Reading the tea leaves on whether the Bush Administration is considering a partition of Iraq:
[T]here are signs—slightly cryptic, but still worth noting—that the Bush Administration may be leaning towards partitioning Iraq. The main exhibit is an October 6 AP photograph of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and President of Iraqi Kurdistan Massoud Barzani meeting in Irbil, the provincial seat. Rice and Barzani stood at a podium, flanked by a red, white, and green Kurdish tricolor flag. Neither the Iraqi flag, nor any other indication that the Secretary of State was in Iraq, was in view.. . .
Given that in September, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki issued a declaration that the Iraqi flag must be flown in all regions (Kurdish nationalists call the Iraqi flag “the flag of Ba'ath”), it's hard to believe that Rice's protocol people could let this one slip by accidentally. Imagine a foreign prime minister visiting America in 1861 and giving a speech while standing in front of a confederate flag—it's hard to imagine a Secretary of State could have missed such symbolism—and the Kurdish press certainly didn't.
--David Kurtz
Matt Yglesias, in response to an earlier post today, uses my reference to Republican attack ads against Max Cleland in the 2002 Senate campaign as a jumping off point to harangue Democrats for whining instead of playing hardball politics in return.
While I don't disagree with the underlying point that whining is an ineffective political response to political attacks, especially on national security issues, Matt's assertion that the 2002 attack ads didn't question Cleland's personal bravery is simply not correct.
Go look at the ad that I linked to. It begins and ends with courage. Personal courage is the entire theme of the ad. The sarcastic narrator concludes by saying, "Max Cleland says he has the courage to lead, but the record proves Max Cleland is just misleading."
Matt asks "what does Cleland's triple-amputee status have to do with it?" I'd say everything. I mean that quite literally. While attacking the personal courage of a triple amputee wounded in combat who perseveres to become a U.S. senator was a disgrace, it is the very fact of his courage that led to the GOP attack. Personal courage was perhaps Cleland's greatest political strength, hence the attack. In the same way, John Kerry was swiftboated specifically because of his stellar swiftboat record.
I agree that a good biography ought not immunize a candidate from attack on the issues. But Matt is being blindingly naive when he says the ads merely offered a "seriously distorted and underhanded view of the issues at hand." These ads weren't about the issues; they were about the person. They seriously distorted Max Cleland. That is not how it should work.
--David Kurtz
Whatever you do today, watch this ad. I initially thought it was a joke, but, no, it appears to be an actual ad the RNC is running against Democrat Harold Ford in the Tennessee Senate race.
My, oh, my.
Late Update: Here's more on the ad and Republican Senate candidate Bob Corker's attempt to distance himself from the RNC's pitch.
--David Kurtz
If the elections for Congress were held today, according to the new NEWSWEEK poll, 60 percent of white Evangelicals would support the Republican candidate in their district, compared to just 31 percent who would back the Democrat. To the uninitiated, that may sound like heartening news for Republicans in the autumn of their discontent. But if you’re a pundit, a pol, or a preacher, you know better. White Evangelicals are a cornerstone of the GOP’s base; in 2004, exit polls found Republicans carried white Evangelicals 3 to 1 over Democrats, winning 74 percent of their votes. In turn, Evangelicals carried the GOP to victory. But with a little more than two weeks before the crucial midterms, the Republican base may be cracking.
--David Kurtz
TPM Reader SR calls in with the latest on the GOP campaign against Mexicans ...
I live in Northern Virginia and I recently answered a telephone "survey". All the questions were pretty "normal" EXCEPT for one question about how George Allen did not believe illegal immigrants should receive Social Security benefits and other benefits, while Webb "believed" your taxes should be raised so that illegal immigrants could receive these benefits.Pretty funny, eh?
--Josh Marshall
Roskam: Crazy Arab Terrorists Want My Opponent Tammy Duckworth to Win (ChiTrib)...
Roskam told the crowd at the GOP's campaign headquarters that the "entire world is watching this campaign" against Democrat Tammy Duckworth for the west suburban seat being given up by retiring Rep. Henry Hyde.As proof, he said a radio producer told him that Al Jazeera--the Arabic language news network--had covered his debate with Duckworth last week. The crowd gasped.
"Now that's a real interesting group that would come out and cover the 6th Congressional District," Roskam observed. "Al Jazeera has an interest in who wins in the 6th Congressional District? I'm telling ya, let's send them an answer, whaddya say?" The crowd cheered.
Roskam is a former Tom DeLay aide who's repeatedly lied about his relationship with DeLay.
Not one of the good ones.
--Josh Marshall
You don't have to watch the GOP ads around the country too closely to see what their focus group research and polling is telling them is their only winning issue: Mexicans.
All over the country -- Democratic candidate X wants to raise your taxes to give Social Security to illegals. Check out the Duckworth-Roskam race in Illinois and about a hundred others around the country.
--Josh Marshall
It's amazing that Rep. Curt Weldon is still even in this race (Philly Daily News) ...
Sestak described how he'd gone to elementary school at St. Kevin's, right next door, and to Cardinal O'Hara High School, just down the road, before signing up for the Naval Academy during the Vietnam War."Unlike others, I decided I did want to serve my country," Sestak said.
That was apparently a bit too pointed for Weldon, who got a teaching deferment to avoid the Vietnam draft and never served in the military. Weldon said he had put himself in harm's way as a volunteer fireman, stuck between an oil tanker and a refinery fire.
"Have you ever faced a similar situation, Joe, or are you always in the admiral's quarters, drinking out of your wine goblets and being waited on by your sailor servants?" Weldon asked.
Most officers in the Navy get their first commission as an admiral, right?
So Weldon, private searches for WMD in Iraq, Mr. Able Danger, attacks his opponent for going outside the state to treat his daughter's brain tumor, revealer of the DOJ-liberal conspiracy. How is this goof still in Congress?
--Josh Marshall
TPM Reader RR on Iraq ...
Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld were in the front seat.
They drove the Iraq car off a cliff.
Then they turned to the Dems in the back seat.
And said the Dems couldn’t complain unless they could come up with a plan of their own.
The tragedy is that there is no rational hope for a plan (any plan) that will work well. When you’ve driven the car off the cliff, your range of options is quite limited. We’re in the hands of gravity at this point.
Pretty close to the mark. I've got my own analogy. Monday, after I sign back on.
--Josh Marshall
There's really no way to calculate the monetary cost to the GOP of the recent sex-related scandals involving GOP congressmen, but you get hints of the toll here and there.
I already touched on the $271,000 the NRCC spent yesterday to boost Joe Negron, the sacrificial lamb in the race for Mark Foley's seat, who doesn't even get to have his own name on the ballot. That's money that clearly would have been used elsewhere were it not for the page eruption.
A couple of days ago, the NRCC suddenly plowed $225,000 into the NV-2, an open seat that heretofore had not garnered much attention. Why the sudden interest? Well, that's Jim Gibbons' seat, and while Gibbons is running for governor of Nevada, his late night carousing and alleged assault on a cocktail waitress are probably not leaving voters in that district with a warm fuzzy GOP feeling.
A quarter million here and a quarter million there, and pretty soon you're talking real money.
--David Kurtz
The National Education Association has jumped into the mid-terms in a big way, making major independent expenditures in three congressional districts.
As TPM's Election Central first reported a couple of days ago, the NV-3 held by Republican Jon Porter is looking like it's in play. To aid the effort, the NEA Fund for Children and Public Education has dropped $378,000 into that race.
In the AZ-5, the NEA is getting serious about knocking off Rep. J.D. Hayworth, with a $491,000 push. And in the NM-1, where Patricia Madrid and Heather Wilson are in a tight race, the NEA has put down $200,000.
The point here is not to document every last dime being spent, but to get a sense of when the battle is being joined, who is engaging in the fight, and where the stakes are the highest.
[Ed. Note: I thought it went without saying that the NEA, the teachers union, is siding with the Dems in these races.]
--David Kurtz
Late Friday, the NRCC reported another huge expenditure on congressional campaigns nationwide: almost $8.5 million. That brings the total spent by the NRCC since September 1 to nearly $50 million.
Here are the highlights of yesterday's buy:
$870,711 against Tammy Duckworth in the IL-6;$681,919 against Lois Murphy in the PA-6;
$690,504 against Joe Sestak in the PA-7;
$676,781 against Patrick Murphy in the PA-8;
$561,110 against Zack Space in the OH-18;
$470,648 against Baron Hill in the IN-9;
$424,786 against Ken Lucas in the KY-4;
$414,826 against Patricia Madrid in the NM-1;
$351,599 against Patty Wetterling in the MN-6;
$271,000 to try to salvage the FL-16, Mark Foley's old district;
There are some additional smaller expenditures in some of the races I listed above, but those are major buys by the NRCC yesterday. So much money; so little time.
--David Kurtz
Unlikeliest political prop of the week, via the Atlanta Journal-Constitution:
Former U.S. senator Max Cleland is in Montana, campaigning for Democrat Jon Tester, who’s running against GOP incumbent U.S. Sen. Conrad Burns. This in today’s Billings Gazette:“During his speech, Cleland made light of his own amputations by grabbing Tester’s left hand, which is missing three fingers lost in a meat grinder.
“‘At least he won’t be putting his hand in the till like someone we know,’ Cleland said, referring to Burns’ campaign donations of about $150,000 from Jack Abramoff, his clients and associates.”
A photo of the exchange is here. If the Dems take Congress, that image will bookend the era of Bush mendacity for me, along with the attack ad the GOP ran against the triple-amputee Cleland in the 2002 election, questioning his courage during the run-up to the Iraq War.
--David Kurtz
Quote of the week:
"The higher you climb up the tree, the more your ass shows."
--Richard Armitage, on the media attention that goes with rising up the ranks in Washington
--David Kurtz
Josh is right. The news cycle has inverted and started to feed on itself. Here are two pieces that illustrate the point.
Exhibit A is an AP story headlined "Sex Scandals Dominate Midterm Elections." (Subhede: "Will election be a referendum on men behaving badly?"). It's the sort of breezy, pox on both your houses roundup that tries to pass for political analysis. Are sex scandals dominating the midterms, or is Iraq? And are these scandals really about the sex, or about violence and abuse of power?
Rep. Don Sherwood cheated on his wife, sure, but he also allegedly tried to choke his mistress. Rep. Jim Gibbons may have been drinking and flirting with an off-duty cocktail waitress, but there's a difference of more than just degree between flirting with, or even boinking, a young lovely and pushing her up against the wall of an empty parking garage and threatening her unless she consents, as she alleges.
There's also a difference, and this obviously can't be said often enough, between being gay and being a serial seducer of young male pages. The AP story says the only thing missing from the Foley sex scandal is the sex. Huh? Someone needs to go back and re-read the clips.
Exhibit B is in the Style section of the Washington Post today, a piece on how the term "October Surprise" has been wrung of practically any meaning: "Over time the phrase has been bandied about and overused to the point that it now means any startling surprise from any direction that might somehow affect the outcome of an election." True enough, but reporting about the reporting is a indication of a news cycle that, in the minds of editors and reporters, is peetering out.
The low-hanging fruit of the Foley scandal has been picked, and it's back to the hard work of reporting--unless you prefer scavenging among the rotting fruit that fell to the ground.
--David Kurtz
Rep. LaHood (R-IL): We canned the Dem staffer as payback for releasing the Cunningham report.
--Josh Marshall
This is no more than a gut sense and a reaction to the reverberations I can feel in the ground. But my gut sense is that this week the conventional wisdom or perhaps Democratic optimism reached into the realm of irrational exuberance. And my own not particularly scientific perusal of the polls suggests some slackening of the strong trend toward the Democrats we've seen over the last three weeks.
Don't get me wrong. The polls still paint an extremely bleak picture for the Republicans. Race after race that should have been safe for the GOP has crept within the margin of error.
Over the last couple months we've seen the campaign knocked this way and that by a series of strong pivots, pendulum swings that have driven the news for two or more weeks. Unfortunately for the GOP, most have swung against them. There was the pre-9/11 uptick in GOP fortunes, minute but real and detectable in the polls. Then the collapse of support with the NIE revelation, the Woodward book and mounting chaos in Iraq. And finally Foley.
We've got little more than two weeks left before the big day. But the news cycle the campaign feeds on has seemed a bit aimless over the last week. In fact it's started to feed on itself. And by that I mean that the major campaign issue has been how badly the campaign is going for the Republicans. But that type of inverted news cycle tends to feed on itself and like a bubble, burst.
Nature abhors a vacuum, and so much intensity and no news to chew on is exactly that.
I get the sense that this campaign, even with so little time left, has one more big jolt left in it.
What do you think? And what might it be?
--Josh Marshall
They know no limits watch (WaPo) ...
The Republican chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence suspended a mid-level Democratic staffer Tuesday based on a suspicion that he may have been connected to the leak of a politically damaging intelligence report almost a month ago, according to Republican and Democratic congressional sources.The action by Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.), which has drawn sharp criticism from Democratic panel members, was described by legislators of both parties as another example of the increased partisan infighting that has damaged the workings of the intelligence panel during this election year.
"The chairman's unilateral action is without basis and an abuse of his power to provide security accesses," Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.), ranking Democrat on the panel, said yesterday. "There is no evidence to suggest that the professional staff member in question did anything wrong," she added.
Late yesterday, Washington lawyer Jonathan Turley sent a letter to Hoekstra and Harman saying he represented the staff member involved, Larry Hanauer, whose name had been leaked to the media. Turley wrote that he wanted an expedited review of his client's role "to clear his name at the earliest possible date." He said there was "not a single scintilla of evidence suggesting that Mr. Hanauer had any role in the leaking of the NIE," or National Intelligence Estimate, and that he was drafting a sworn statement to that effect.
Adding to the political overtones, several Republican lawmakers issued news releases yesterday condemning leaks and praising Hoekstra -- including House Majority Leader John A. Boehner (Ohio), House Majority Whip Roy Blunt (Mo.) and Sen. John Cornyn (Tex.).
If they do crash and burn on November 7th, nothing could be sweeter. But anything's possible and nothing should be taken for granted.
--Josh Marshall
A short while before the Foley story broke, I was putting together a post about a contest the Sunlight Foundation is running called Congress in 30 seconds. They have a series of web gizmos at the site that allow you to splice together your own 30 TV spot, with film clips and sound and text on the screen. The idea is to create an ad showing what you think members of Congress spend their day doing.
The point behind the exercise is something they call their 'punch-clock campaign'. They're trying to get members of Congress to agree to make their schedules available to the public. So you could go online and look and see what Senator Jones was doing last Thursday. Well, he was in this committee meeting, then he met with Jack Abramoff and then later he went over to the party committee office and called up contributors to pony up money for next year's reelection campaign.
You get the idea. And if you know how Congress works you know that this is pretty much like getting vampires to sign up for daylight. But you've got to start somewhere. And they've already gotten 42 candidates to sign up. So far no one who's actually in office, as far as I know, has signed on the dotted line. They're actually giving bounties to members of the public who can get officeholders or candidates to sign up. Actually a thousand bucks if you can get a rep or senator to sign on the dotted line.
Anyway, as I was saying, when I started writing this post it was just before the Foley business hit. And then after, well ... somehow the idea of what congressmen spend their days doing just took on a whole new light. As far as I know none of the sample clips they have that you can work with is of a fifty-something horndog jamming away at his blackberry on the floor of the House as the sweat trickles down his brow. But who knows. Maybe they'll add that. Or, actually, I think you can upload your own clips.
Anyway, it's fun, so give it a try. The entrant in the 30 spot contest gets $5000 and there's only like a week or so left before they choose the winner.
--Josh Marshall
No depths to how low they'll go to salvage their power (from the Utica Observer-Dispatch) ...
Three Central New York television stations have chosen not to run an advertisement from the National Republican Congressional Committee that alleges Michael Arcuri made calls to a sex hotline while at a conference in New York City.Local television station WKTV and Syracuse's WSTQ and WSTM are not running the ad.
“We rejected the ad,” said WKTV Vice President and General Manager Vic Vetters. “This is based on several reviews and discussions with our legal council.”
Democratic Oneida County District Attorney Michael Arcuri is in a highly competitive race for the 24th District Congressional District seat against Republican state Sen. Ray Meier.
Documents provided by both the NRCC and the Arcuri campaign show a call lasting less than a minute to an 800 number that is now a sex line.
Arcuri said that number was dialed by accident by Sean Byrne, the executive director of the New York Prosecutor Training Institute, who was meeting with him and others in the hotel room. Byrne also said that was the case, and records show immediately following the call to the sex line, he called the same seven digits, but with a 518 area code, not an 800 prefix.
A Meier spokeswoman said Meier had called the NRCC and demanded that they not run the ad. NRCC spokesman Ed Patru said his organization is not allowed to coordinate with candidates.
It'll get much worse.
--Josh Marshall
TPM Reader NB catches us up on the final Burns/Tester debate in Montana ...
I wish everyone in the nation could be watching the Burns-Tester debate right now just to see how much point-blank honesty devastates the GOP Party line on Iraq. When John Tester listed the things that have gone wrong in Iraq, the best Burns could come back with was that things were "going well" in Afghanistan, and that there are some areas that are almost free of the Taliban. I truly do feel sorry for the old man.
Does anyone know if CSPAN is carrying this?
--Josh Marshall
A new, hard to watch, but powerful ad Michael J. Fox cut for Claire McCaskill, Democratic senate candidate in Missouri who's trying to unseat Sen. Jim Talent (R-MO).
They're currently running neck and neck, with maybe the slightest of margins in McCaskill's favor.
More ads to come.
--Josh Marshall
Gettin' in his face ...
Harold Ford Jr. showed up uninvited at a campaign event for rival Republican Bob Corker at a private charter airstrip in Memphis this morning. Corker had scheduled the media event earlier this week.News reporters were surprised when Ford's tour bus pulled up at the event and, apparently staff at Wilson Air were surprised as well, as they tried to steer media inside the property for the Corker news conference.
"You need to get this bus off our premises please. Right now," said one Wilson Air staffer.
Corker instead, opted to come out and talk with Ford directly while the cameras were rolling. What followed was a tense confrontation between the two, caught on tape.
See the rest here.
--Josh Marshall
President Bush recess appoints a new pro-industry chief to the Mine Safety and Health Administration. Shouldn't be a problem since mines are so safe already.
--Josh Marshall
Damn. Here's a story that must have about a billion volts of charge in it.
Time says the FBI is now investigating Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA) as part of their expanded AIPAC investigation. They are, says Time, "examining whether Rep. Jane Harman of California and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) may have violated the law in a scheme to get Harman reappointed as the top Democrat on the House intelligence committee."
--Josh Marshall
A woman whose brother is heading out for a second tour to Iraq writes an emotional letter about why she's backing Dem vet double-amputee and Illinois House candidate Tammy Duckworth.
--Greg Sargent
CNN has a story up on its site, the headline of which reads: "GOP terrorism ad sparks Democratic furor."
The first grafs read ...
Republicans took a page from President Johnson's Cold War-era presidential campaign with an advertisement set to air this weekend called "The Stakes," which prominently features al Qaeda leaders threatening to kill Americans."Just like in the Cold War, the reality is that our nation is at war with an ideology and not a country," said Republican National Committee spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt.
Democrats, however, have called the commercial, which is reminiscent of Johnson's 1964 "Daisy" ad, a "desperate ploy to once again try to scare voters."
The advertisement, which is available on the Republican National Committee Web site, is scheduled to run on national news networks Sunday. Republicans are emphasizing national security and terrorism issues in their bid to maintain control of Congress with about two weeks before the November midterms.
The answer to this is not outrage. And the answer's not to say this sort of ad is out of bounds. The correct answer is contempt and ridicule. The president and his party just don't have any credibility on this issue left. And Democrats need to act with the confidence that voters know that too.
DHS is run like a joke.
Iraq, unquestionably, has increased the threat of terrorism rather than diminished it.
The president's whole approach to protecting the nation is a bust. He's spent hundreds of billions and thousands of lives on threats that didn't exist and ignored ones that did.
Doing some more cut and paste of bin Laden just doesn't cut it any more.
The key here is the meta-message behind the way the fight between Republicans and Democrats plays out. Do Democrats cower and complain? Or do they treat the president's gambits on national security with contempt, since that's actually the latent view of the majority of the country. This is another example of what a couple years ago I called the Republicans' Bitch-Slap theory of electoral politics.
Folks in the country know there's a bin Laden. They remember 9/11. That's not what this is about. The Republicans are trying to bait Democrats into looking weak by crying foul and expressing outrage. The best response politically is the truest substantively: ridicule and contempt. The president's policies on national security have been a joke. The country knows it. They're there. So just say it.
--Josh Marshall
A new page incident? Rep. Weller (R-IL) says he's referred one to the Ethics Committee.
--Josh Marshall
And they just keep on coming.
Six new House races which were once secure wins for the GOP have suddenly become competitive for Dems in the last week alone.
--Greg Sargent
It's not quite the same as the stay the course, don't stay the course Corker mumbojumbo, but this editorial in one Virginia paper has a pretty good run-down of Sen. Allen's (R-VA) flip-flop on this issue.
--Josh Marshall
Wow, that was quick.
Seems like Corker down in Tennessee has a serious case of flip-flopitis on the 'stay the course'.
See the contest rules below. Everyone can play.
--Josh Marshall
Okay, here's our project for the day here at TPM.
Last summer the White House made the case to congressional Republicans that the best way for them to weather the Iraq storm politically was to embrace the war and the president's policy and try to make the debate into one of "staying the course" or "cutting and running."
As you can see by this post below, Rep. Sweeney (R-NY) did as he was told and now seems to regret it since he's now saying "I think that the strategy of 'staying the course' is not a strategy at all. It doesn't work."
A lot of GOP reps made similar statements a few months ago and if you'll remember they all vote for that Iraq war resolution. And I really doubt Sweeney's the only one to be caught in such an egregious flip flop.
Politically, of course, that's very damaging. But this goes beyond gotcha politics. Even for those who don't support a rapid withdrawal from Iraq, it was crystal clear this summer that the president's Iraq policy was a disaster. It was the height of cynicism to embrace that policy on the argument (plausible at the time, not so plausible now) that it was the best strategy for the mid-term election. These folks deserve to be punished at the polls for that cynicism when American troops are dying in the field and Iraq is becoming a charnel house.
So, crank up the google or nexis, and you take a look at see if you can find similar 'stay the course' quotes from members of Congress in competitive elections. If you can find quotes like that and a more recent flip flop quote, a la Rep. Sweeney (R-NY), we'll give you a brand new TPM T-shirt for labors and a big thank you online. (We'll give away up to five T-shirts.)
--Josh Marshall
Last throes, but whose?
The Shiite militia run by anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr seized total control of the southern Iraqi city of Amarah on Friday in one of the boldest acts of defiance yet by one of the country's powerful, unofficial armies, witnesses and police said.
More here.
--Josh Marshall
A Nevada gubernatorial hopeful says he did "nothing wrong" in a series of late-night events that resulted in a panicked woman calling 911 from the bathroom of a Las Vegas Starbucks. That and other news of the day in today's Daily Muck.
--Justin Rood
Eh ... times change.
Rep. John Sweeney (R), 6/8/06: "Zarqawi represents the insidious forces that we are fighting in the War on Terror. This is a critical example of why we must stay the course and finish this mission."
Rep. John Sweeney (R), 10/18/06 : "I think that the strategy of 'staying the course' is not a strategy at all. It doesn't work. There are going to have to be adjustments in any war if that is the case."
For staying the course before he was against it, I guess.
On a more substantive and serious note, the White House got virtually every member of Congress to go out and embrace the Iraq War last summer. And for one reason. Because Rove and rest of the crew at the White House convinced them it was best political bet. They really should be made now to pay a price for that cynicism.
--Josh Marshall
If you're a GOP candidate with your back to the wall, it's probably not a good idea to say, "read my lips." Brings back bad memories.
The GOP candidate in question here is not George H.W. Bush -- it's Senator Mike DeWine, who's fallen far behind Dem challenger Sherrod Brown. Today a dozen Ohio TV stations yanked a GOP ad attacking Brown, mainly because the ad was demonstrably false. The NRCC sank over $700,000 into the ad. It said Brown "didn't pay his unemployment taxes for 13 years." Even though the Brown campaign produced proof that the claim was false, the NRCC hung in there and claimed they weren't fudging the facts. Still, the networks disagreed and killed the ad.
But the story doesn't end there. At tonight's debate between Brown and DeWine, the ad came up again. And DeWine -- never one to give up when the going gets tough -- hung on to the claim that the ad was true. And he compounded the absurdity of the whole story by saying: "The ad, Sherrod, is true. Read my lips. The ad is true."
Read his lips.
--Greg Sargent
Lemme say a few more words about John Kerry and this issue of giving to the party committees in the final weeks.
First, John Kerry has done a lot of fundraising and contributing for candidates around the country in the last two years. Here's a page they've just put up on their site making that case.
Second, for all the officeholders now getting dunned for extra money, this is a unique situation. In many cases, these are folks who've played by the established rules of the road, ponied up this or that amount. So at least from me, the issue isn't that these folks are party giving scofflaws or deadbeats.
Yet it is, as I said, a unique situation. We don't know what will happen on the 7th. But it looks like the Democrats may have an opportunity for a historic tidal wave type election, like 1974 and 1994. But they won't be able to take maximum advantage of the opportunity without a lot more money right now to fund late-campaign pushes for second and third tier candidates around the country.
So, with Kerry, it's not that he hasn't already done a lot. It's that he's sitting on a lot of money. And he can do even more. And with these stakes, he should.
But Kerry's only one guy. And this applies to lots of members of the House and Senate. While I think he should pony up even more, nothing I'm saying here should be construed to mean that he's uniquely the source of the problem.
Finally, there appears to be a dispute about how much Kerry has given to the DSCC (the senate campaign committee) this cycle. The DSCC records I referenced earlier say he's given $15,000. He says he's given $1 million. It's late and I haven't been able to speak with all the parties involved. But I've looked in this and I believe the issue is this: Kerry gave $1 million to the DSCC just after the 2004 election to help the retire its debt. They, I think, don't see that as money for this cycle. He does.
Presumably the parties in question can address that particular question tomorrow.
But here's the bottom line. Candidates sitting on a lot of money should be sending more to the party committees. That's the only efficient and quick way right now to move the money where it's needed. Kerry's folks say he's already done a ton. I don't know all the particulars. But I think it's true. (See the Kerry page to make up your own mind.)
To me at least this isn't about what's come before. It's about right now. More money is needed. Now. And those who are sitting on a lot of it should give more, regardless of what they've done to this point.
To those whom much is given, much is expected in return.
--Josh Marshall
TPM Reader RM has had enough ...
I am disabled by a spinal injury and unable to work, yet out of my meager funds I have scraped up $20 and $25 amounts to send to various campaigns around the country that need all the support they can get. These are amounts I can ill afford, but I feel we absolutely must free ourselves from the shameless conduct of the Republican controlled Congress and their staggeringly incompetent President.So I am deeply pained by Democratic fat cats that just can't bear to part with any of their millions of dollars, thank you, or those who only make token payments.
Are these the ones who want to be our Democratic party leaders?
Damn it, if I can do it, why can't they?
I'm not sure there's much I can add.
--Josh Marshall
When it comes to Republicans and corruption and sex crimes, I guess they figure, better to burn out than fade away ...
A casino cocktail waitress told police a drunken U.S. Rep. Jim Gibbons grabbed her, shoved her against a wall and threatened her in a Las Vegas parking garage after she rebuffed his advances at a restaurant Friday night.But Chrissy Mazzeo, 32, told investigators she did not want to press charges against the Reno congressman "mainly because of who he is. 'Cause of who he is, and I just don't want to go up against something like that."
Gibbons, 61, the Republican candidate for governor, denied her version of the story and told police he merely helped a woman to her vehicle and grabbed her arm when she tripped and fell.
Here's the rest.
--Josh Marshall
That's one way to cover it up.
The House Appropriations Committee had hired 60 extra investigators to deal with the unprecedented level of corruption in federal appropriations these days.
Jerry Lewis, Chairman of the Committee (who's himself being investigated and has racked up $800,000 in legal fees) just fired them all.
--Josh Marshall
Jack Abramoff, may be heading off to prison soon, but that doesn't mean he'll stop cooperating. Prosecutors have asked that he be placed in a convenient location, so that they can continue hanging out together.
--Paul Kiel
Did a second Hastert staffer know about Foley's pursuit of House pages? That's apparently what former House Clerk Jeff Trandahl told the ethics committee today, according to ABC News.
Update: CNN adds more details.
--Paul Kiel
There are some questions that Rep. Sue Kelly (R-NY) really doesn't want to answer.
So much so that she ran away -- literally ran away -- from a local news crew.
--Paul Kiel
If you're wondering why the DSCC and Harry Reid are leaning on Kerry and Bayh in particular, this may be the answer.
So far Kerry has given the senate election committee $15,000 and Bayh $30,000.
Just for some random points of comparison Biden ($230,000), Feinstein ($1,106,800), Rockefeller ($325,000), Salazar ($116,000).
I know Kerry's done a ton of campaigning for candidates around the country. I think he's a great Democrat. But he's sitting on a lot of money. And the DSCC could do a lot right now with money from these two.
--Josh Marshall
Former House Clerk Jeff Trandahl testified before House ethics committee this morning, but he's still refusing to say publicly what he knows. Even though it seems he knows a lot.
--Paul Kiel
Come to Jesus watch ...
Top Democrats are trying to convince two potential presidential candidates with flush campaign bank accounts to part with as much as $1 million each to finance the DSCC s late October effort to pull six Senate seats from Republican control. Sen. Evan Bayh's 2008 re-election committee reported $10.6 million cash on hand through the end of 9/06. On Monday, following a conversation with Min. Leader Sen. Harry Reid, Bayh directed his donors to raise $100K for the DSCC and intends deliver the checks by the beginning of next week.
The rest at Hotline Blog.
--Josh Marshall
Yesterday, the Dems spent nearly $12 million on 32 races. See our rundown of the big buys here.
--Paul Kiel
DHS decides to extend contract wtih 'hookergate' limo agency.
I guess Duke and his pals still have some juice.
--Josh Marshall
No doubt the first of many GOP voter suppression operations to be revealed in this cycle.
--Josh Marshall
From the Washington Post ...
A retired priest from Malta acknowledged today that he had intimate contact with a youthful Mark Foley in the mid-1960s that involved nudity and -- on at least one occasion -- "light touching," but denied that he had "sexual intercourse" with him.The Rev. Anthony Mercieca, in a telephone interview with The Washington Post from the Maltese island of Gozo, said he was surprised that his long-ago relationship with Foley had become linked to the former Congressman's troubles. Foley, a former altar boy at the Sacred Heart Catholic church where Mercieca served in the mid-1960s, resigned from Congress after reports about sexually intimate electronic messages he had sent to Congressional pages.
...In the interview, Mercieca, 69, said that issues like molestation and sexual harassment are "in the eye of the beholder," and that Foley -- who was 12 or 13 at the time -- might have interpreted some of their contact "the wrong way."
"I was a little out of myself there," Mercieca said, from his use of medication following what the Sarasota paper described as a nervous breakdown. "The whole idea is . . . that I did something that he did not like, but at the time he did not say anything."
Foley's claims of abuse were treated with a lot of skepticism, given the timing of the disclosure and coming on the heels of rehab treatment for alcoholism friends and colleagues didn't believe he suffered from. But it seems like he wasn't making this part up.
--Josh Marshall
Bush campaigns for Rep. Sherwood (R-PA), congressman accused of choking his mistress.
A fellow pro-torture candidate?
--Josh Marshall
Rep. Weldon (R-PA) reveals secret source -- an unidentified man at a gym named "Grumpy" -- who says Weldon's opponents are behind the DOJ corruption investigation that recently led to multiple FBI raids in two states.
--Josh Marshall
Here's a good question asked by several TPM Readers.
How do you find out how much money a particular officeholder has stashed away?
(What is this about? See the post below.)
It's actually pretty easy.
1. Go to fec.gov
2. On the left hand column, click "Campaign Finance Reports and Data"
3. On that page go down to the second item which reads "View/Download Electronic Filings"
4. Now you'll get a fill out form with all sorts 
of questions, state, kind of committee, etc. In most cases you don't need to fill those out. Just go to the fill-in line that reads "Partial Name of Committee". If you know the name of the officeholder's election committee great. But if you don't, in most cases, you can just type in their last name. And that will bring up the right data.
5. Click 'Send Query' and that should bring up a bunch of filings you can either download or view. You're looking for the most recent filing. That should be at or near the top and it should be called "Oct Quarterly". That's the filing from October 15th. And it covers up through the end of September. In a hotly contested race, that number might now be out of date. But in one where the officeholder isn't facing that much of a fight, it should give you a pretty accurate idea of how much cash they're sitting on.
6. Okay, now you've clicked 'view' on Oct Quarterly. Scroll down to the "Summary Page" and that will show you a series of numbers. Look at Item 8, "Cash on Hand at Close of Reporting Period", that's your number. In many cases it'll be hundreds of thousands or even many millions of dollars.
Getting this number is actually really easy. I've tried to be as specific and detailed as possible in these instructions to avoid any confusion. But the whole thing takes maybe thirty seconds.
Late Update: Turns out Chris Bowers has already done some of the work for you. He's posted this list of 45 Dem reps who are literally running unopposed this cycle. Together they're sitting on over $26 million. Half a dozen of them have more than a million dollars each.
Even Later Update: TPM Reader TP suggests an easier way ...
The FEC.GOV site is archaic. Here's a much, much easier way:1. Go to http://WWW.OPENSECRETS.ORG. There's a form right on the front of the page; enter your zip code and your representative pops up. Click on them and you get a summary page with their cash on hand, taken from the FEC filings.
2. Go to http://WWW.CQPOLITICS.COM/06map.html. Can you find yourself on a map? CQ will tell you whether your rep is in a real race.
My rep's Danny K. Davis, smack in the middle of Chicago. Not a real race. He's got $500k on hand. Here's my question: do I call? What specifically should I ask? Durbin and Obama aren't up this cycle. Should I call them? I want to help!
--Josh Marshall
A TPM Reader has an idea ...
Call your Democratic rep, senator, who have tons of money with no race. Ask them if they are planning to donate it to the DSCC or DCCC. If not, why not. Print their answers, phone numbers, emails, etc
This sounds like a good idea. Give 'em a ring. Most Democratic incumbents aren't facing a tough fight this year. Some are barely in a race at all. How much should they fork over? A third? I'm sure.
Why don't you ask? Give them a call and ask. There are well over two hundred Democratic incumbents in Congress. And it's not like they can take a lot of time to think about it. We're under three weeks till the big day. Time is running out.
Get in touch with your senator or rep and ask them. Let us know what you hear and we'll share it with our readers.
(ed.note: Where to call? The proper place to call is the campaign office of your officeholder, not their congressional office. The staff at the congressional office won't be able to give answers about campaign money. It's against the law. The phone number and site of each campaign should be easy to find through Google. But if you can't find it, I think the congressional office is allowed to give you the number of the campaign.)
--Josh Marshall
The U.S. sent Mahar Arar off to be tortured in a Syrian prison, but even though he's been exonerated, they still won't take him off the no-fly list. That and other news of the day in today's Daily Muck.
--Paul Kiel
Did the NRCC tip their hand? The NRCC dropped $163,000 into the PA 4 race -- Hart (R) v. Altmire (D) -- after spending a little under $11,000 on a poll. It sounds like they didn't like what they heard from that poll.
Just a few days ago, the Altmire campaign released its own poll that had him trailing Hart by a mere four points -- Hart (48%), Altmire (44%). It sounds like the NRCC poll wasn't much better. Maybe not even as good.
Based on this CQ has bumped the race from Republican Favored to Leans Republican. So Hart is still favored. But it's a real race.
If I were Altmire's folks I'd certainly want to make the point that DeLay and Hastert put Hart on the Ethics Committee after they purged it of non-loyalists. They knew she would be a rubber stamp vote for DeLay and other House GOPers who got into trouble. That's telling.
Another on our list of races we're eyeing closely. Here's Hart's website and here's Altmire's.
--Josh Marshall
If these Constituent Dynamics polls of New York state House races are close to accurate we could really see a blow-out in the New York congressional delegation. Walsh in CD 25, down by 8 points; Kuhl in CD 29, down by 12 points; Sweeney in CD 20, down by 13 points; Kelly in CD 19, down by 9 points.
I think the Constituent Dynamics poll is a Robo-call. So that puts a certain level of question mark after the result. But those numbers don't include the open Boerhlert seat where Michael Arcuri appears to be running strong or Tom Reynolds who the same poll had down by 17 points only last week.
--Josh Marshall
He must think it's worth it. House Appropriations Committee Chairman Jerry Lewis has spent almost $800,000 of campaign dollars to the lawyers defending him in the ever-expanding Duke Cunningham investigation.
Good he's not in charge of where money gets spent or anything.
--Josh Marshall
I really don't think 'I can't talk about it' plays well in a close fought election, does it?
Republican U.S. Senate nominee Bob Corker said Wednesday he was forbidden from talking about a settlement in a lawsuit that challenged how a city conservation easement became an access road to commercial property his company sold while he was mayor."We are not even allowed" to talk about it, Corker said, citing a deal between "number of parties that have been involved" as plaintiffs and defendants.
The agreement in the three-year environmental lawsuit has extended the mystery for voters in his race against Democratic U.S. Rep. Harold Ford Jr. of Memphis. The Democrat's campaign seized on the issue Wednesday.
"It was public land belonging to the people of Chattanooga and Tennessee. They deserve to know if Bob Corker destroyed it to make millions and then wrote a check to avoid having to tell the truth about it in a deposition," Ford campaign spokesman Tom Lee said.
But don't worry. Corker insists the need for secrecy is "absolutely" not political.
--Josh Marshall
TPM Reader RT wonders ...
At some point, in the vast TPM Media empire, you need to start taking bets on when the OBL video will be released. I'm thinking the Friday morning before the election. That will suck all the air out of the Sunday shows and put the kibosh on the Dem Wave story. You know OBL is coming. He has to. He hasn't sat out an election since he bombed the Cole. The only question is will it mobilize the base more than piss the Dem Wave off more?
Sounds right to me. Clearly, Osama can't keep a regular video taping operation going while he's on the run or living in that duplex in Quetta or the brownstone in Karachi. But he does seem to be able to put out video clips at key moments on the Jihadist version of youtube. So when does it drop?
--Josh Marshall
Yet another classic John Doolittle moment. He attacks his opponent for supporting the ACLU, which has defended child sex predators. Meanwhile, Doolittle himself was a character witness for a dentist on trial for sexually assaulting his patients while they were anesthetized.
--Josh Marshall
Rep. Katherine Harris (R-FL), to prove her resolve, says she's selling her D.C. home for campaign cash. She just hasn't gotten around to getting a realtor.
--Paul Kiel
Stay the (secret) course!
Sen. Conrad Burns (R-MT) in a debate with Dem Jon Tester yesterday: “[Tester] says our president don’t have a plan. I think he’s got one. He’s not going to tell everyone in the world."
--Paul Kiel
Rep. Chris Abu-Ghraib-Was-A-"Sex-Ring" Shays (R-CT) on the Iraq War: "In my judgment we should have gone in sooner but not for weapons of mass destruction."
--Paul Kiel
The Foley sleazolanche has come down so hard on Republican incumbents, there's been an effort on the part of candidate's around the country to find any connections, however strained, to pedophilia or homosexuality. Yes, I know the two aren't connected. But they're often being treated as such. The Blackwell gambit noted below is one example. Here's another.
Rep. Heather Wilson's (R-NM) whole site at the moment is given over to a local TV news spot about a Internet-teen sex sting that bagged a 41 year old man who thought he was meeting a fourteen year old girl in the park for sex. The story is about how he didn't get time but probation. Wilson says it was the fault of opponent Patricia Madrid (who is currently state Attorney General).
Take a look.
--Josh Marshall
The issue of the day is Money.
As this article in the Post this morning explains, there are two debates going on right now within the Democratic party. 1) Whether to pile money into the most competitive races or try to expand the playing field to go after 2nd and 3rd tier races that may just now be getting competitive. 2) Are the opportunities in this election so great that Dem committees should be literally taking out loans to get money into those emerging races?
Harold Ickes, for instance, tells the Post, "It has been more difficult raising money than I expected. My sense is there is more optimism than is probably warranted," he said about the Dems' chances. (Ickes runs one of the independent expenditure groups that was supposed to provide extra money muscle in the stretch.)
I'm just an observer when it comes to question of political money and the brass tacks management of political campaigns. But I have pretty strong feelings about this one. The conservative, narrow playing field approach seems like the height of folly to me. In the grand scheme of things, the potential downside of pulling together a few millions or even more than a few millions of dollars seems vanishingly small. The potential lost opportunity is immense.
Stan Greenberg makes his case in this new post at TPMCafe. This one's important. Give it a read.
--Josh Marshall
Helping steal the 2004 election wasn't enough. Down by double digits and facing a career-ending election, Ken Blackwell accuses Ted Strickland of being pro-pedophile, possibly gay.
--Josh Marshall
As long as we're on the topic of Rep. Sweeney's (R-NY) visit to the Marianas, let's return to a point that to some of you will be old news, but is still worth restating.
TPM Reader RT does the honors ...
What no one seems to want to report is that Tom DeLay promised the garment industry in the Marianna Islands that the government would stay out of their sweat-shop affairs. DeLay got Abramhoff to get Mehlman to make sure the right guys were in control. That’s because the garment industry of the Islands had basically kidnapped Asian woman who paid a price to get to the United States for work. Since the Marianna’s are a US commonwealth, the garment industry can technically put “Made in the USA” labels on their products, but in reality, the garments are made in mediocre-paying sweat shops by captive labor who are also forced into prostitution and also forced to get abortions if they get pregnant. This is what DeLay, Mehlman, Abramhoff and company were getting paid to protect. Let’s get that story out, please.
All true. A hideously sordid tale.
Here's the story of another member of Congress who went to the floor of the House on Abramoff's behalf to denounce a teenager filipino girl who was held captive as a sex slave on the islands. This stuff isn't just about misfiled disclosures and skyboxes. It's real dark.
--Josh Marshall
Rep. Sweeney on a Abramoff junket to the Marianas: You Call This a Sweatshop? I've Seen Worse in New York.
--Josh Marshall
And you said no serious thinking had gone into our Iraq policy ...
Embattled U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum said America has avoided a second terrorist attack for five years because the "Eye of Mordor" has instead been drawn to Iraq.Santorum used the analogy from one of his favorite books, J.R.R. Tolkien's 1950s fantasy classic, "Lord of the Rings," to put an increasingly unpopular war in Iraq into terms any school kid could easily understand.
"As the hobbits are going up Mount Doom, the Eye of Mordor is being drawn somewhere else," Santorum said, describing the tool the evil Lord Sauron used in search of the magical ring that would consolidate his power over Middle-earth.
"It's being drawn to Iraq and it's not being drawn to the U.S.," he continued. "You know what? I want to keep it on Iraq. I don't want the Eye to come back here to the United States."
Read the rest here.
--Josh Marshall
Right-wingers debate the merits of a "pink purge." That and other news of the day in today's Daily Muck.
--Paul Kiel
According to this piece out in tomorrow's Post, one of the player's in the Curt Weldon investigation seems to be "Bogoljub Karic, a wealthy Serbian businessman who had been barred from visiting or trading with the United States because of his close ties to former Yugoslav leader Slobodan Milosevic." Apparently Bogoljub hired Weldon's daughter to get him off the war criminal friends black list.
Here's some background on him from a 2002 post. And here's the dossier we pulled for one of the operator's that had the Karic account before Weldon's daughter picked it up. It can revealing if you're not familiar with how the foreign lobbying biz works.
--Josh Marshall
Okay, while we're passing the time on important and frenetic matters of late campaign note, let's allow ourselves a bit of diversion with a contest.
What is the lamest incumbent member of Congress website? Not their official House or Senate page. But their campaign website. And only incumbents. If you open the contest to challengers, some campaigns are so underfunded and so nominal in nature that there's almost no point. If they don't have enough money to put together a halfway respectable website maybe that's because the campaign doesn't have any money and it's not even a serious campaign. Any incumbent though has at least enough money to put together a half way respectable web presence. And lame can mean so many things to so many people. So let's try to focus on flagrant cheapness, moronic design and other such characteristics rather than high falutin' concepts of web design or interactivity.
Okay, with that out of the way, let me nominate Rep. Virginia Foxx (R) from North Carolina's 5th district. Foxx's site is pretty decent on general cheapness of design and all around lameness. But it was cheapness that jumped out at me. If you go to the "campaign photos" section of her site and click for 2006, you can see a little Flash player that breezes you through photos of Foxx pressing the flesh with constituents and also sharing a few quality moments with Rep. Hastert, who apparently visited the district before he became the national poster boy for fifty-something horndogs chatting up high school students.
But what caught my eye was the little trailer line cruising over the top of the pictures: "Created with the trial version of CoffeeCup Flash Photo Gallery www. coffeecup.com Click here to Buy Now!"
I heard Republcans were having a hard time deciding where to put their money resources. But I had no idea it was this bad.
Following up on the trialware ad, I stopped by the Coffee Cup website ("fresh software. warm people") to see how much a copy of CoffeeCup Flash Photo Gallery costs. Apparently $34.
That's pretty hard up.
But still. There are 435 members of the House. There must be worse out there. Send in your nominations.
Late Update: Wow, that didn't take long. TPM Reader CL just nominated the website of Rep. Wally Herger (R-CA) and I think it may even knock Foxx out of the running.
It's like sub-lame.
--Josh Marshall
During the height of the Foleygate blow-up, I had many more than a few readers write in to ask me why it wasn't obvious to me that the Foley revelations were a Karl Rove dirty trick. Didn't I get it? Didn't I see how this Foleygate business had conveniently come along just when the NIE story and Woodward's book were shining a bright light on Iraq?
I thought of dredging my memory for similar insights. But suffice it to say the examples would be legion. Indeed, there is almost no misfortune the Republicans can suffer that a non-trivial number of Democrats won't be able to convince themselves was actually a fiendishly brilliant Rove plot.
Now, I don't say this to beat up on my Democratic brethren. And I wouldn't want you to think most TPM Readers think along these lines. But it's not something to brush away either.
We don't know what will happen November 7th. Elections can turn dramatically in the final weeks. But unless something dramatic changes, it's going to be a really, really bad one for the GOP. Yet there are many Democrats who are convinced that Karl Rove has the matter all in hand and is just waiting to spring some trap.
Why do I raise this point? The last several years have taken a harsh toll on the country. But it's taken one on the psyche of Democrats too. Look over time and geography and you'll see a regular pattern. Those who are cut off from power and have the experience of repeated defeats began to believe that those who oppress them possess power and control over events all out of proportion to reality. It's the experience of being beaten repeatedly which can warp perceptions as much as winning too much.
And it's not just in the minds of Democrats.
I'm a big critic of media bias of different sorts, which I've chronicled over the years at this site. But a lot of the slavishness toward Republicans and contempt for Democrats one sees in the media, again, is the product, to put it baldly, of seeing Democrats lose three straight national elections. People without strong grounding respect power and have contempt for weakness. They inpute power and sense and sagacity to victory and all the opposites to defeat.
If you want some sense of how this works, give me an example of the losing political campaign that wasn't run by idiots. Have any examples?
This isn't just a cliff-notes version of social psychology. It's an important element in understanding the politics of the last six years. Not just the Democrats and the Republicans, but the weight of conventional wisdom, how the most silly and outlandish gambits from the GOP get a respectable hearing while ineptitude and weakness are the favored storyline for Dems. To borrow a concept from Chinese politics and cosmology, since 2000 the GOP has had the Mandate of Heaven.
If the Democrats do really well on November 7th, yes, they'll get the subpoena power that has the White House shaking in its boots. And the president's legislative agenda, as we've known it to date, will cease to exist. But I'm not certain those will be the most consequential changes. After the last six years, it will have a deep effect on the perceptions of both parties. And with a party that has based on so much on bluff, confidence and force, that could be a very big deal.
--Josh Marshall
From someone on the inside ...
Kerry's been great in terms of being a surrogate and making campaign appearances, and it can't be overstated how important that is to getting a candidate traction and legitimacy locally. On money, it's been non-stop raising money for candidates for more than a year, which again is great but it should be noted that most of it came from an email list left over from a presidential campaign, a bit of an unfair advantage in this comparison. You'd have to check how much money he's sitting on himself and how much of that he's given to make a real judgment.Feingold's done the same email-wise, though he doesn't have the list or the warchest Kerry does, and has helped some key campaigns. Edwards has been a great surrogate in some cases, and has done the email thing - could have done more perhaps, though instead he was working on poverty which is hard to hold against him. I've followed Clark, and he's done the email/ online community fundraising thing, but he's also the perfect surrogate - disliked by few and gravitas on national security.
Clinton is certainly the sore thumb. She does some great stuff for NY candidates, but she certainly could have done more. Now she doesn't have a huge email list, and in moderate or Republican-leaning districts, where most competitive races are, she might not always be the perfect surrogate, but the sheer amount of money she is sitting on and can direct is enormous. She recently shelled out $1 million for the DSCC and I think $250K or so to the DCCC, but out of how much?
Next question, how many safe House incumbents are sitting on money and how much?
More thoughts? That last question is a good one too.
--Josh Marshall
From the Hotline ...
The DSCC's optimism about winning the Senate is apparently contagious as the DNC is going to pony up an extra $5-10M for the Senate committee, according to sources familiar with the previously reported arrangement between the two campaign orgs.While the DNC doesn't have $10M to just toss around to another campaign committee, the DNC apparently has decided to go into debt to come up with the extra cash DSCC Chair Chuck Schumer has been pleading for from DNC Chair Howard Dean. The actual amount of the loan the DNC is taking out is not known as the committee holds out hope they can raise nearly everything they need before the election. But a line of credit has been opened.
More?
--Josh Marshall
TPM Reader MB says John Kerry's doing his bit ...
I don't like being a homer, but JK has been working his ass off for both Senate and House candidates. You can see the money he's raised and given here (scroll down): http://www.johnkerry.com/ . For example: Patrick Murphy -- $145,000. Darcy Burner -- $25,000. Tammy Duckworth -- $185,000.Honestly, I can't think of any sitting member of Congress in my lifetime who has done as much for congressional candidates, whether in an off-year election or not. Is it all selfless? No. But he's doing it. And there are a number of other high-profile '08 contenders who are sitting on their hands.
A few points. First, I don't have any dog in this fight. So by all means, all the candidates let us know what they're doing for the House candidates. Second, we know that the big feet are out campaigning with challengers, out of mix of public spiritedness and an effort to collect chits. (Okay, mainly to collect chits.)
All true. But what are they doing now? Not before today, but in the final three weeks. The picture is very, very different right now than it was as recently as two or three weeks ago.
Let's get all the facts out there. And if you want to discuss this, join us over at TPMCafe.
--Josh Marshall
TPM Reader SR says no help from the biggs ...
There are two key reasons why I would be surprised if any of the 2008 hopefuls with plenty of campaign cash were to give very much to house candidates who may need it to get over the top. The first is the fact that there is no mechanism to punish the stingy. 15 months from now, primary voters will be thinking about what candidate most represents them or is most electable. The fact they didn't help their fellow dems in time of need will be well-forgotten if it was ever noticed in the first place.The more important point is that astute strategists will feel at best ambivalent about a dem takeover of congress knowing that chances for a dem to reach the whitehouse with the same party ensconsed in congress is reduced to say the least. Smart hopefuls will write moderate chaecks, show up for campaign events and pray that the reps still manage, with late inning disingenuousness, to squeak by and retain their majorities. In that scenario, the dem primary would probably will almost assuredly produce our next
commander and chief.
All true, unless there's a high degree of transparency about who was there for the final push in 2006. Then that mechanism for punishing stinginess might exist.
What do you think should happen? We're discussing it over at TPMCafe.
--Josh Marshall
Rep. Don Young (R-AK) keeps it real on Foleygate. From The Frontiersman ...
The news media didn’t escape criticism from Young, who said Wednesday the destruction of those in public office by newspapers and television is a disgrace. He added that most media these days will stop at nothing to find fault with an individual in public office or running in an election.“A person can be the cleanest individual, but has a brother who likes to run with sheep,” Young said, adding that those who haven’t grown up on a farm might not know what that means.
After Young’s speech, he clarified his statement by saying television media deserves most of the blame for scaring people out of running for public office. The constant barrage of news is something Young said distorts peoples’ view of what is going on in the world.
--Josh Marshall
Just a thought. And I know I'm not the only one or the first to think about it.
There are a handful of Dems out there gearing up to run for president in 2008. Some are even running for office this year. And, as they must, they're building up huge warchests to finance those 2008 campaigns and demonstrate their credibility as candidates.
Right now though there are a perhaps as many as a few dozen House races around the country who don't have a lot of money but are suddenly in races they might actually be able to win. This is what James Carville was talking about a few days ago when he said the Dems should go to the bank and outright borrow money to pump a few hundred thousand dollars into each one of those races.
Now, this occurred to me because I just got an email from a reader who'd gotten a campaign solicitation from a 2008 aspirant pleading for money for a race this year they're running away with. Clearly that money is going to socked away for 2008.
So, of all the worthies now in the field for 2008, how much are they giving to those House challengers who, just maybe if the wave is big enough, could actually win? There's the standard donations. There's also hitting up their network of big givers. There's lot of stuff that can be done.
So who's doing what? If you know, let us know. Now's certainly the time, if the interest in Democratic majorities next year.
--Josh Marshall
Hastert confidante and leper-fibbing evangelist K.A. Paul announces new Hastert publicity grab, disappointed that Hastert bagged on promise to God to resign.
--Josh Marshall
Is the national GOP cutting and running from Sen. Mike Dewine (R-OH)?
Looks like from the dollar numbers on the ground that the national Republican committees really are preparing to scale back from the Ohio Senate race.
--Paul Kiel
Wife of Rep. Sherwood (R-PA): I don't like Chris Carney making a campaign issue out of my husband trying to choke his mistress.
--Josh Marshall
Another update on Rep. Sue Kelly (R-NY).
In the debate we referenced below, when challenged on Foleygate, Kelly said: "There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that anything at all went on with the pages at that time. And as a matter of fact the evidence shows that mr. foley apparently began this in 2001 when I was no longer on the board."
Kelly says she was chairwoman on the Page Board in 1999 and 2000, though Salley Collins, spokeswoman for the House Administration committee told a local paper Kelly's service was from 1998 to 2000. (Not necessarily a significant difference, the cycle may have actually started when the new Congress was sworn in in 1999.)
But ABC News has reported that pages from the 1998, 200 and 2002 page classes have come forward to say they were hit on by Rep. Foley (R-FL). That is in addition to Tyson Vivyan, an ex-page who says he was approached in 1997 and other pages who report being warned about Foley as far back as 1995.
Also, retiring Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-AZ) appears to have still been on the Page Board in 2000, when he was approached by a page who said he'd been sexually chatted up by Foley. Kolbe says he passed on word to the House Clerk, who is the fourth member of the Page Board. Kolbe's spokesperson appears to have left open the possibility that this occurred in early 2001. But it seems probable that this occurred during the time that Kelly was chair.
Point being, there appear to be numerous points on which Kelly's statement in the debate don't square with the facts as they are currently known.
--Josh Marshall
This Times Herald article on the Weldon investigation says (emphasis added) ...
After the Los Angeles Times first reported in 2004 on Weldon's ties to Solutions clients, the congressman voluntarily provided the House Ethics Committee with the relevant documentation. He has refused to share that documentation with the Daily Times.Weldon said Monday that the committee asked some follow-questions and eventually gave him a "written letter closing the case." Asked if the letter cleared him of the current allegations, he responded: "I didn't say clearing, I said closing the case. I'll use their exact terminology."
Weldon said he spoke to committee Chairman Doc Hastings on Sunday and Hastings said he "was not aware of any contact between the ethics committee and the Justice Department."
So where's the letter? Will Weldon release it?
--Josh Marshall
The big winner in yesterday's Lamont-Lieberman debate? Apparently, Alan Schlesinger.
Feel the Schlesingermentum.
--Josh Marshall
They're not going down without a fight, no sir. Republicans hold the fundraising edge over their Democratic challengers in 41 out of the 60 most competitive House races.
--Paul Kiel
Remember the House intelligence committee's investigation into the bribe-taking former lawmaker, Duke Cunningham? The panel finished its inquiry this summer, but sat on the results.
Today, the top Democrat, Rep. Jane Harman (CA), released the executive summary. Check it out.
--Justin Rood
Sue, is that your final answer?
We referenced Rep. Sue Kelly's blow-up at a editorial board debate in the district yesterday.
But look at this quote from Kelly in defending her tenure as chair of the Page Board between 1999 and 2001.
I was on the page board in 1999 and 2000. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that anything at all went on with the pages at that time. And as a matter of fact the evidence shows that mr. foley apparently began this in 2001 when I was no longer on the board.
Two points jump out at me here. One is that Kelly's claim seems demonstrably false, in as much as she's claiming that Mark Foley didn't get into the page biz until 2001. But I believe there are reported instances of pages being warned about Foley prior to 2001, getting chatted up by Foley prior to 2001 and possibly even having sex with Foley prior to 2001.
Did all of this really disappear during the two year window of Kelly's chairpersonship? It was known before. It was known after. Nothing ever came up during her time?
If you know of examples, let us know.
--Josh Marshall
TPM Reader AM asks ...
Does someone at the AP have it out for Harry Reid? Seems like they are pushing minor rule misinterpretations up to full scandal type stories. Is there a central figure behind this?
In a word, yes.
AP reporter John Solomon. We reported on this fairly extensively when Solomon first got cranking on this in June.
I know a number of people who know or have worked for Solomon. And I've never gotten the impression that Solomon has any political or ideological ax to grind. His rep is as an easy mark for oppo researchers peddling their wares -- and from both sides.
Here's what one former colleague of Solomon's said last week: "I worked [X] years in the same office as Solomon, sometimes with him. The consensus: he's lazy, and takes hit jobs handed him on a platter by opps research teams (and anyone will do.) And doesn't do much to clean it up. I also know one of his fave and frequent sources is Barbara Comstock, former DOJ spxwoman and GOP attack dog."
I've heard the same from numerous oppo researchers and journalists. (Here are some thoughts on legitimate and illegitimate ways journalists use material from oppo researchers.)
If you're interested in finding out more about this, you might also look at this 2004 article in The Atlantic Monthly about how oppo researchers get their goods into articles. Look at the articles referenced and then go back and see the bylines.
On Reid, I think it's a combination of two things. One, as I said, he's an easy mark for oppo researchers peddling stuff that other journos didn't think met the laugh test. And two, he hasn't really landed a punch yet and Reid's fought back. So now it's a bit personal.
--Josh Marshall
Question of the Day: Why are Bush and Rove so confident about November 7th? We're discussing it in this thread.
Late Update: My vote? Falling for your own spin. So a mix of denial and bluff.
--Josh Marshall
Rep. John Doolittle (R-CA) is well on his way up the Kiel-Rood scale of corruption grief or whatever you want to call it (we call it the TPMmuckraker Political Scandal Process).... He says he's not a target of the investigation.
--Paul Kiel
A reader passes on word that just moments ago on MSNBC, they did a spot on congressional 'ethics' which compared the non-story John Solomon is pushing with Harry Reid to the criminal investigation of Curt Weldon and his allegedly corrupt dealings with Russian oil and arms conglomerates.
Balance.
--Josh Marshall
Watch endangered Rep. Sue Kelly (R-NY) go postal in a debate at the ed. board of the local paper when her opponent brings up Foleygate (Kelly sat on the Page Board from 1999-2001).
Kelly also, improbably, claims there is no evidence that Foley was on the prowl between 1999 and 2001 when she was a member the chair of the Page Board. I think we pretty much know that's false, right?
Click the image to see the video. Click here for the transcript of the piece de postalstance.
--Josh Marshall
NRCC pulling the plug on the challenger to Rep. Chet Edwards (D) down in Texas.
--Josh Marshall
TPM Reader PT on the Five Stages of Republican Scandal ...
5 stages of Republican scandal:
1. “I have not been informed of any investigation or that I am a target”
2. “I am cooperating fully, but this whole thing is a political ploy by the Democrats”
3. “I’m SHOCKED by the mistakes made by my subordinates”
4. “I’m deeply sorry for letting down my friends and family. I now recognize that I am an alcoholic. I will be entering rehab immediately, so I have no time for questions”
5. “Can I serve my time at Eglin Federal Penitentiary (aka Club Fed)?”
Elisabeth Kubler-Ross would roll over in her grave.
--Josh Marshall
When word leaked on Friday that Curt Weldon, his daughter and his top political supporter were the subject of a DOJ investigation, his campaign insisted none of it was true. That became a bit harder yesterday when FBI agents raided multiple locations in Pennsylvania and Florida as part of the investigation. But you've got to see this interview Weldon gave (I think yesterday) in which he explains how all his troubles are the product of a conspiracy between Sandy Berger, Jamie Gorelick, possibly Bill Clinton and especially Melanie Sloan of CREW. It's really must-see Youtube.
--Josh Marshall
Is this what got national Republicans to pull the plug? Quinnipiac has Sherrod Brown up by 12 over Mike DeWine in Ohio.
--Josh Marshall
Remember coingate? Well, Ohio voters won't have much of a chance to forget -- the trial of alleged coin fund embezzler and GOP big wig Tom Noe started yesterday... and will likely go through Election Day. That and other news of the day in today's Daily Muck.
--Paul Kiel
Weldon, from the Post ...
A grand jury, impaneled in Washington in May, has obtained evidence gathered over at least four months through wiretaps of Washington area cellphone numbers and has scrutinized whether Weldon received anything of value, according to the sources. They spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the investigation.
Ongoing.
--Josh Marshall
Doolittle, from the Sacramento Bee ...
Rep. John Doolittle acknowledged Monday that his lawyer, whom he has paid more than $38,000 in the last two months, is talking with the Justice Department about the congressman's relationship with disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
Ongoing.
--Josh Marshall
Rep. Curt Weldon's (R-PA) new, improved left-wing conspiracy theory. Now featuring Bill Clinton, Sandy Berger, and the DCCC. While supplies last.
--Justin Rood
Huh. Sounds like a campaign brimming with confidence ...
TPM Reader DD pointed me to this post that explains that notes that Rep. Richard Pombo (R-CA) has just launched a new campaign website with a blog (click one of the 'blog' banners to visit the blog).
Only, you can't read it.
Or maybe you can, but I can't.
Apparently you have to be invited by the Pombo campaign to be able to read the Pombo campaign blog.
I signed up for an account with WordPress, as the instructions tell you to do. But I was told "You’re logged in, but don’t have access to this blog. You may contact the blog administrator to gain access."
Is anyone out there among the elect? The few, the proud, those allowed to read the Pombo blog?
--Josh Marshall
Former Bush FDA Chief charged with making false statements.
Update: Actually, Former FDA Commissioner Lester Crawford will plead guilty tomorrow to making false statements and having a conflict of interest while he headed the agency. Details and charging documents here.
--Josh Marshall
Excuses, excuses. Are you a Republican who wants to cancel an upcoming fundraiser with Denny Hastert or Tom Reynolds? See how it's done.
--Paul Kiel
I notice that Rep. Pombo's (R-CA) ties to Jack Abramoff seem to be coming up again. So I thought I'd remind everyone that in the cache of Abramoff skybox emails we published last year, Rep. Pombo's staffers showed up more frequently than anyone else.
--Josh Marshall
TPM Reader SJ checks in from West Virginia 2 ...
My congressional district WV-02 is suddenly looking a whole lot less secure for the Republican incumbent, Shelley Moore Capito. The RNCC did a poll in mid-July (around the time of a Bush fund-raiser) but there's been no public polls for this race.Reading the tea leaves, this is a sleeper race that is more competitive than generally given credit.
Most Telling
1) I was polled by Venture Data a week ago (Monday, October 9) prior to the first candidate debate (10/11). The poll bordered on a push poll when it tested out several lines of attack on the challenger (Mike Callaghan). After testing out those attacks it inquired about the impact of the Foley scandal. It was obviously a Republican funding poll. Their biggest fear: Foley keeps Republicans home.
2) The next day, Capito rolled out her first ads directly attacking Callaghan. An incumbent in a safe seat never mentions their opponent by name. For her to go on the direct attack means the polls must not have looked so good.
3) Later in the week the RNCC disclosed funding for THE TARRANCE GROUP, 10/12/2006, $8,235, for a PRO-Capito survey. This is perhaps a different poll to test the impact of the attack ads and the first debate.
Who else is in WV2?
--Josh Marshall
A short on Brown v. DeWine. When we say that the RNC has written off Sen. DeWine (R) in Ohio, no one should take that to mean that the race is over. Political committees have to make tough calls about how to distribute limited financial resources in these final weeks. The GOP's decision not to invest any more money in DeWine tells you that they're not confident more money will help at this point and they're redirecting that cash toward races they believe they can still salvage. That's not, however, the same as saying the race is over. It's not.
--Josh Marshall
Another race we're watching very closely: NJ 7, an old favorite, Ferguson (R) v. Stender (D). Are you in the 7th? Let us know.
--Josh Marshall
This morning, federal agents raided the home of Rep. Curt Weldon's (R-PA) daughter. Is he next up?
--Paul Kiel
Department of amazing coincidences: Saddam verdict to be read out on November 5th.
--Josh Marshall
Radioactivity Watch: Hastert fundraiser postponed in NJ 5.
Update: They say that the event has only been postponed for now, not cancelled. We shall see.
--Josh Marshall
RNC chief Ken Mehlman revises his personal history with Jack Abramoff. That and other news of the day in today's Daily Muck.
--Justin Rood
In Monday's paper the Times gives a relatively detailed run-down of the GOP's decision-making on which races to write off and which to pour money into in the final three weeks of the campaign. The topline is that the national party has decided not to spend any more money on Mike DeWine in Ohio. In addition to DeWine, they are expecting Santorum, Burns and Chafee also to go down to defeat. If those assumptions are right, that leaves Democrats needing two more pick-ups to take control of the senate, with Missouri, Tennessee and Virginia, probably in that order, being the most likely places to get them. (Of course, that's assuming that Bob Menendez doesn't lose in New Jersey. That seems more likely than not; but it's certainly not a sure thing.)
That's the GOP's side of the equation. How about the Democrats? As we noted a few days ago, since September 29th, a whole swath of Republican seats have started trending in the Democrats' direction. And one big question over the next twenty days is whether Democrats will be able to get money into that batch of races which looked safely Republican a month ago but now look up for grabs or at least in contention.
Here's a passage from Charlie Cook's latest overview of the campaign ...
On a conference call today, James Carville suggested that the Democratic Party should expand beyond just the top targeted races. He believes the party should help fund previously ignored Democratic challengers in second- and third-tier districts--the next 30 to 50 Republican-held seats--to fully capitalize on this environment and help those candidates maximize their chances of winning. Carville went as far as to suggest Democrats go to the bank and borrow $5 million. If I were them, I'd make it $10 million and put $500,000 each of these 20 districts.
This is a nice problem to have. But it's still a problem. Normally at this phase of the cycle you're triaging races, pulling the plug on ones that didn't pan out and focusing money on races where wins still seem possible. But the playing field only seems to be expanding.
Do the Dems' have the money on hand to fully exploit the situation? I don't really know the answer. I don't follow the money ins-and-outs closely enough.
But what I do want to do over the next two weeks is focus in on this new group of races moving into the competitive category. I'm not a vet like Cook. But I've been covering elections long enough to know that in every cycle there are bunch of campaigns out there yammering on about how they're really in a winnable race and that they could win if only this or that party committee realize how close they and give them some money. This time, though, some of them, and possibly a lot of them, are going to be right.
But which ones?
In no particular order, but just races that I've got my eye on this week ...
New York 20: Sweeney (R) v. Gillibrand (D)
Ohio 2: Schmidt (R) v. Wulshin (D)
CA 11: Pombo (R) v. McNerney (D)
WA 8: Reichert (R) v. Burner (D)
CO 4: Musgrave (R) v. Paccione (D)
NY 19: Kelly (R) v. Hall (D)
You're out there on the ground. What are you seeing? What I'm interested in here are not the races where Democratic challengers now seem likely to win. I'm also not looking for those that still look like a longshot. I'm trying to put together a list of those which looked like a longshot six weeks ago but now seem possible, ones where the Republican incumbent is still clearly favored but perhaps not for long.
I'd like to put this question out there for observers and activists in the district and also the folks in the party committees, 527s, et al. Needless to say, if you're dishing some inside knowledge, your identity and specifics of what you tell us will be held in the strictest confidence.
And one other thing. At this point in the campaign ads get run or yanked at lightning speed. They may come from the candidates, the party committees, independent expenditure groups, etc. When you see a new ad running in your state or district, particularly if there's something new about it or you see it running a lot, let us know. What's the ad say? Who's identified as the advertising party? How heavy does the rotation seem? If you can record it and send us a clip, even better.
We do a lot of traditional reporting here at TPM and we keep an eye on the money drops as reported in the public filings. But our real advantage at TPM, in terms of keeping our reporting ahead of the pack, is our engaged readership. Tell us what you're seeing. Let us know the details. We read all your emails and they're critical in helping us cover this race.
--Josh Marshall
There's been a lot of chatter in the last couple weeks about which House races the GOP may now have written off entirely. I'd heard that about the Hostettler race in Indiana 8. And this may be why. A new poll commissioned by the Evansville Courier & Press has Democratic challenger Brad Ellsworth with 55% support versus Hostettler's 32%.
--Josh Marshall
I mentioned today's LA Times article on Ken Mehlman's alleged role in firing a State Department official who was taking positions adverse to Jack Abramoff's client, the government of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.
Mehlman was asked about the LAT story in his appearance today on CNN. It is a model of saying nothing while seeming to deny everything, yet still managing to stick a few shivs in your opponents, so I'm going to post the entire exchange:
BLITZER: There's a story in the Los Angeles Times today that directly involves you. And I want to give you a chance to respond to it.It suggests that an official at the State Department was fired, a man named Allen Stayman, who was involved in the tiny Pacific Island nations of the Northern Mariana Islands. He was fired because Jack Abramoff, the disgraced Republican lobbyist, now confessed felon, came to you and basically said, fire this guy; he's not allowing the policies in the Northern Mariana Islands that Abramoff and his clients wanted.
"Newly disclosed e-mails," the L.A. Times reports, "suggest that the ax feel after intervention by one of the highest officials at the White House: Ken Mehlman, on behalf of one of the most influential lobbyists in town, Jack Abramoff."
You were then the political director.
MEHLMAN: I was.
BLITZER: Is that true?
MEHLMAN: It is not true. And I'm not sure that those e-mails suggested that. First of all, I did not have the authority, as the political director, to fire anybody. It wasn't my decision.
As political director -- now second of all, I also don't recall the specifics of this matter involving Mr. Stayman. But as a matter of course, and certainly the first term, I had, frequently, people come to see me with political issues they wanted talked about.
BLITZER: Including Jack Abramoff?
MEHLMAN: Or personnel issues that they wanted talked about. And when they would come see me, what I would do...
BLITZER: Jack Abramoff, also?
MEHLMAN: Again, I don't recall that specific matter that he came to me for, but I had a way of dealing with all these matters, which is to let the policy-makers or the personnel deciders know exactly what people said. And they made the decisions.
What's interesting about this, though, Wolf, while I don't recall it specifically, I have seen some articles since then, since this came out. And what they suggest is that Mr. Stayman violated the Hatch Act, which is a federal law that prohibits employees of the government engaging in politics on their official clock.
And it also suggests he may have been working with the DNC on some things. So while I certainly didn't have the authority to fire anybody and I don't recall this specific matter, it does appear, from what other news reports indicate that there was apparently cause for Mr. Stayman to be removed.
BLITZER: Because, in the L.A. Times, it quotes an e-mail from one of Abramoff's associates, as saying, "Mehlman said he would get him fired.
MEHLMAN: Yes, Mehlman didn't have that authority. Mehlman wouldn't say he had that authority. And remember, you're dealing with individuals who, as we know, have pled guilty to defrauding their clients by saying they did things they weren't able to get done.
My job as a political director, and any job as a political director, is to hear from people, whether it's about personnel or about policy, and make sure that the policy-makers understand their concerns.
Three Ken Mehlman posts in one day. I feel like the poor guy with the shovel following the elephant.
--David Kurtz
Ken Mehlman, defending the GOP handling of the Foley scandal, today on CNN:
The fact is the speaker and our leadership could not have been more aggressive. The moment they found out about this, they gave Mark Foley the political death penalty.They said, get out of Congress or we're going to throw you out. They called in the FBI and the Department of Justice to investigate.
He just makes this stuff up, doesn't he? Sits in on a conference call sometime Saturday evening with other clever guys and gals and just starts pulling responses to the expected Sunday morning questions out of the air.
Recall that Speaker Hastert has already admitted that Foley was gone so fast they didn't have time to tell him to resign. They never told Foley, Quit or we're going to kick you out. Simply never happened. It was Nancy Pelosi who first moved to refer the matter to the Ethics Committee, not any GOP leader. So I don't know what exactly Mehlman considers to have been "aggressive" action by the House leadership because in fact they took no unprompted action.
Recall, too, that Hastert's letter to the Attorney General requesting an investigation came after Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) had already publicly called for an federal investigation earlier that same day.
Like I said, Mehlman just makes this stuff up.
--David Kurtz
The rivalry between the camps of Bush 41 and Bush 43 were on full display at the recent christening of the aircraft carrier George H.W. Bush, according to Tom DeFrank:
For five years, the 41s have bit their collective tongues as, they complain, the 43s ignored their counsel. But as the war in Iraq has worsened and public support for the current administration has tanked, loyalists of the elder Bush have found it impossible to suppress their disillusionment - particularly their belief that many of 43's policies are a stick in the eye of his father.. . .
"Forty-three has now repudiated everything 41 stands for, and still he won't say a word," a key member of the elder Bush alumni said. "Personally, I think he's dying inside."
. . .
"Everyone knew how Rumsfeld acts," another key 41 assistant said. "Everyone knew 43 didn't have an attention span. Everyone knew Condi [Rice] wouldn't be able to stand up to Cheney and Rumsfeld. We told them all of this, and we were told we don't know what we're doing."
On one level, I find all of this fascinating (perhaps best captured by the Dana Carvey skit from a few years ago in which, if I remember correctly, Carvey's 41 takes 43 hunting and debates whether to shoot 43 for the good of the country).
On the other hand, 41's cohort could have done so much more to sound the alarm and prevent the terrible slide the country has taken under 43. If Jim Baker's return is a sign that the adults are back, then where the hell have they been?
--David Kurtz
Reed Hundt compares the number of Iraqi deaths since the U.S. invasion to the casualty figures in our own Civil War.
--David Kurtz
At the risk of being mocked for my naivete, let me say that I was under the impression that U.S. air strikes in Iraq had dwindled to only very occasional, discreet sorties months if not years ago. Fighting an insurgency with air strikes is like performing heart surgery with a chain saw. Apparently, though, that's exactly what we are doing.
Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff, hinted at ongoing air strikes this week when he told a group of military reporters that in a war with North Korea the United States would be hampered by the fact that so many guidance and intelligence assets are in use in the Middle East. As reported by the LA Times:
Pace said a conflict with North Korea, which both he and President Bush have said is highly unlikely, would rely heavily on the Navy and Air Force because of the significant deployment of land forces in Iraq. In addition, such an attack would not be "as clean as we would like," he said, because guidance systems used to aim bombs were in use in the Middle East."You wouldn't have the precision in combat going to a second theater of war that you would if you were only going to the first theater of war," Pace told a group of military reporters. "You end up dropping more bombs potentially to get the job done, and it would mean more brute force."
Although Pace did not name specific guidance and intelligence systems, Air Force officers have said they do not have surveillance aircraft such as Global Hawk and Predator reconnaissance drones available for East Asia because of their heavy use in Iraq and Afghanistan. The unmanned aircraft are used to spy on enemy territory.
Such recon assets are not used solely for air strikes; they support ground forces, too. But the report last week in the Lancet on the estimated number of Iraqi casualties (an astonishing 655,000 souls) also suggests ongoing aerial bombardment. Crooked Timber crunches the numbers (h/t to Ygelsias):
One number that is striking, but hasn’t attracted a lot of attention is the estimated death rate from air strikes, 13 per cent of the total or between 50,000 and 100,000 people. Around half the estimated deaths in the last year of the survey, from June 2005 to June 2006. That’s at least 25,000 deaths, or more than 70 per day.Yet reports of such deaths are very rare. If you relied on media reports you could easily conclude that total deaths from air strikes would only be a few thousand for the entire war. . . .
The best source turns out to be the US Air Force Command itself. For October and November 2005, the US Air Force recorded 120 or more air strikes, and this number was on an increasing trend. Most of the strikes appear to be in or near urban areas, and the recorded examples include Hellfire missiles fired by Predators, an F-16 firing a thousand 20mm cannon rounds and an F-15 reported to have fired three GBU-38s, the new satellite-guided 500-pound bomb designed for support of ground troops in close combat. . . .
This sort of reliance on air strikes to combat the insurgency (which is becoming supplanted by sectarian violence, which our forces may or may not be in a position to distinguish) is a classic example of tactics divorced from strategy.
My own sense for some time has been that our inability to secure the peace--largely the result of our inadequate force size--has been the biggest obstacle to a political solution in Iraq. Obviously, many other factors come into play, and even achieving security, especially at this late date, does not ensure that a political solution is achieved. But persistent violence, and protecting oneself from it, has a way of trumping all other consideration for a civilian populace. If what we are doing in Iraq militarily still involves heavy use of air strikes, then we are a major source and cause of that violence to an even greater extent than I had imagined, and in a random and indiscriminate way which undermines anything we try to accomplish in Iraq politically.
--David Kurtz
In-depth profile of Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) in today's Lexington Herald-Leader, a taste of what we have to look forward to if the GOP retains control of the Senate and if, as expected, McConnell becomes the new majority leader:
In the early 1970s, Addison Mitchell McConnell Jr., a young and intense Republican lawyer, strode into the political science class he taught at the University of Louisville.He didn't introduce himself to his students. He went straight to the chalkboard and scribbled.
"I am going to teach you the three things you need to build a political party," he said, and backed away to reveal the words: "Money, money, money."
. . .
"He's completely dogged in his pursuit of money. That's his great love, above everything else," said Marshall Whitman, who watched McConnell as an aide to Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and as a Christian Coalition lobbyist.
. . .
Some senators shy away from fund-raising duties because of ethical concerns. Top donors tell senators what they want from upcoming votes, and top donors get special treatment, said retired Sen. Alan Simpson, R-Wyo. Their calls to Senate offices are returned first, Simpson said, and their wishes are a priority when action is taken.
"I didn't enjoy it at all," Simpson said. "I just felt uncomfortable."
Yet McConnell never blinks, Simpson said.
"When he asked for money, his eyes would shine like diamonds," Simpson said. "He obviously loved it."
Not a flattering profile.
--David Kurtz
Didn't President Bush, in a much ballyhoed press conference in September, declare that the CIA's secret prisoners were being transferred to Gitmo for trial by military tribunals? That is what he said, right?
So what's this about?
A suspected al Qaeda leader, accused of being involved in September 11 and planning the 2004 Madrid train bombings, has been imprisoned in a secret U.S. jail for the past year, Spain's El Pais newspaper reported on Sunday.Mustafa Setmarian, 48, a Syrian with Spanish citizenship, was captured in Pakistan in October 2005 and is held in a prison operated by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, Pakistani and European security service officials told El Pais.
A spokesman for the U.S. embassy in Spain declined to comment on the report.
Setmarian's 2005 capture was reported in May of this year after the United States put a $5 million bounty on the head of the alleged founder of al Qaeda's Spanish network.
A photograph of the red-haired Setmarian has been removed from the U.S. Federal Bureau of Intelligence's most-wanted Web page.
Not that making it to Gitmo guarantees any sort of due process, as this NYT piece today makes clear:
Mr. Ginco, a college student living in the United Arab Emirates, had gone to Afghanistan in 2000 after running away from his strict Muslim father. He was soon imprisoned by the Taliban, and tortured by operatives of Al Qaeda until, he said, he falsely confessed to being a spy for Israel and the United States.But rather than help Mr. Ginco return home, American soldiers detained him again. Nearly five years later, he remains in the United States military prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba — in part, it appears, on the strength of a propaganda videotape made by his torturers.
Sigh.
--David Kurtz
We've been beaten up pretty good around here at TPM for what some perceive as our insufficient levels of enthusiasm for Ned Lamont and of loathing for Joe Lieberman.
I won't speak for Josh, but my second biggest dread about the November election (the biggest being the GOP retaining both chambers) is that control of the Senate comes down to Lieberman--and he defects to the GOP.
Now you may think that's because legions of Lamontites--and several personal friends--will have my neck if that happens. And it's true that I don't relish the I told you so's. But the prospect of Joe Lieberman continuing to play a central role in our national politics after what he has said and done in this campaign fills me with a worse dread than simply having been wrong about Joe staying with the Dems.
Here's Joe's latest weasel:
Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, a lifelong Democrat and student of politics, blanked when asked if America would be better off with his party regaining control of the U.S. House of Representatives.A Democratic victory would immeasurably boost the influence of two Connecticut friends, U.S. Reps. Rosa L. DeLauro and John B. Larson, and provide a counterbalance to the Republican Senate and White House.
"Uh, I haven't thought about that enough to give an answer," Lieberman said, as though Democrats' strong prospects for recapturing the House hadn't been the fall's top political story.
He was similarly elusive about the race for governor. Is he voting for John DeStefano Jr., a Democrat and mayor of the city where Lieberman has lived since the 1960s?
"I'm, uh, I'm having," he stammered, then laughed and said his decision would remain private.
Joe, Joe, Joe . . . more here.
--David Kurtz
The LA Times interviews former White House political director and current GOP national chairman Ken Mehlman on his role in the Abramoff scandal:
"I was a gateway," Mehlman said in an interview. "It was my job to talk to political supporters, to hear their requests, and hand them on to policymakers."Mehlman said he had known Abramoff since the mid-1990s and would listen to his requests along with those of other influential Republicans.
"I know Jack," Mehlman said. "I certainly recall that if he and others wanted to meet I would have met with them, as I would have met with lots of people."
Contrast that with Mehlman's "Jack who?" defense earlier this year in Vanity Fair: "Abramoff is someone who we don't know a lot about. We know what we read in the paper."
Remember the good old days when someone like Mehlman could get busted for such a baldfaced lie and there would be serious adverse consequences, personally and politically?
--David Kurtz
