I have another take on Rudy's speech taking on the 'orthodoxies' of the Republican party.
In our society, at least in most of it, the word 'orthodoxy' comes with at least a loose negative connotation. We're open-minded, tolerant people. So to call one of a political party's bedrock issues an 'orthodoxy', as the Times does here, is at least to slightly prejudice the question.
As Steve notes, Giuliani's choice of Houston is meant to echo John Kennedy's speech addressing the issue of his Catholicism to southern Baptists.
But why do Republicans need to give up these 'orthodoxies'? By and large I agree with Rudy on abortion, gay rights and gun control. But a lot of people get into politics precisely to take the opposing positions. Why shouldn't they organize their voting around these issues that mean so much to them?
It reminds me of the predictable as the seasons articles you'll read every few years in the Post and other papers asking whether Democrats are going to give up their hidebound orthodoxies of supporting Social Security or the progressive income tax or civil rights. For many of us those are precisely the reasons we're involved in politics, so why should we give them up because some frivolous oped writer who doesn't know the first thing about public policy thinks it's the hip new thing to do?
How many Democrats would support a flat-tax, pro-privatization, anti-gay rights candidate for president? And why should they? Washington's beautiful people, the froth at the top of the politico-cultural mug, look down on everybody, right and left, who's really committed politically. It's a mild embarrassment, like loud clothes or poor table manners.
--Josh Marshall
Giuliani takes on GOP orthodoxy
The obvious comparison to Rudy Giuliani's speech at Houston Baptist College is JFK's 1960 speech to Greater Houston Ministerial Association, at which the then-senator articulated his support for the separation of church and state. There is, however, a key difference.
Rudolph W. Giuliani directly challenged Republican orthodoxy on Friday, asserting that his support for abortion rights, gun control and gay rights should not disqualify him from winning the party's presidential nomination.
He said that Republicans needed to be tolerant of dissenting views on those issues if they wanted to retain the White House.
In a forceful summation of the substantive and political case for his candidacy, delivered to a conservative audience at Houston Baptist College, Mr. Giuliani, the former mayor of New York, acknowledged that his views on social issues were out of line with those of many Republican primary voters. But he argued that there were even greater matters at stake in the election, starting with which party would better protect the nation from terrorism.
The comparison to the JFK speech is intentional and has been picked up by the media. But the connection doesn't hold up -- JFK effectively told the Greater Houston Ministerial Association, "We're together on the issues, but you need to get over my Catholicism." Giuliani effectively told the Houston Baptist College, "We're not together on the issues, but I'm strong on national security. 9/11, 9/11, 9/11."
To be sure, admitting that he's a full-blown, regular ol' pro-choice Republican is definitely the right call for Giuliani. After donating repeatedly to Planned Parenthood, opposing the GOP's proposed ban on so-called "partial-birth" abortions, backing public funding of abortions, and accepting an award from NARAL, Giuliani's drive to "moderate" his position was transparently ridiculous. He could have followed Romney and gone for the wholesale flip-flop, but Giuliani knew no one would buy it. He's left with only one option -- grudgingly admitting reality, which he did yesterday.
But Giuliani's argument quickly falls apart anyway -- not just because the GOP base isn't willing to back a pro-choice candidate, but also because Giuliani doesn't actually know anything about national security and foreign policy.
Just in the past few weeks, Giuliani has shown that he doesn't know the difference between Iran's and North Korea's nuclear programs, and has no idea whether Iran and al Qaeda are Sunni or Shia. Asked recently for his thoughts on the efficacy of the president's escalation strategy in Iraq, Giuliani said, "I don't know the answer to that."
As National Review's Rich Lowry recently noted, when Giuliani responds to voters' questions, "his answers on foreign policy and military affairs aren't deeply informed."
So Giuliani is left with an awkward pitch: vote for the guy who disagrees with the party's base on all the key issues and overlook the fact that he doesn't know much of anything about his signature issue.
How he plans to pull this off, I have no idea. By comparison, JFK had it easy.
--Steve Benen
McHenry's alleged voter fraud
When it comes to the "voter fraud" cases that Karl Rove and the Bush White House care about, practically all of them are trumped up nonsense -- little more than veiled attempts to disenfranchise suspected Democrats.
This is not to say that voter fraud doesn't occur; it's just not the kind of crime that Rove is looking for.
The CBS News Investigative Unit has learned a man who was a field coordinator in Congressman Patrick McHenry's (R-NC) 2004 campaign has been indicted for voter fraud in North Carolina.
The indictment charges that Michael Aaron Lay, 26, illegally cast his ballot in two 2004 Congressional primary run-offs in which McHenry was a candidate. The charges indicate that Lay voted in a district where it was not legal for him to vote.
At the time Lay was listed as a resident in a home owned by 32-year-old McHenry but campaign records indicate Lay's paychecks were sent to an address in Tennessee. McHenry won the primary by only 86 votes. According to Gaston County, North Carolina District Attorney Locke Bell, Lay was indicted on Monday, May 7 by a local grand jury.
CBS News has learned that these charges were first investigated by the North Carolina State Board of Elections up to two years ago. The results were forwarded to the previous Gaston County District Attorney Mike Lands. In January, Bell was elected the new district attorney for the county and pursued the indictment.
Of course, this isn't the kind of case that would be of interest to the Justice Department. McHenry is a loyal Bushie.
--Steve Benen
Purdue explains the war
Words of wisdom from part of the 28% of Americans who believe the president is doing a great job.
Gov. Sonny Perdue just finished up his talk-radio session with former U.S. secretary of education Bill Bennett on WGKA (920AM), held at the state Capitol.
On his "Morning in America" show, Bennett mentioned that Perdue has been talked about as vice-presidential fodder in '08, and asked if the governor agreed with other Republicans who think it might be time to put some air between themselves and President Bush -- specifically on the topic of Iraq.
Perdue said he did not. In fact, in Spiro Agnew-like fashion, the governor encouraged nattering nabobs of negatism to put a lid on the loose talk.
Perdue acknowledged that the going in Iraq has been tough. But, he said, "until you've got a better idea, keep your mouth shut."
"This president did not choose war. He chose to protect the United States of America, and I'm thankful that he did," Perdue said.
Who can argue with logic like that? Never mind that period of time -- I think it was called 2002 and 2003 -- when the president chose to go war. Sonny Purdue, like other Bush friends who create their own reality, remembers things differently, and approves of how everything turned out.
--Steve Benen
McCain's staffing changes
As a rule, presidential campaigns with a lot of turnover aren't firing on all cylinders.
Jim Martin, who for months had served as Sen. John McCain's New Hampshire state director, has left the campaign "effective immediately," according to an email sent to campaign staffers from Rob Jesmer, McCain's National Political Director, [Friday] afternoon.
Asked why Martin was departing, McCain communications director Brian Jones said that, "in order for the campaign to be successful in the state we thought it was necessary to move in a different direction."
This comes less than a week after Michael P. Dennehy, McCain's national political director, stepped down from his job, saying he wants to spend more time with his family. For that matter, in late April, McCain replaced his longtime finance director and one of his liaisons to the religious right movement.
I can only imagine what the campaign's internal polls are saying right now.
There's more on this and other campaign-related stories in the Election Central Saturday Roundup.
--Steve Benen
Calvert under fire
When it comes to the GOP's culture of corruption, even the loyal GOP base has a breaking point.
When Rep. John Doolittle (R-Calif.) was forced to give up his seat on the powerful House Appropriations Committee due to an acute case of Abramoff-itis, the GOP leadership had a chance to set things right by replacing him with a respected lawmaker of unimpeachable integrity. Instead the leadership tapped Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Calif.), who was himself recently named one of Congress' most corrupt lawmakers.
Calvert, of course, is the subject on an ongoing FBI probe of his own. As CREW's Melanie Sloan asked, "Why would the minority choose to replace one member under federal investigation with another member also under federal investigation?"
Some conservatives are starting to ask the same question. RedState, one of the leading far-right blogs, ran an item yesterday under the headline, "An Open Declaration of War Against The House Republican Leadership." RedState recounts Calvert's many alleged misdeeds, concluding that the "House Republican Leadership just does not get it." A variety of conservative blogs endorsed the challenge.
Blogs on the right aren't the only ones concerned.
The House Republican Conference Thursday ratified Calvert as its choice to replace Rep. John Doolittle (R-Calif.) on Appropriations, even though the lawmaker faced stiff opposition from conference members concerned that ethics allegations against him could hurt the party.
RedState's Erick Erickson added, "Leadership may be pleased with themselves, but I've heard from more than two dozen Republicans on the Hill thanking me for speaking out against Calvert's appointment.... That tells me Leadership is not in line with those it represents."
After all the scandals and corruption-related difficulties the GOP leadership has experienced the past few years, you'd think they'd eventually learn a few lessons. Especially after having lost both chambers of Congress, top Republican lawmakers should use this opportunity to clean up their self-created mess and start demonstrating to voters that they care about ethics and integrity in government.
That, of course, would take maturity and some common sense. The Republican leadership apparently has neither.
--Steve Benen
Media on VonSprecken story
If a Republican presidential candidate snubs some working-class farmers, and the media doesn't report it, does it really make a sound?
When Greg Sargent first noted on Thursday that Rudy Giuliani's campaign cancelled an event at Deb and Jerry VonSprecken's family farm because they're not millionaires, he asked in his first paragraph, "[W]ill the haircut-obsessed political media cover it?"
I've been wondering the same thing. The blogs have been all over this story, and I've heard that John McCain's campaign has been sending information out to its email lists, but how's the coverage been in the traditional media?
Based on searches on Lexis-Nexis and Google News, it seems the political establishment doesn't care. I found one article -- in the Des Moines Register, which presumably appreciated the local angle.
That's it. The story hasn't been mentioned in any of the major dailies, the wires, or on any national TV broadcasts.
C'mon, assignment editors, this is an easy one. It obviously isn't nearly as fascinating as a Democrat getting an expensive haircut, but couldn't CNN send a camera crew to the VonSpreckens' farm?
Ana Marie Cox noted yesterday that Giuliani "could've probably gotten away with tap-dancing his way through the abortion issue, but I somehow don't think any campaign -- R or D -- could weather this." It's actually pretty easy when the media blows it off.
--Steve Benen
'Pretty much' aboveboard
When a lawmaker is accused of corruption, and he or she is prepared to pronounce their innocence, they should generally avoid huge caveats. It appears Rep. Paul Gillmor (R-Ohio) hasn't quite learned the tricks of the trade.
As Al Kamen reported, Gillmor has a luxurious new home, alongside a golf course designed by Arnold Palmer, in suburban Columbus, Ohio. It's not Gillmor's official residence, however, because it's not in his congressional district.
Curiously, Gillmor pays the mortgage and taxes on the $1 million house, but the home isn't in the congressman's name, which appears nowhere on the property records. This gets a little tricky, but the house is apparently owned by trading company, Zenith Holding & Trading Corp, which has contributed to Gillmor's campaigns.
That's when it gets amusing.
Gillmor's office initially declined to confirm the address, saying Capitol Police suggested for security that lawmakers not give out such information, the paper reported.
But Gillmor acknowledged that he retained Zenith to buy the property on his behalf.
"There's nothing unethical or unusual," he told the paper. "It's all pretty much aboveboard." He said the deal was transparent because the Blade was able to trace it back to him, the paper said.
First, just because a newspaper reporter was able to eventually connect the dots doesn't make the deal "transparent."
Second, "pretty much" aboveboard?
--Steve Benen
Is Kasey Warner number 10?
And then there were 10?
A former West Virginia federal prosecutor said Friday the White House fired him in 2005 in the middle of a corruption and vote-buying investigation but never told him why.
Karl K. "Kasey" Warner said he has "concerns" and sees parallels between himself and eight other ousted U.S. attorneys. Congress and an internal Justice Department agency are investigating whether those firings were politically motivated.
Warner told the AP that he refused to resign when the Justice Department asked him to, adding, "Next thing I know, I get a letter from the president's counsel, Harriet Miers, saying I'd been fired, no reason given."
The details on this one are still a little murky, and the AP notes a 2003 controversy in which Warner offered via email to skirt campaign finance law (an offer on which he did not follow through).
So, what was Warner working on in 2005 when he was sacked? According to the AP, he won't comment on whether he was pressured by higher-ups and would not say who was being investigated when he was fired.
We do, however, have a fired U.S. Attorney who was investigating some kind of corruption who sees a parallel between his case and the other purged prosecutors. Developing....
Update: One tidbit the AP article neglected to mention is that James Comey seems to believe Warner deserved to be fired.
--Steve Benen
More from the Times on Monica Goodling's work making sure no one with 'liberal leanings' got jobs at the Department of Justice.
--Josh Marshall
Schlozman to Senate Judiciary Committee: I can't make the hearing next week. I'm on vacation. Let's try again in June.
--Josh Marshall
BREAKING: New charges brought against Cunningham case bigwigs Brent Wilkes and Kyle "Dusty" Foggo.
--Josh Marshall
The saga continues!
You heard Greg Sargent's story about the Iowa farm couple, Jerry and Deb VonSprecken, that Rudy Giuliani snubbed because they ended up not being as rich as his campaign thought.
Now there's more. Today John McCain personally put in a call to the Deb VonSprecken to "apologize on behalf of all politicians" for Rudy's atrocious behavior.
There's more and Greg's got the latest.
--Josh Marshall
Romney Campaign Doc: Mitt's Smokin' and the babes dig'im ...
Also, he's pro-life and way into God.
Possible new Romney slogans.
"MITT! He sure is purrty."
--Josh Marshall
More on CBS News' firing of retired General John Batiste.
We've unearthed yet another CBS News Consultant who's openly and repeatedly advocated in favor of Bush's war policies -- and against those of Congress.
--Greg Sargent
Once a congressional corruption probe gets to the boffo cruise ship pics with women pulling their tops off phase you know the indictments can't be far behind. See the gory details.
--Josh Marshall
Democrats push bill that would force U.S. attorneys to actually live where they are serving as U.S. attorneys.
This would reverse another one of those law changes snuck into the Patriot Act reauthorization bill last year.
--Paul Kiel
Breaking: Mitt Romney neither panders nor flip-flops on an issue important to the religious right.
--Greg Sargent
CBS fired General John Batiste as a consultant because he "advocated" for withdrawal from Iraq in a VoteVets ad.
Yet CBS News Consultant Michael O'Hanlon has repeatedly advocated for the "surge." Has CBS fired O'Hanlon?
--Greg Sargent
Welcome to the new American economy: general consumer activity down, sales at Saks Fifth Avenue up. Jared Bernstein on signs pointing toward recession.
--Andrew Golis
Every one of the 11 GOP "moderates" who privately warned Bush that the public wants out of the war actually voted against the House bill tying war funding to progress in Iraq.
--Greg Sargent
Today's Must Read: More on Karl Rove's push to have voter fraud investigated just before the last election. Did it matter that the allegations were two years old and had already been investigated?
--Paul Kiel
Richard Perle lays into George Tenet on Post OpEd page (appropriate venue). Like a cage match between See No Evil and Evil.
--Josh Marshall
Ahhh, the Fort Dix Six may not quite rise to the level of the take-down of the 'Seeds of David' non-Muslim jihadist goofball cult in Liberty City, Florida last year. But it may not be far off the mark either.
Writing about these domestic terrorism busts is always a delicate task. Living in Manhattan terrorism is not an abstract issue to me. And so long as they are operating within the bounds of the law, I certainly hope the FBI and CIA have their ears and eyes on the look out for the next terror plotters. But the real jokers they actually bust turn out to be such hopeless goofs that it's hard to know whether to feel reassured that if Islamic terrorism is catching on in the US that it's only doing so among the deeply stupid or that these are the only ones our guys can catch.
The Fort Dix Six?
Well, seems they made a jihad training film featuring themselves. But they couldn't figure out how to burn it to a DVD. So they went to a Circuit City and asked the clerk on duty if he could do it for them.
D'oh!
I guess that means these guys probably needed remedial terrorist training.
There also seems to be more than a hint of entrapment in the role the government informant played in helping arrange the planned attack. Back in November one of the plotters called a Philly police officer and told him that he'd been approached by someone [i.e., the government informant] "who was pressuring him to obtain a map of Fort Dix, and that he feared the incident was terrorist-related."
--Josh Marshall
Lots of good fireworks at today's Gonzales hearing. But here's another great scoop out from McClatchy which brings us back to what should be one of the two key focuses of the US Attorney Purge investigation: the White House was using the Department of Justice to suppress Democratic voter turnout in pivotal swing-states in order to preserve Republican control of Washington.
Off the McClatchy wire ...
Only weeks before last year's pivotal midterm elections, the White House urged the Justice Department to pursue voter-fraud allegations against Democrats in three battleground states, a high-ranking Justice official has told congressional investigators.In two instances in October 2006, President Bush's political adviser, Karl Rove, or his deputies passed the allegations on to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' then-chief of staff, Kyle Sampson.
Sampson tapped Gonzales aide Matthew Friedrich, who'd just left his post as chief of staff of the criminal division. In the first case, Friedrich agreed to find out whether Justice officials knew of "rampant" voter fraud or "lax" enforcement in parts of New Mexico, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, and report back.
But Friedrich declined to pursue a related matter from Wisconsin, he told congressional investigators, because an inquiry so close to an election could inappropriately sway voting results. Friedrich decided not to pass the matter on to the criminal division for investigation, even though Sampson gave him a 30-page report prepared by Republican activists that made claims of voting fraud.
Late Thursday night, a Justice Department spokesman disputed McClatchy's characterization, saying that the White House asked for an inquiry, but never ordered an investigation to be opened.
The other point that appears to be being forgotten is the firing of Carol Lam. Lots of important stuff in this scandal. But this is pivotal. It's the big picture that most of the media has never seemed to fully grasp. All the evidence points to the conclusion that she was fired because of the expanded Cunningham investigation. More on that shortly.
--Josh Marshall
Try to imagine the enormous media outcry that would ensue if a Democrat snubbed an Iowa farmer the way the Rudy campaign now has.
--Greg Sargent
Latest from the hearings: Alberto Gonzales explains that the firing list was assembled by consulting senior DOJ officials -- even though those officials apparently weren't told they were being consulted.
--Josh Marshall
A senior Democratic Congressional aide tells us that most conservative House Dems will support the short-term Iraq funding bill being voted on today.
--Greg Sargent
Gonzales comes a tiny bit clean on the McKay firing and reveals that Iglesias was added to the firing list on election day 2006.
--Josh Marshall
Rep. Cannon (R-Time Travel): David Iglesias's failure to report the corrupt practices behind his firing is itself corrupt. So Iglesias deserved to be fired, even if for actions taken after his firing. So it all comes out in the wash. No harm no foul.
--Josh Marshall
New story out from Murray Waas at National Journal:
The Bush administration has withheld a series of e-mails from Congress showing that senior White House and Justice Department officials worked together to conceal the role of Karl Rove in installing Timothy Griffin, a protégé of Rove's, as U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
Here's our analysis of what it all means.
--Paul Kiel
Joe Trippi, the Web guru for John Edwards, blasts Hillary and Obama's Iraq plans as "baloney" and holds forth on the new netroots landscape in a wide-ranging interview with Election Central.
How'd he do?
--Greg Sargent
Gonzales on why White House Counsel Harriet Miers wanted Lewis prosecutor Debra Yang fired: Because she was sensitive to Yang's financial situation and that she wanted a more lucrative job. Said Gonzales: "Ms. Miers may have known about Ms. Yang's concern about being able to remain on the job due to financial reasons."
See the video here.
Needless to say it's always helpful to fire someone when they're looking for more profitable employment.
--Josh Marshall
AG Gonzales explains that he's referred to eight US Attorneys being fired rather than nine because those eight were "part of this process" of firing the eight US Attorneys. So Todd Graves didn't count. Apparently he was a special case.
--Josh Marshall
I am woman, hear me spin!
Up in Minnesota, those four career prosecutors who voluntarily demoted themselves to protest how Rachel Paulose, the fresh-faced, hard-right new U.S. attorney there, was running the office are still unhappy. Now it's about Paulose's not-so-subtle suggestions in the media that the four stepped down because they couldn't deal with having a young, female boss. You can read their letter to her here.
--Paul Kiel
We're covering Alberto Gonzales' hearing today over at TPMmuckraker.
Some early gems:
Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) sets the tone for the hearing.
Gonzales answers a question with ""I think I may be aware of that."
Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) pushes Gonzales to hurry up and indict Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA).
--Paul Kiel
In case you think too many Republicans are getting restive with Bush administration corruption and incompetence, there are still sycophants and lickspittles like Rep. Chris Cannon (R-UT) to carry on the honored tradition. Cannon is on the House Judiciary Committee and says about today's Gonzales hearing “I hope he’s clear, direct and unapologetic. I’m really tired of innuendo and repeated use of the word corruption. If [Democrats] can’t produce tomorrow, the story ought to disappear.”
Then again, Cannon was the employer and key enabler of convicted Abramoff crook David Safavian. So I guess he's not crazy about the word 'corruption.'
--Josh Marshall
Breaking: For the first time, House Dems have scheduled a straight up-or-down vote for today on whether to withdraw from Iraq.
--Greg Sargent
Today's Must Read: Success! Alberto Gonzales says he's "weathered the storm."
--Paul Kiel
New details emerge on Todd Graves' firing. The White House told Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO) that Graves was canned for "performance" reasons. But that's not what DOJ told Graves in his firing call. We've got the scoop at TPMmuckraker.
(ed.note: As I mentioned over the weekend, our new reporter-blogger, Laura McGann, started at TPMmuckraker.com on Monday. And in the post linked above, she was, to the best of my knowledge, the first to report on the firing call Graves received back in January 2006. The Times followed a short time later with more details -- jmm.)
(ed.note: Sticking up for your reporters on the night shift edition: The Times also has an excellent editorial in Thursday's paper on the Graves-Schlozman story. The editorialist notes that in addition to the rest of Schlozman's sundry villainies, "McClatchy Newspapers reported that Mr. Schlozman also has been accused of hiring Justice Department lawyers based on their political party." I would be remiss if I didn't note that Paul Kiel first reported this story two weeks prior to McClatchy's piece. You can see Paul's original piece here -- jmm.)
Late Update: Now there are reports on the story from WaPo and the Post-Dispatch. Beyond the details of Graves' ouster and replacement by Bradley Schlozman, which we've been discussing for several days, there are two key points to focus on here. The first is that the congressional investigation has been going on for some three months. And the Department of Justice has repeatedly stated that eight US Attorneys were fired. That was clearly false. And there's a second point. We now know of several cases in which US Attorneys appeared on DOJ firing lists and then by supposed coincidence just happened to resign. The Graves revelation now puts the weight of evidence strongly in the favor of the conclusion that few if any of these resignations were unforced. No proof yet. But that has to be the assumption.
And there's one more point with respect to tomorrow's testimony by Attorney General Gonzales. There's been a lot of back and forth and speculation about all the faulty memories, the fact that virtually every senior official at DOJ has denied any role in actually choosing the names on the firing list and all the various claims of privilege. At the risk of stating the obvious, this is all of a piece. For three months the White House and the clique around Attorney General Gonzales have been involved in a concerted effort to cover up what happened here. And the intensity of the effort points to how bad the real story is. This has been obvious to anyone who has been following this story closely since January. But the fact that the DOJ has been collectively lying about the number of fired US Attorneys for all these months just confirms how true it is. Consider this: with all the document dumps, no emails or documents relating to Graves' firing? How can that be? The truth is that we still know very little about what happened here. Very little.
--Josh Marshall
TPM Reader GB has what really is the first, second and third question for the mendacious Attorney General ...
In your senate testimony you said you were sure that none of the attorneys were fired for improper reasons. Given your admitted lack of close scrutiny of the process for selecting which attorneys would be fired, why are you sure of this?
Law prof Marty Lederman takes his own stab at it.
--Josh Marshall
Things definitely improving in Baghdad.
From the AP: "A sharp increase in mortar attacks on the Green Zone — the one-time oasis of security in Iraq's turbulent capital — has prompted the U.S. Embassy to issue a strict new order telling all employees to wear flak vests and helmets while in unprotected buildings or whenever they are outside."
--Josh Marshall
Here's an interesting idea being batted around privately by some House liberal Dems on another way Congress can confront the White House on Iraq.
--Greg Sargent
Former U.S. attorneys John McKay and David Iglesias tell The Seattle Times that they think the firing scandal will result in criminal charges.
--Paul Kiel
The latest on the 9th fired US Attorney, in today's episode of TPMtv ...
Late Update: For a summary of today's episode, click here.
--Josh Marshall
Wolf Blitzer looks the other way while his GOP guest lies repeatedly to CNN viewers about the network's own poll.
--Greg Sargent
Here it is, a copy of Alberto Gonzales' secret order delegating authority to Monica Goodling and Kyle Sampson to hire and fire certain political appointees in the Justice Department.
--Paul Kiel
We've just gotten the latest statement out from fired US Attorney Todd Graves. Speaking of his forced resignation, Graves says how it is "far better to take a graceful exit than to do something that you should be ashamed of."
And yeah, we're curious too.
--Josh Marshall
As noted below, we now know that there were not 8 but 9 US Attorneys fired last year by the Department of Justice -- the earliest, Todd Graves in Kansas City, way back in March 2006, right after the passage of the revised USA Patriot.
Now, there's a lot more we want to know about what happened here. And our reporters at TPMmuckraker are working the story as we speak to bring you more.
But here's one nugget that's really got me interested. By his own account, Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO) has known Graves was fired since March 2006. Meanwhile the Senate Judiciary Committee has been investigating the firings story for three months.
Graves's ouster is highly relevant to that investigation. Did Bond not share this information with the Committee? If not, why not? Did committee investigators know conclusively, as Bond did, that Graves was fired. And have they spoken to him since the news broke last night?
--Josh Marshall
Last night, a bunch of longtime Al Gore loyalists held a much-ballyhooed reunion dinner that had stirred speculation about a Gore run in 2008 even before it took place.
A source who was at the dinner tells us what happened.
--Greg Sargent
A key snippet from today's piece in The Hill about the DeLay portion of the Abramoff investigation ...
One source familiar with the investigation said federal officials have given immunity to at least one senior member of DeLay’s political circle who may now be cooperating with investigators. Former associates of the majority leader say investigators are apparently attempting to indict DeLay for corruption by proving that Buckham sought to influence him with unearned payments to his wife.
That circle isn't that big. Especially when you take out the folks who've already pleaded out. Any ideas?
--Josh Marshall
Today's Must Read: Republicans get huffy at federal investigators for investigating them.
--Paul Kiel
Bingo! I think we have our 9th fired US Attorney -- and 
one replaced in short order by one of the Bush DOJ's prime 'vote fraud' scammers.
As noted earlier, there are a handful of other US Attorneys who resigned in 2006 under what now appear suspicious circumstances, especially given who subsequently replaced them.
Two cases in particular are those of Thomas Heffelfinger in Minnesota (replaced by Rachel Paulose) and Todd Graves (replaced by Bradley Schlozman). Recently we learned that Heffelfinger and Graves both showed up on the DOJ firing lists not long before they resigned. Heffelfinger pretty categorically denied being fired, all the smoke notwithstanding. Graves gave a cryptic quote suggesting something might have been up.
Now, the prime reporter on this slice of the US Attorney Purge story has been Dave Helling at the Kansas City Star. Tonight, with his colleague Steve Kraske, Helling has a big scoop. It's oddly buried in the piece which is unfortunately behind a subscription wall. So bear with me.
The first revelation in the story is that staffers for Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO), though supposedly not the senator himself, approached the Bush administration in 2005 and suggested that it might be wise to remove Graves from his post after his four year term expired because of his wife's involvement in a controversial 'fee office' patronage scheme in Missouri. The fee office story is a whole complicated can of worms in itself. But for present purposes it appears that these concerns had nothing to do with Graves' resignation in March 2006. Graves says no. Bond's office says no, etc.
But here's the key. The article says that Bond did become directly involved in Graves's situation in early 2006. Bond's spokesman Shana Marchio said in a statement: “Senator Bond … upon (Graves’) request personally called the White House to gain Todd extra time to wrap up case work before his departure."
Now, though it's not said directly, I think there's no way to interpret this statement other than to conclude that the White House and/or the Justice Department fired Graves and Bond, at Graves's request, tried to intercede on his behalf for a little more time.
A bit further down in the piece there's this ...
A person in Bond’s office who asked not to be identified because of the sensitive nature of the discussions said the White House rejected Bond’s efforts on Graves’ behalf because of “performance” concerns. E-mails from the Justice Department and the White House have used similar language in discussing the other U.S. attorneys who were fired.
Okay, I think we now know that 
Todd Graves was fired. The on and off the record statements out of Bond's office don't allow any other conclusion. I suspect the article does not state the fact directly because Graves himself wouldn't cop to it directly. But he did say this ...
Graves said he doesn’t know why he would have been a target for removal, but he suggested his “independence” may have played a role.“When I first interviewed (with the Department)…I was asked to give the panel one attribute that describes me,” Graves said. “I said independent. Apparently, that was the wrong attribute.”
As I said, I think we now know that Graves was the ninth fired US Attorney. There were already eight. And I strongly suspect there are more. But Graves stands out because of the man who replaced him, Bradley Schlozman, who we profiled in Tuesday's episode of TPMtv. Schlozman's entire tenure at DOJ has been dedicated to turning back the clock on minority voting rights in the United States and more broadly to suppressing Democratic vote turnout. And there's evidence that Graves was sacked because he wouldn't do Schlozman's bidding in pushing his voter suppression agenda in western Missouri.
Gonzales goes to the Hill Thursday and Schlozman follows on May 15th. Graves's firing deserves much more scrutiny.
--Josh Marshall
Since Alberto Gonzales is now among the political undead -- not alive, but unvanquishable in his own liminal existence -- I guess it can't be called a death of a thousand cuts. But there's still something almost lyrical in the campaign of leaks congressional investigators are putting in his path.
As you know, Gonzales is returning to Capitol Hill on Thursday to testify before the House Judiciary Committee. Time now reports that Kyle Sampson told congressional investigators "three times in as many minutes that Gonzales was angry with McNulty because he had exposed the White House's involvement in the firings had put it's (sic) role "in the public sphere," as Sampson phrased it, according to Congressional sources familiar with the interview."
The earlier story was the Gonzales was upset with McNulty's testimony because he'd conceded that there was no reason for Bud Cummins' removal other than the desire to replace him with someone else.
I'm very curious to see how this goes on Thursday (and of course we'll be bringing you wall to wall coverage). The real work of investigations usually takes place in private staff interviews. The public ones, especially the televised ones, get too wound up in theatrics and drawn out verbiage. Not enough pointed question and follow-up.
But Alberto Gonzales has been caught in so many lies at this point -- lies from his own mouth and others on his behalf from staffers -- that I'm not sure how he'd get out of the hearing room in one piece if the members of the committee really went for a pointed examination.
--Josh Marshall
I guess dignity just ain't Paul Wolfowitz's bag.
Now comes word that Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson -- yes, in case you were wondering, that's the Treasury Secretary of the United States, not the Treasurer or Treasury Secretary of the World Bank or anything -- has come out in favor of giving Paul Wolfowitz more time to defend himself against conflict of interest charges.
No less shocking than Paulson's entry into this increasingly pitiful spectacle is the fact that Paulson's spokesperson is named Brookly McLaughlin.
Given the depths of corruption and bad acts we've seen of late, giving a fat raise to a girlfriend or boyfriend who works at your shop isn't the worst kind of corruption there is. But it falls short, I guess you might say, of best practices. I knew this thing was heading toward some sort of increasingly bizarre and baroque anti-accountability fugue when Wolfowitz a few days ago tried to turn the tables on his accusers and claim that they were in fact the bad actors but he was willing to assume they were acting in good faith when they did wrong.
Wolfowitz now appears to be filled with contempt for the board of the institution, which was supposed to be his vehicle for a world-historical mulligan, since they are unwilling, as my friend Sidney Blumenthal recently put it, to overlook his corrupt dealings for the greater good of his crusade against corruption.
When you think about it, on a few different levels, Wolfowitz is sort of an Austin Powersian sort of figure. And as Austin might say, taking responsibility just ain't Paul's bag, baby.
--Josh Marshall
Some really, really interesting new poll numbers on the Dems and Iraq are just out from CNN.
--Greg Sargent
Breaking: Bradley Schlozman scheduled to testify before Senate Judiciary Committee May 15th.
--Josh Marshall
A TPM reader offers a powerful reminder from the war's home front: there is nothing romantic about death and suffering.
--Andrew Golis
Associated Press played for fools as yet another GOP hit on Nancy Pelosi goes down in flames.
--Greg Sargent
Meet new Attorney Purge bigwig Bradley Schlozman in today's episode of TPMtv ...
Late update: For a summary of today's episode, click here.
--Josh Marshall
September in Iraq. Beside the famous Cole Porter song, September, it seems, is the new moment of truth for the occupation in Iraq. Question: what is it that makes September the moment of truth, other than the fact that it's about the last possible moment when a major change in policy could have a significant effect on the November 2008 election?
Late Update: TPM Reader BL notes that in meetings between Patraeus, Sec Def Gates and Ambassador Crocker on April 19th and 20th in Iraq it was agreed that Petraeus would deliver a status report in September.
--Josh Marshall
BlogAds is running its fourth annual reader survey. The information you provide creates a demographic profile of our audience which in turn helps sell the ads that keep TPM and other blogs online. Check it out here.
--Andrew Golis
Feds' Alaskan corruption investigation bears down on Sen. Ted Stevens' (R-AK) son, Alaska state senator Ben Stevens.
--Paul Kiel