funded by liberals, to use the ethics process to try to regain power.
As you can see, when they <$NoAd$> give the advance word to journalists, there's little attempt to conceal the fact that charges of 'bias' aren't interpretations or claims, but little more than a cudgel to reassure the faithful and hoodwink gullible journalists.
And if there's any more evidence needed to know that the defining motif of all conservative politics is victimization, see this graf at the end of the piece ...
Becky Norton Dunlop, a Heritage Foundation vice president who was formerly Virginia's secretary of Natural Resources, attended the meeting, and said charges similar to those that have been made about DeLay could be made about Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) or House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.)."And yet, these are not happening. Why? Because they're liberals," Dunlop said. "We think that those who are so intent about making charges against Tom DeLay should also take a look at Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi and some of the liberal leaders."
Poor conservatives: embattled and villified in the town they run.
--Josh Marshall
