Bush's buddy, the Attorney General
The AP had an interesting item today, highlighting Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' perspective on being close friends with the president. As the embattled Gonzales sees it, his close relationship with Bush, which spans decades, is inherently "a good thing" for everyone.
"Being able to go and having a very candid conversation and telling the president: 'Mr. President, this cannot be done. You can't do this,' -- I think you want that," Gonzales told reporters this week. "And I think having a personal relationship makes that, quite frankly, much easier always to deliver bad news."
"Do you recall a time when you (were) in there and said, 'Mr. President, we can't do this'?" Gonzales was asked.
"Oh, yeah," the attorney general responded.
"Can you share it with us?" a reporter asked.
"No," Gonzales said.
Now, I think there are two ways to look at this.
1. Gonzales is lying about this little story, and there's never been a time in which he's had to keep the president from going too far. He's the quintessential "yes man," who does as he's told.
2. Gonzales is telling the truth, and the Attorney General/WH Counsel -- the one who's approved of abandoning the Geneva Conventions and the rule of law -- believes some of the president's other requests are beyond the pale.
I'm struggling to decide which is worse.
--Steve Benen
Clarence Thomas has nothing to say
Sure, I realize that some Supreme Court justices are going to be less curious than others, and some prefer delving into briefs to quizzing counsel, but Clarence Thomas' reticence is unnerving.
Justice Clarence Thomas sat through 68 hours of oral arguments in the Supreme Court's current term without uttering a word.
In nearly 16 years on the court, Thomas typically has asked questions a couple of times a term.
But the last time Thomas asked a question in court was Feb. 22, 2006, in a death penalty case out of South Carolina. A unanimous court eventually broadened the ability of death-penalty defendants to blame someone else for the crime.
Since October 2004, when high court transcripts began identifying justices by name, Thomas has said 281 words total. Justice Stephen Breyer, who sits next to Thomas, has uttered nearly 35,000 words since January.
My guess is he speaks far more often behind the scenes. After all, he and Scalia have to chat about how best to vote together on all the major cases, right?
--Steve Benen
'I'd rather trade places with Jose Padilla'
In March, we started hearing about the panic and paralysis that had taken over the Justice Department in the wake of the prosecutor purge scandal. "You have no idea," said one Justice official, "how bad it is here." By one account, top DoJ officials -- the ones who haven't resigned -- were turning on each other. "It's unreal -- it's open warfare over there," a former Justice official with close ties to Gonzales' team said.
And it's under these conditions that the Justice Department needs to find a new Deputy Attorney General for a lame-duck administration, under a scandal-plagued Attorney General. How's the search going? (via TP)
Few in Washington have envied Paul McNulty over the past three months. But with the deputy attorney general's resignation last week amid the scandal over the firings of at least eight U.S. attorneys, there's one person whose position might be even less desirable: McNulty's yet-to-be-named successor.
"I'd rather trade places with Jose Padilla," jokes Viet Dinh, a former senior Justice official under then-Attorney General John Ashcroft.
Ouch.
I can't imagine what's holding potential applicants back. The last DAG was blamed for the purge scandal despite having been "largely left out of the loop," and his predecessor was James Comey, who had a rather unique experience with Gonzales and the Bush White House during his tenure.
And now no one wants the gig? Who would've guessed?
--Steve Benen
When an 8-year-old uncovers secrets
Political scientist Pete Moore wrote a fascinating item for Salon about his endeavor digging through the massive archive of Coalition Provisional Authority documents. As Moore acknowledged, he didn't expect to find too many hidden gems -- insightful personal letters may occasionally fall out of dusty old volumes in libraries, but the CPA's archives are paperless.
But Moore neglected to factor in human error.
It turns out the IT era really is different, after all. It took my 8-year-old son just a few seconds to shake loose some hidden history from within the official transcript of the CPA.
My son made his discovery while impatiently waiting to play a computer game on my laptop. As part of a research project, I had downloaded 45 documents from a section of the CPA Web site known as Consolidated Weekly Reports. All but three of the documents were Microsoft Word. I had one of the Word documents up on my screen when my son starting toying with the computer mouse. Somehow, inadvertently, he managed to pull down the "View" menu at the top of the screen and select the "Mark up" option. If you are in a Word document where "Track changes" has been turned on, hitting "Mark up" will reveal all the deletions and insertions ever made in the document, complete with times, dates and (sometimes) the initials of the editors. When my son did it, all the deleted passages in a document with the innocuous name "Administrator's Weekly Economic Report" suddenly appeared in blue and purple. It was the electronic equivalent of seeing every draft of an author's paper manuscript and all the penciled changes made by the editors.
I soon figured out that with a few keystrokes I could see the deleted passages in 20 of the 42 Word documents I'd downloaded.
Let this be a lesson to all of us -- keep young children around for computer-related research projects.
Of course, this isn't just an amusing story about a fruitful accident; Moore (with his son's help) also found some important CPA-related details in the previously-hidden passages. I don't want to alarm anyone, but apparently CPA officials were dangerously clueless about the insurgency and why it existed. Take a look.
--Steve Benen
Newly-minted conservative Mitt Romney bashed GOP's Contract With America in 1994. That and other political news of the day in today's Election Central Saturday Roundup.
--Greg Sargent
It's the voter suppression, stupid
Rick Hasen alerted me to this Houston Chronicle piece from the other day, about legislation in Texas that would -- in the interest of preventing non-existent "voter fraud" -- require that registered voters present photo IDs proving their citizenship before voting.
The measure is championed by Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst (R) and GOP lawmakers in Austin, who are using the same arguments heard in other states that have considered adding hurdles to participating in elections. Dewhurst has been relying on Mike Baselice, a prominent Republican pollster in Texas, who's been helping bolster the party's strategy.
Baselice conducted a poll the first week in April for an anonymous client on another subject. He says he threw the voter ID question in on his own, because it was a hot topic at the time. He provided the results to Republicans, who are now using it to support their cause.
The poll found 95 percent of Republicans, 91 percent of independents and 87 percent of Democrats support using photo IDs.
Royal Masset, the former political director of the Republican Party of Texas, who trained Baselice, says it is easy to elicit that kind of response to a poll question.
Among Republicans it is an "article of religious faith that voter fraud is causing us to lose elections," Masset said. He doesn't agree with that, but does believe that requiring photo IDs could cause enough of a dropoff in legitimate Democratic voting to add 3 percent to the Republican vote. (emphasis added)
And that, my friends, is what the "voter fraud" game is all about.
--Steve Benen
Politics on the menu at Iglesias lunch
It's not as if we need additional evidence that former New Mexico U.S. Attorney David Iglesias was fired for failing to politicize his office, but proof keeps piling up anyway.
Weeks before the 2006 midterm election, then-New Mexico U.S. Atty. David C. Iglesias was invited to dine with a well-connected Republican lawyer in Albuquerque who had been after him for years to prosecute allegations of voter fraud.
"I had a bad feeling about that lunch," said Iglesias, describing his meeting at Pappadeaux Seafood Kitchen with Patrick Rogers, a lawyer who provided occasional counsel to the New Mexico Republican Party.
When the voter fraud issue came up, Iglesias said, he explained to Rogers that in reviewing more than 100 complaints, he hadn't found any solid enough to justify criminal charges.
What Iglesias did not know was that Rogers and Mickey Barnett, another prominent GOP attorney in New Mexico, had taken their concerns about Iglesias and "voter fraud" directly to DC. Monica Goodling (who else?) helped arrange some meetings for them.
One of those they met with was Matthew Friedrich, a senior counselor to Gonzales. Friedrich would meet again with Rogers and Barnett in New Mexico, where, he told congressional investigators, the pair complained about Iglesias. They made it clear "that they did not want him to be the U.S. attorney.... They mentioned that they had communicated that with Sen. Domenici, and they also mentioned Karl Rove," Friedrich said, according to a transcript provided by congressional investigators.
When Iglesias said he believes "all roads lead to Rove," he wasn't kidding.
--Steve Benen
Adventures in Fox News polling
As Eric Kleefeld noted, there's a real gem towards the end of the latest Fox News poll (.pdf).
"Recently Democratic Leader of the Senate Harry Reid said that the war 'is lost' in Iraq. Do you feel this was an acceptable thing or an unacceptable thing for Reid to say while U.S. troops are still in the field fighting?"
Given this wording, the results weren't close -- 29% said the comments were acceptable, 65% said unacceptable.
Of course, the phrasing is obviously about as subtle as a sledgehammer. Like all unreliable polls, the question is intended to produce a specific result (which Hannity and O'Reilly can then use on the air). Indeed, just a few questions prior, poll respondents were asked how they'd describe conditions in Iraq right now. A combined 57% said we're either losing or have already lost.
It's worth remembering, from time to time, that this is how Fox News conducts all of its polling. Consider these questions from last month's national FNC poll:
* Do you think illegal immigrants from Mexico should be given special treatment and allowed to jump in front of immigrants from other countries that want to come to the United States legally, or not?
* Considering that over the past twelve months the stock market is up, employment has increased and the disposable income of U.S. workers has increased, do you think the news media has generally done a good job or bad job providing accurate news about the nation's economy?
The month before, Fox News' poll included these fair and balanced questions:
* Do you think a Congressional investigation into the dismissal of the eight federal prosecutors is a good use of taxpayer money?
* Who do you trust more to decide when U.S. troops should leave Iraq -- U.S. military commanders or Members of Congress?
* Do you think the Democratic Party should allow a grassroots organization like Moveon.org to take it over or should it resist this type of takeover?
Pretty soon, someone might get the sense that Fox News is trying to skew its polls to advance some kind of political agenda. Shocking, I know.
--Steve Benen
Graves to testify
The Senate Judiciary Committee hearings into the prosecutor purge scandal aren't over yet -- not by a long shot. About two weeks ago we learned that former Kansas City U.S. Attorney Todd Graves, who gave up his post last year, was the ninth prosecutor to have been purged.
Early next month, Graves will get a chance to share his story. (thanks to reader V.S.)
Former U.S. Attorney Todd Graves will tell his story to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Graves said Friday he would testify about his removal from the Western District of Missouri post on June 5, after Congress returns from its Memorial Day recess.
"I'm proud of my record as a prosecutor, and I will not be bashful in telling them what little I know about the current mess at the Department of Justice," Graves said in a statement.
He's expected to testify the same day as the man who replaced him, Brad Schlozman, who has returned to the Justice Department in Washington.
Circle the day on the calendar; it's bound to be a good one.
First question for Graves: On May 8, you released a statement saying it was better to resign and "take a graceful exit than to do something that you should be ashamed of." Who wanted you to do something shameful? Might it have something to do with dubious voter fraud indictments?
--Steve Benen
Gingrich's ironic assessment of '08
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, as usual, is disgusted. This time, he's blasting the field of 2008 presidential candidates who, Gingrich believes, are "demeaning the presidency" by jumping through pointless hoops.
"We have shrunk our political process to this pathetic dance in which people spend an entire year raising money in order to offer non-answers, so they can memorize what their consultants and focus groups said would work," Gingrich said.
In a speech to the John Locke Foundation, a conservative think tank, the prospective Republican candidate said he will not consider running until he has created a wave of reform. [...]
"This idea of demeaning the presidency by reducing it to being a game show contest ... is wrong for America, and I would never participate in it," he said.
In principle, I don't entirely disagree. The process can be silly at times, and watching 10 candidates offer sound-bite answers -- when they're not raising their hands to yes/no questions -- can start to appear a little demeaning.
But for Newt Gingrich to complain about politicians offering "non-answers," crafted by "consultants and focus groups," is rich. Good ol' Newt practically invented this style of politicking. After all, how did Gingrich and Frank Luntz put together the "Contract with America"? They relied on the advice of "consultants and focus groups," which told him what would work.
For that matter, wasn't it Gingrich who circulated a memo called "Language: A Key Mechanism of Control" to incoming GOP freshmen in 1995? The document included a list of words Gingrich wanted House Republicans to memorize because consultants and focus groups said they would work.
It's a little late for Newt to complain about an atmosphere he helped create.
--Steve Benen
McCain drops an F-bomb
It's something of an open secret on the Hill, but Sen. John McCain's (R-Ariz.) temper can be so explosive, it tends to alienate friend and foe alike. Consider yesterday's brouhaha over the new immigration-reform package.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) hasn't spent much time in the Capitol this year as he seeks the GOP presidential nomination. But one of his rare appearances this week provided a pretty salty exchange with a fellow Republican.
During a meeting Thursday on immigration legislation, McCain and Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) got into a shouting match when Cornyn started voicing concerns about the number of judicial appeals that illegal immigrants could receive, according to multiple sources -- both Democrats and Republicans -- who heard firsthand accounts of the exchange from lawmakers who were in the room.
Apparently, McCain accused Cornyn of raising petty objections, and Cornyn accused McCain of having dropped in without taking part in the negotiations. "F**k you! I know more about this than anyone else in the room," McCain reportedly shouted. Paul Kane added that McCain also "used a curse word associated with chickens."
Oddly enough, these outbursts are not terribly uncommon for McCain. Several years ago, Jake Tapper reported on an incident in which McCain got into a shouting match with Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). Eventually, a seething McCain told his GOP colleague, "You know, senator, I thought your problem was that you don't listen. But that's not it at all. Your problem is that you're a f**king jerk."
More recently, former Sen. Bob Smith (R-N.H.), who served with McCain on the Senate Armed Services Committee and on Republican policy committees, said, "I have witnessed incidents where he has used profanity at colleagues and exploded at colleagues. He would disagree about something and then explode. It was incidents of irrational behavior. We've all had incidents where we have gotten angry, but I've never seen anyone act like that."
Keep in mind, we're talking about McCain dropping F-bombs on Republicans.
I guess this helps explain why McCain hasn't exactly racked up the Senate GOP endorsements for his presidential campaign.
--Steve Benen
Former Clinton-era U.S. Attorney ponders bid against GOP Senator Pete Domenici. That and more political news of the day in today's Election Central Happy Hour Roundup.
--Greg Sargent
A savvy House Dem staffer we know gives us a candid and dispiriting overview of the political situation facing Congressional Dems on Iraq -- and worries that the Dem leadership will cave.
--Greg Sargent
Pelosi to Bush: Support our troops, don't oppose their pay raise.
In new letter, Dem leadership blasts White House for the first time for opposing a 3.5% pay hike for the troops.
--Greg Sargent
White House spokesman Tony Fratto plays another round of "How Low Can We Set The Bar" during this morning's press gaggle.
--Paul Kiel
Which U.S. attorneys made the firing lists and when? Well, at least now we know that much.
--Paul Kiel
Talks between the White House and Dem Congressional leaders over Iraq have just broken down and hit a wall.
--Greg Sargent
Harry Reid blasts McCain for multiple missed Senate votes. That and more political news of the day in today's Election Central Morning Roundup.
--Greg Sargent
Today's Must Read: what does it take for a lawmaker to get in trouble around here?
--Paul Kiel
Sometimes something catches my eye that may not have any grand significance but I've got to write about it anyway.
Here I'm reading a CNN article about James Dobson, in which the grand inquisitor announces that he will not under any circumstances vote for, endorse or do anything else for Rudy Giuliani if he gets the Republican nomination. Fair enough.
But down here in the article we have the seventh graf that gives a quick background and we read that ...
Dobson's organization says his daily radio program is heard by as many as 220 million listeners over 3,500 stations in the United States. He's also seen on 80 television stations, and 10 Focus on the Family magazines have 2.3 million subscribers, the group says.
Now, I know it says Dobson's outfit 'says' and 'as many as'. But couldn't the reporter do a little brain work on this one? 220 million listeners? 2/3 of all Americans? I'm laughing even writing it. Actually, I should mention our new tagline for TPMtv -- with as many as 1.7 billion viewers worldwide.
Okay, I'm done.
Late Update: TPM Reader BG points out that Dobson is claiming that his daily show is on approximately one out of three radio stations in the US. I'm sure he's on quite a few; don't know if that's many. 220 million listeners? Pretty sure on that.
TV Preacher Superpowers Update: TPM Reader MS and several others point out that Pat Robertson can leg press 2000 pounds because of his mystical protein drink. So it's important not to sell these guys short.
So Late It's the Next Day Update: Okay TPM Reader KS points out it may be the CNN reporter who's a goof. The Dobson page actually says 220 million in the whole world.
--Josh Marshall
Sigh ...
McClatchy Newspapers has learned that the top prosecutors in Macon, Ga., and Roanoke, Va., landed on a proposed firing list weeks after the White House and Justice Department traded notes about the potential for voter-fraud cases in central Georgia and Appalachia. They were added to a list just days before last November's midterm election, but ultimately not fired.
--Josh Marshall
Best practices (from Wapo) ...
The Commerce Department's inspector general, who is supposed to look into complaints of wrongdoing by government officials, committed "egregious violations" of the federal law that protects whistle-blowers by retaliating against two subordinates, a government investigation has concluded.The U.S. Office of Special Counsel found that Inspector General Johnnie E. Frazier wrongly demoted the two employees during an investigation of his spending, according to a copy of the report obtained by The Washington Post. It concluded that Frazier's actions violated the Whistleblower Protection Act.
--Josh Marshall
McCain misses 42 Senate floor votes in a row. That and more political news of the day in today's Election Central Happy Hour Roundup.
--Greg Sargent
Justice Department official Mike Elston, who suggested 5 of the 26 names of U.S. attorneys who were at one point considered for firing, now says that he never meant any of those to be fired. He was just passing some names along.
--Paul Kiel
Hillary takes her toughest drubbing on Iraq yet from her Dem rivals.
Update: Here's some video of Obama's slamming of Hillary's vote for the war. Really worth a watch -- it comes across as tougher than it did in print.
--Greg Sargent
President Bush refuses to answer whether he ordered Card and Gonzales to Ashcroft's hospital bedside ...
The funny thing about this dodge is that the president is saying not only that the nature of the program is highly classified and must be kept secret, which may be true, but that his apparent order for Gonzales and Card to go squeeze the semi-concsious John Ashcroft is also highly classified and must be kept secret. Somehow I just don't get that one. The president's refusal to answer tells the tale. The president gave the order and even placed the call, as James Comey all but told us yesterday.
But it should not surprise us because this White House has mainly used 'classification' as a way to keep embarrassing information out of public view.
--Josh Marshall
Count 'em up. As the Democrats push for a no-confidence vote for Gonzales in the Senate, you can bet that they're taking a hard look at the vote count.
And it's not looking good for Gonzales. We've updated our count and so far nine Republican senators have called (or hinted strongly) that Gonzales should resign.
Update: Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN) makes it ten.
--Paul Kiel
Edwards campaign slams Rudy Giuliani for his claim that he "usually" hears Democrats blaming America for 9/11.
--Greg Sargent
How you can be a part of TPMtv, in today's episode of ... well, TPMtv ...
--Josh Marshall
As the walls close in, Steve Clemons wonders, what ever happened to Wolfowitz the strategist?
--Andrew Golis
Bush ducks question over whether he ordered the Card/Gonzales hospital blitz. More soon.
--Josh Marshall
Why all that drama in March, 2004 over the president's secret domestic surveillance program -- when it had been going on unchecked for more than two years? An explanation.
--Paul Kiel
National Dems to actively target GOP Reps. Marilyn Musgrave and Sam Graves.
That and much more news in our Election Central Morning Roundup.
--Greg Sargent
Today's Must Read: trying to make sense of the very long list of U.S. attorneys who just missed getting canned.
--Paul Kiel
"The American people are understandably fearful about another attack like the one we sustained on Sept. 11, 2001. But it is the duty of the commander in chief to lead the country away from the grip of fear, not into its grasp." -- in today's Post, Charles C. Krulak, commandant of the Marine Corps, 1995 to 1999. Joseph P. Hoar, commander in chief of U.S. Central Command, 1991 to 1994.
The legacy of this administration is frightening to behold, its philosophy of force and violence, its lawlessness.
--Josh Marshall
The Post has still more on the growing list of US Attorneys who at one time or another appeared on the DOJ firing list. The number is now up to 26 or higher, according to sources consulted by the Post. And to add further confusion we're now hearing about some folks who are such administration loyalists that they're actually being questioned as playing a role in the firings rather than being potential firees.
You can see the article here.
This puts me in the mind of an email I got a couple months ago from a friend who I'd call a seasoned Washington type.
It seems plausble to me that Harriet would get the idea in her head, thinking--or having been told--that she find an artful way of getting rid of PF [i.e., Patrick Fitzgerald].And maybe that idea of hers was shot down as too "Saturday Night Massacre"-y. But it's in the nature of humans, as well as bureaucracies, for an idea to get rolling and then to gain new fans and constituencies as it rolls along that have little or nothing to do with the original impetus.
So various White House aides and DOJers used the opening created by Miers' bright idea to advance new agenda items, working, one could imagine with other Republicans. Sorta the Executive Branch equivalent of a Congressional appropriations Christmas tree.
I've always thought this guy might be on to something. And along those lines I'd be curious -- if it will ever be possible to do -- to get that list of 26 or however many firees there are and get it broken down by time. Who got put on when? Who in 2005 and who in 2006?
If you look over the broad scattering of documents thus far released on the Attorney Purge, there's at least an argument to be made that it unfolds something like this. Someone gets the bright idea, very early in 2005 to can all of the US Attorneys or a lot of them. But for one reason or another the idea gets rejected or just dies a slow bureaucratic death. However it happens, by the end of 2005 the idea's basically moribund.
But then in early 2006 some problems come up -- a rising wave of Republican corruption scandals and declining Republican political fortunes. And the US Attorney Purge idea gets revived -- but now with a much more specific focus, with an eye toward the 2006 and 2008 elections. Certain US Attorneys become more of a problem with expanding corruption investigations.
If you're interested, look at Sampson's correspondence from early 2006.
--Josh Marshall
Is this the buried lede of all buried ledes? (The answer appears to be no: see update below.)
Deep down in the second to last paragraph of the new McClatchy Attorney Purge story out tonight reads ...
A U.S. attorney in Minnesota, who disagreed with the Justice Department on a case involving voting rolls, was asked to resign early last year.
Minnesota only has one US Attorney district, the one based in Minneapolis. 
So this must refer to Thomas Heffelfinger, the former Minneapolis US Attorney who resigned last year to be replaced by the notorious martinet Rachel Paulose.
It's been long suspected that Heffelfinger might have been shoved aside to make room for Paulose. And we've known for almost a month that Heffelinger did show up on the DOJ firing list not long before his departure. But I was not aware that we had had clear and specific evidence that he was fired or, as they say, asked to resign. And as hard as it might be to believe his desire to move on to other challenges was just a big coincidence he did go on Minnesota public radio at the end of the last month and very definitively say that he hadn't been pushed out.
But McClatchy is saying -- and even rather offhandedly -- that he was told to resign and that he was pushed because he wouldn't go along with the voter roll purges that the Department of Justice was pushing in swing states around the country. If I'd had to guess what happened. Something like that would be my top guess. But who found this out? And why is the first we hear of it so deep down in this article about two other US Attorneys?
Update: Actually, we understand that the McClatchy piece mistakenly had "Minnesota" where there should have been "Missouri" -- which would make sense, since Kansas City's Todd Graves has confirmed that he was asked to leave, and he did disagree with the Justice Department on a case involving voting rolls. So a false alarm. -- PK
--Josh Marshall
More (from McClatchy ...)
The Justice Department last year considered firing two U.S. attorneys in Florida and Colorado, states where allegations of voter fraud and countercharges of voter intimidation have flown in recent years, congressional investigators have learned.That brings to nine the number of battleground election states where the Bush administration set out to replace some of the nation's top prosecutors. In at least seven states, it now appears, U.S. attorneys were fired or considered for firing as Republicans in those states urged investigations or prosecutions of alleged Democratic voter fraud.
The two prosecutors who were targeted were Gregory Miller, the U.S. attorney for the northern district of Florida in Tallahassee, and Bill Leone, the former acting U.S. attorney for Colorado.
The other obvious point -- they're all swing states, which should come as no surprise since it's all of a piece. The bogus 'vote fraud' charges are voter suppression tactic aimed at keeping the level of minority voting down in close races.
--Josh Marshall
Ed Kilgore gives us his own up close perspective on Jerry Falwell's (or not Jerry Falwell's) Lynchburg, Virginia.
--Josh Marshall
On President Bush's 'war czar' ...
From a knowledgable TPM Reader ...
I haven’t read exhaustively on this, but it seems that the lede is getting buried in stories about the appointment of LTG Lute as war “czar.” It’s not that the administration had to lower their sights to a 3-star. The amazing thing is that they had to fall back on an active duty general – a guy they could order to take the job. All the previous names floated were retired folks who had the luxury of turning the offer down.I’ve never met Lute, but his resume is solid. It’s particularly noteworthy that his last three jobs have all been joint positions. He will probably be an effective organizer. But as a currently serving 3-star, he will be at best a coordinator, outranked by many of the key people he needs to coordinate.
It is somewhat troubling how more and more of our senior national security positions are being filled by military folks still on active duty or just recently retired (CIA, DNI, etc.). There needs to be a balance in backgrounds, and we’ve probably pushed past the right level.
And from tonight's Nelson Report ...
there's a fascinating debate ongoing from "the uniforms" and from sensible civilian staff types. One major concern is the conflation of appropriate civilian and military roles.Providing "best military advice" is the military's responsibility, and also a right. The responsibility of the civilian leadership is to provide military leaders with enough knowledge of "national policy" to be able to advise, and to understand military matters well enough to understand that advice...and to give it proper and thoughtful consideration.
As we see with the Congressional debate and posturing over how to use the budget to set a schedule and "benchmarks" for success in Iraq, Capitol Hill now shares with the majority of the public the view that the Bush Administration's civilian leadership did not live up to any of its responsibilities...aided and abetted by serious dereliction of news media and Congressional oversight duties.
What we hear repeatedly expressed as the danger now...both with this nomination, and with constantly rhetorically making Gen. Petraeus responsible for "the plan" in Iraq...is that the military will be held accountable for the policy. As a military friend privately comments, "This is simply wrong".
There's also a serious debate going on within military circles about what might be termed Constitutional issues...a debate which could well get to the Congress, since the Senate will be required to hold hearings and to approve Lute's nomination. Here's the private comment of a very well-known retired general, which has resonance for Japan's debate over revising Article 9:
"The czar business is certainly unprecedented and is either a tacit admission that the in-place structure does not meet the needs of the time or is a political maneuver by a desperate president shuffling the deck chairs.
This is serious stuff, indeed, for it calls into question the basic construct of the US military for over half a century.
It remains to be seen what Lute's brief will be and given Title 10, what authorities he is given. In any case POTUS is tampering with fundamentals and it will have serious consequences that I hope have been fully analyzed and understood.
Certainly the Congress which gave birth to the National Security Act and all the legislation that followed has to weigh in on this.
Given the anti-Bush temperament of that body, I find it stunning that the President has given it another reason to attack him for not knowing what he is doing.
The days ahead will be most interesting."
--Josh Marshall
From Evans-Novak Political 
Report ...
Rove's former assistant, Susan Ralston, is currently seeking immunity to testify before Waxman's committee. Ralston is a former assistant to Jack Abramoff, the disgraced Washington super-lobbyist and Republican fund-raiser. As Rove's gatekeeper, she became special assistant to the President and the highest-ranking Filipino-American in the administration. For Waxman, she is a link between Abramoff and Rove. Ralston was deposed behind closed doors prior to her request for immunity. According to her friends, she has nothing to say that would cause problems for Rove. Her request for immunity was forwarded to the Justice Department, whose recommendation may or may not be followed by Congress.
--Josh Marshall
In a swipe at Rudy, Mitt Romney says the GOP needs to nominate a strong family man.
That and lots of other news in our Election Central Happy Hour Roundup.
--Greg Sargent
John McCain just keeps on missing vote after vote on Iraq -- including today's on the Feingold amendment.
--Greg Sargent
Justice Department finally responds to Senate committee subpoena. And, well....
--Paul Kiel
More of Kyle Sampson's testimony comes out. And this bit contradicts a key part of Alberto Gonzales' testimony before the Senate.
--Paul Kiel
Just so the White House doesn't feel left out, Senate Judiciary Chairman Pat Leahy (D-VT) today wrote Fred Fielding to warn that if the White House doesn't stop stonewalling, "I will have no choice but to issue subpoenas."
--Paul Kiel
As discussed, here's the video of yesterday's testimony by former Deputy AG James Comey. Their section of questioning where Comey discusses the hospital showdown is about 25 minutes. We've tried to edit it down by cutting out a few relatively non-essential passages. And we got it down to about 15 minutes.
We'll be posting a shorter version with just a few key passages a bit later.
Late update: If you're pressed for time, here's a shorter version of Comey's testimony with the two most noteworthy segments:
--Josh Marshall
Tony Snow: Defeat of Feingold amendment proves that Americans, and Congressional Democrats, don't support withdrawal from Iraq.
--Greg Sargent
There are so many parts of this late night hospital blitz story that it's a bit hard to know where to start. One thing that seems very clear -- even clearer than when I discussed it below -- is that the president sent Gonzales and Card over to the hospital to coax an okay out of the presumably heavily sedated Ashcroft. The first day's reportage really skirted around that issue. Maybe day two will be different. Another point though is to remember just who it is we're dealing with here.
This is John Ashcroft, not by many measures a staunch libertarian and a pretty committed Republican to boot. He was refusing to sign off on this. And according to Comey's testimony he was willing to resign over it, apparently along with most of the senior leadership of the Department of Justice. I think we need to know more about just what was being done with this program that would make Ashcroft put so much on the line.
Another point: if we assume that the president sent Gonzales and Card over to the hospital room (and I think that's the only reasonable interpretation of yesterday's testimony), there must have been a meeting before that call was placed, probably at the White House. Who was in the meeting? And who got the president to authorize this? Gonzales? I doubt it. I think we probably needing to be looking toward the Vice President's office playing a driving role in all this.
See more here from a knowledgable TPM Reader.
--Josh Marshall
WaPo's Howard Kurtz sees no problem with the media's failure to cover the Rudy campaign's Iowa farm gaffe.
--Greg Sargent
The Senate Judiciary Committee issues a subpoena for Karl Rove's emails in the Justice Department's possession, the Justice Department ignores the subpoena, and the senators get angry.
--Paul Kiel
I was just speaking with David Kurtz about the news coverage of yesterday's Comey testimony. As David notes, both the Times and the Post suggest that this was a dispute among the president's subordinates and that, in the Post's words, the crisis was "resolved only when Bush overruled Gonzales and Card." The Times says that the president eventually "intervened ... to avert a crisis ... and quelled the revolt."
But I'm not sure that's the only or really the most likely interpretation of what Comey said. In Comey's testimony he actually says that he thinks it was the president himself who called the hospital to say Gonzales and Card were coming over. He hesitated and said he wasn't certain of that. But his recollection seemed to be that it was the president.
His actual words are as follows ...
Comey: Mrs. Ashcroft reported that a call had come through and that as a result of that call Mr. Card and Mr. Gonzales were on their way to the hospital to see Mr. Ashcroft.Schumer: Do you have any idea who that call was from?
Comey: (hesitation) I have some recollection that the call was from the president himself. But I don't know that for sure. It came from the White House. And it came through and the call was taken in the hospital.
The logic of the testimony also suggests that the president sent Gonzales and Card over. Later, in response to the threatened resignations, the president backed Comey and the Justice Department and allowed them to make changes that would bring the program under legal or constitutional limits.
I think it's a stretch to believe that the president was brought in as some neutral arbiter. A more logical interpretation is that the president dispatched Gonzales and Card to Ashcroft's bedside and then later backed down.
Late Update: Marty Lederman who of course knows the legal and constitutional issues far better than I do has more on this here.
--Josh Marshall
Feingold amendment to cut funding for war goes down to defeat.
Update: A list of Dem Senators who voted against the measure is here.
--Greg Sargent
GOPers yuk it up about John Edwards' haircut at last night's debate. That and more in today's Election Central Morning Roundup.
--Greg Sargent
Today's Must Read: how much blame does fall guy #2, Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty, deserve?
--Paul Kiel
Everybody's talking this morning about former Deputy Attorney General James Comey's testimony yesterday before the Senate Judiciary Committee in which he described the high speed race to get to get to the bedside of the stricken John Ashcroft before the arrival of then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales. The Department of Justice, in the person of then-acting AG Comey, was refusing to sign off on the White House's warrantless wiretapping program. And Gonzales and Andy Card wanted to see if they could get to the semi-conscious Ashcroft to overrule him.
In any case, no one seems to have the video of Comey's actual testimony. Or at least they're not showing his whole narration of what happened. But we do. We had a camera rolling yesterday. And we're going to bring you lengthy excerpts later this morning on TPMtv. So stay tuned.
--Josh Marshall
You've no doubt seen that the White House is now saying that "all options are on the table" with respect to Paul Wolfowitz's future as president of the World Bank. Rich with irony and just not a good sign for Paul considering that's the phrase this White House usually reserves for rogue states just before they get whacked.
--Josh Marshall
Rudy Giuliani makes nice with the farmers he offended, and Tagg Romney thinks his father's conversions are "very very" convincing.
That and more in our our Election Central Happy Hour Roundup.
--Andrew Golis
President Bush finally finds someone to take the 'war czar' job: Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute.
--Josh Marshall
One of CBS' own high-profile news consultants tells the network that he wants to see retired General John Batiste put back on the air.
--Greg Sargent
Ahhh, research, research, research.
From earlier today, here's MSNBC talking head Contessa Brewer citing anti-Bush spoof site Whitehouse.org as a source for administration praise of Jerry Falwell, who died today at 73 ...
--Josh Marshall
Dems press Gonzales on firing of Kansas City US Attorney and his replacement by voter suppression kingpin Schlozman.
--Josh Marshall
DOJ officials propose new reason for firing Nevada US Atttorney Daniel Bogden: lax vote fraud enforcement. Only no one in the state seems to remember any allegations of vote fraud in the state for years.
--Josh Marshall
Ahhh, great moments in real-time cable news. MSNBC cites White House praise of Falwell. Only it's from whitehouse.org, well-known anti-Bush White House spoof site. D'oh ...
--Josh Marshall
In today's episode of TPMtv we get back to the key issue in the US Attorney Purge, Republican efforts to suppress African-American and Latino voter turnout ...
Late update: For a summary of today's episode, click here.
--Josh Marshall
The AP has the key take from Attorney General Gonzales's remarks this morning on the US Attorney Purge: McNulty did it. Gonzales says he signed off and supports the decision but "you have to remember, at the end of the day, the recommendations reflected the views of the deputy attorney general. He signed off on the names."
--Josh Marshall
Tony Snow on Comey testimony describing nighttime Gonzales/Card visit to hospital to get sign off on illegal wiretap program from half-conscious John Ashcroft: Comey's got "splashy testimony. Good for him."
--Josh Marshall
New York Times sticks with "Dems are the Mommy Party" narrative despite multiple polls showing the phrase to be out of touch with current realities.
--Greg Sargent
More dramatic tales from this morning's Comey testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Here we learn from Comey of Alberto Gonzales' and Andrew Card's nighttime rush to John Ashcroft's bedside at the Intensive Care Unit to find someone to sign off on what appears to have been their illegal warrantless wiretap program. Comey, who was then acting AG, refused. So there was a rush to get to the hospital before Gonzales and Card to prevent them from coaxing the semi-conscious Ashcroft from signing on the dotted line. High drama, threatened resignations and incapacitated cabinet secretaries are all in the mix as Gonzales tries to overturn the rule of law. You'll want to see this.
--Josh Marshall
Ahhhh, running the World Bank like Tony Soprano. It might even be a show I'd like to watch.
The Guardian reports that as the details of Paul Wolfowitz's deal to give a hefty pay package to girlfriend, Shaha Riza, were threatening to be revealed, Wolfowitz threatened senior World Bank staffers that they'd pay if the deal was revealed publicly. "If they f-ck with me or Shaha," raged Wolfowitz, according to the internal report on Wolfowitz's conduct, "I have enough on them to f-ck them too."
Late Update: Find more fun nuggets. The report is available here at the World Bank website.
--Josh Marshall
John Edwards challenges Hillary and Obama to vote for Feingold amendment to defund war.
--Greg Sargent
A new poll finds that Congress' approval rating has now sunk below that of Bush.
That and lots more news of the day in our Election Central Morning Roundup.
--Greg Sargent
Silly question: Under present leadership, does the Department of Justice have any standing to indict anyone for perjury or obstruction?
--Josh Marshall
Today's Must Read: Behold, citizens of the United States -- the Bush administration's commitment to oversight and the protection of your civil liberties in all its glory.
--Paul Kiel
Many of you are familiar with Andrew J. Bacevich, the international relations prof at BU. Bacevich is a retired Army Colonel, a military policy intellectual and, by most standards of place and time, a conservative. But he's also become a powerful critic of what in his most recent book he calls 'the new American militarism', a book I strongly recommend. And he's been a consistent and powerful opponent of the Iraq war from start to finish -- or whatever point we're at now.
This afternoon a friend who works in the military budgeting world forwarded me an email from the DOD. It began ...
NEWS RELEASES from the United States Department of Defense
No. 582-07 IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 14, 2007
Media Contact: (703) 697-5131/697-5132
Public/Industry(703) 428-0711DoD Identifies Army Casualty
The Department of Defense announced today the death of a soldier who was supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom.
1st Lt. Andrew J. Bacevich, 27, of Walpole, Mass., died May 13 in Balad, Iraq, of wounds suffered when an improvised explosive device detonated near his unit during combat patrol operations in Salah Ad Din Province, Iraq.He was assigned to the 3rd Battalion, 8th Cavalry Regiment, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division, Fort Hood, Texas.
I don't think I knew whether Bacevich had a son. But he comes from that class of career military where professional military service is often an intergenerational endeavor. Age sounds about right. And I just had a hard time seeing how many Andrew J. Baceviches there would be in Massachusetts.
But no more wondering. It's his son. I can only imagine the special agony reserved for a professional military man to lose a child in a war he has now spent years arguing was a mistake.
You remember that famous passage in Henry V: Act IV, scene one where Bates tells the disguised King Henry that if the King's "cause be wrong, our obedience to the King wipes the crime of it out of us."
There's a shameless game of moral chicken that war supporters play in which they dare opponents to say the war is a mistake because, they claim, saying so would then dishonor all the men and women who've already died in its cause. So to spare the dead that ignominy, kill many more of our children. All to avoid swallowing that bitter pill. But I think there's a converse to Bates' argument that I agree with, though I disagree with his claim about the moral reckoning. And that is that the service and the sacrifice wash the death clean of the folly of the leaders who ordered them into the battle.
And of course this drama gets played out ... what, two, three times a day? Often more. Each time no less shattering for the family involved.
Steve Clemons has more on Bacevich Sr.
--Josh Marshall
McClatchy: "U.S. Embassy employees in Iraq are growing increasingly angry over what they say are inadequate security precautions in the heavily fortified Green Zone, where recent mortar and rocket attacks have claimed the lives of six people, including two U.S. citizens."
--Josh Marshall
Nice! Fox News segment reporting on illegal voting features B-roll of only black voters.
--Greg Sargent
New poll finds 63% oppose military action against Iran.
That and lots of other news in our Election Central Happy Hour Roundup.
--Greg Sargent
The Wall Street Journal's China-based reporters write a powerful letter decrying Rupert Murdoch's Journal takeover bid.
--Greg Sargent
McNulty out at DOJ. More soon ...
Late Update: According to the AP, McNulty announced his decision at a "closed-door meeting of US Attorneys in San Antonio."
Only for Alberto Update: AG Alberto Gonzales releases statement.
Even Later Update: If I were Gonzales and the White House, I'd see McNulty's departure as a very unwelcome development. Behind the scenes, supporters of McNulty and Gonzales have been increasingly at odds as the scandal has progressed -- with McNulty's supporters saying he wasn't kept in the loop and that that the Gonzales clique is made of crooks and the Gonzales supporters (read: Sampson, Goodling, Elston, et al.) saying McNulty let the cat out of the bag in his testimony earlier in the year. (So, McNulty: You guys are crooks; Gonzales: Yeah, whatever, but no one would know if you'd kept your mouth shut.) And it seems clear that McNulty's been fairly generous with what he's told the Senate Judiciary Committee, perhaps building on his rapport with Sen. Schumer (D-NY). A lot of this is tea leaf reading, trying to figure out who's spilling and who's not. But it's hard to figure where McNulty gets less forthcoming once he's no longer part of the administration.
--Josh Marshall
Just in: Harry Reid to allow a Senate vote on Russ Feingold measure to end Iraq War.
--Greg Sargent
That was quick. That Philadelphia Inquirer article about the vote fraud robocalls from the US Attorneys office in Camden? Bogus. The US Attorneys office tells us they didn't have anything to do with it. We'll have more shortly. May be the tip of a rather substantial iceberg.
Late Update: Here's more on the story, including the denial from the New Jersey US Attorney's office.
--Josh Marshall
Why are the investigators dropping the ball on the Lam part of the US Attorneys investigation? We look at that question in today's episode of TPMtv ...
Late update: For a summary of today's episode, click here.
--Josh Marshall
This appeared yesterday in the Philadelphia Inquirer ...
The U.S. Attorney's Office flooded Camden phone lines the day of the May 8 councilmanic race with warnings that taking money for votes was a federal crime.In a crucial election in which the turnout was under 4,000 and in which allegations of money being paid for votes were rife on both sides, the U.S. Attorney put out the following unusual alert:
"Voters alert!" said the taped message. "Please note that it is a federal crime to be paid for a vote. I repeat, it is a crime. If you or your neighbor have been offered payment, please report it immediately to the U.S. Attorney's Office at 856-757-5026."
This strikes me as extremely odd -- both for the US Attorney's office's interest in this one election and their manner of contacting the public. Was there any investigative predicate? Any specific reasons to think there was an organized vote fraud conspiracy in this particular election?
Anyone know anything more on this? More context? Did you get one of the calls?
--Josh Marshall
It seems African-Americans may be on the Purge list at the Bush Civil Rights Division too. See our report here.
--Josh Marshall
The Rudy campaign is undecided on whether to compete in the Iowa Straw Poll; New Yorkers overwhelmingly think Mike Bloomberg would make a better President than Rudy; and Camp Hillary is reaching out to voters via cell phone text-messaging.
Those items and much more news of the day in our Election Central Morning Roundup.
--Greg Sargent
Are bubbles actually good for the economy? 
Daniel Gross, aka Slate's "Moneybox", makes that counterintuitive case at TPMCafe's Book Club this week in support of his book Pop!: Why Bubbles Are Great For The Economy.
Daniel Altman, Paul Kedrosky, Justin Fox, Jesse Eisinger, Jonathan Miller, Andy Kessler, and Barry Ritholtz join him for the conversation.
Update: Gross presents the argument in his first post here.
--Andrew Golis
My views don't matter much about Republican presidential candidates. But I have a question I'd like to hear people's views on. When I hear Mitt Romney talk he sounds like a complete phony. Analyzing his record I think there's a very strong case that he's a serial flipflopper and a real opportunist. But that's not what I'm talking about. His manner and voice and what he says ... everything sounds extraordinarily canned and contrived. And in a class in that respect way beyond anything John McCain or Rudy Giuliani say. Am I alone in this?
--Josh Marshall
Today's Must Read: was voter fraud behind the firing of yet another U.S. attorney?
--Paul Kiel
Another edition of our series: Great moments in poor judgment. In this episode, on the final night of a school field trip, teachers stage a mock school shooting rampage as a 'learning experience' for the sixth graders on the trip.
During the last night of the trip, staff members convinced the 69 students that there was a gunman on the loose. They were told to lie on the floor or hide underneath tables and stay quiet. A teacher, disguised in a hooded sweat shirt, even pulled on a locked door.After the lights went out, about 20 kids started to cry, 11-year-old Shay Naylor said.
“I was like, ‘Oh My God,’ “ she said. “At first I thought I was going to die. We flipped out.”
--Josh Marshall
A small detail you should make note of, from the Newark Star-Ledger ...
In an abrupt about-face, President Bush has decided against nominating Noel Hillman, a veteran prosecutor and now federal judge in Camden, to the seat on the 3d U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that was held by Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito Jr.Hillman, a former assistant U.S. attorney in New Jersey and the lead Justice Department prosecutor in the Jack Abramoff Capitol Hill lobby ing scandal, had full White House support and the backing of New Jersey Democratic Sens. Robert Menendez and Frank Lautenberg, and had successfully completed his FBI background check several months ago. But suddenly things changed.
"He is out," one knowledgeable source told The Auditor. The source added it had nothing to do with Hillman's qualifications, his ethics or his ability to do the job.
Hillman confirmed the news. He said the speculation about his possible elevation to the court of appeals was "flattering," adding he now has "every confidence that our president will choose someone for the current va cancy worthy of his trust, worthy of the position, and worthy of Senate confirmation."
The reason for dropping Hillman remains a mystery, and both Hillman and the folks at 1600 Pennsylvania are staying mum. But speculation abounds, with some believing a skittish White House was concerned about the possibility that Hillman's Senate confirmation hearing could become an inquisition into the behind-the-scenes operations of the Justice Department.
Remember Hillman was head of the Public Integrity section of DOJ before ... well, just keep an eye on this.
--Josh Marshall
Iraqis resist U.S. pressure to enact oil law
Practically every discussion about benchmarks in Iraq features one measure up front: a new law on distribution of oil revenues. Like most metrics for progress in Iraq, this one isn't going well, either.
It has not even reached parliament, but the oil law that U.S. officials call vital to ending Iraq's civil war is in serious trouble among Iraqi lawmakers, many of whom see it as a sloppy document rushed forward to satisfy Washington's clock.
Opposition ranges from vehement to measured, but two things are clear: The May deadline that the White House had been banking on is in doubt. And even if the law is passed, it fails to resolve key issues, including how to divide Iraq's oil revenue among its Shiite, Kurdish and Sunni regions, and how much foreign investment to allow. Those questions would be put off for future debates.
The problems of the oil bill bode poorly for the other so-called benchmarks that the Bush administration has been pressuring Prime Minister Nouri Maliki's government to meet. Those include provincial elections, reversing a prohibition against former Baath Party members holding government and military positions and revision of Iraq's constitution.
Sheryl Gay Stolberg noted today, "Nobody in Washington seems to agree on what progress actually means -- or how, precisely, it might be measured."
Falling short of an agreement on oil revenue, again, should be a big hint.
--Steve Benen
Thompson had to go to the bathroom
Republican presidential hopeful Tommy Thompson, Bush's former HHS Secretary and a four-term governor of Wisconsin, seems to have developed an awkward foot-in-mouth disease. He's a bit of a long shot anyway, but this really isn't helping.
In April, Thompson had to backpedal after telling a Jewish group that earning money is "part of the Jewish tradition." He later said he was "tired," which led to a careless choice of words.
At the Republicans' first presidential debate, in response to a question about discrimination, Thompson said private employers should be able to fire gay employees, regardless of job performance. He later said he misunderstood what he'd been asked.
Last night, he elaborated on the point, saying he flubbed the question because he had to go to the bathroom.
"I've been very sick. ... I was very sick the day of the debate. I had all of the problems with the flu and bronchitis that you have, including running to the bathroom. I was just hanging on. I could not wait until the debate got off so I could go to the bathroom."
Thompson said he thought he was being asked if there were enough laws already to address discrimination in the workplace. The question at the debate was, "If a private employer finds homosexuality immoral, should he be allowed to fire a gay worker?"
Feel the Tommentum.
There's more on this and other campaign-related news in the Election Central Sunday RoundUp.
--Steve Benen
GOP consternation running high
Eleven House Republicans met with Bush and his senior aides in the White House on Tuesday for an "unvarnished" conversation about Iraq. If the leaks from the meeting are accurate, the GOP lawmakers warned the president that his war policy is putting the future of the Republican Party at risk.
Of course, 11 possible GOP defectors aren't enough to scare the Bush gang. Even if this delegation bucked the party and started voting with the Dems -- which, we should remember, they haven't -- that's not enough to change the policy. The House will still need a two-thirds majority to override a veto, as will the Senate. When 60 Republicans from the House and 15 from the Senate show up on Bush's doorstep, then the White House will start taking them seriously.
Depending on the source, larger numbers may very well be on the way.
Last week, a group of 11 congressional Republicans met with President Bush to express their frustration with the state of the Iraq war, pleading with Bush to change his unpopular Iraq policy.
Today, Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) said, "The 11 House Republicans who went to see him speak for more than just 11 House Republicans. That's just the tip of the iceberg." Hagel said that president "may find himself standing alone sometime this fall," noting that several conservatives are beginning to back "trap doors and exit signs" to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq.
I'd add that Michael Abramowitz reported today that a conservative House Republican with close ties to the leaders said the concerns voiced by the 11 have become common throughout the caucus. "That wasn't the Tuesday Group speaking," he said, referring to an organization of moderate GOP legislators. "No, that's the Republican sentiment."
Maybe. For all the Republican hand wringing, a grand total of four GOP lawmakers -- two in the House (Gilchrest, W. Jones), two in the Senate (Hagel, Smith) -- have been willing to put their votes where their mouths are. When the number reaches, say, double digits, it'll be far more impressive.
--Steve Benen
Lobbying Reform Losing Steam in House
After a midterm campaign cycle in which the GOP's "culture of corruption" played a major role, lobbying reform was slated to be a key legislative issue in the 110th Congress.
Interest in changing the way the system operates, however, appears to be waning.
House Democrats are suddenly balking at the tough lobbying reforms they touted to voters last fall as a reason for putting them in charge of Congress.
Now that they are running things, many Democrats want to keep the big campaign donations and lavish parties that lobbyists put together for them. They're also having second thoughts about having to wait an extra year before they can become high-paid lobbyists themselves should they retire or be defeated at the polls.
The growing resistance to several proposed reforms now threatens passage of a bill that once seemed on track to fulfill Democrats' campaign promise of cleaner fundraising and lobbying practices.
Kevin Drum offers congressional Democrats some good advice: "Come on, folks: show some spine. If Democrats want people to believe that there's really a difference between the two parties, then show them there's a difference."
--Steve Benen
Is Fort Dix the next Seas of David?
Josh noted the other day that the Fort Dix Six may not quite rise to the level of the take-down of the "Seeds of David" goofballs in Miami last year, "but it may not be far off the mark either."
With this in mind, CJR's Paul McLeary explained the other day that foiled terrorist plots are obviously very serious, but too often, these threats have turned out to be less than they appear. (via Daily Kos)
It's hard for the press not to run with stories of possible domestic terrorism, and for good reason -- it's serious and scary business. That said, not all plots are created equal, and lumping them all together into one grab bag of thwarted domestic terrorism cases is something reporters should avoid, especially given some of the absurd plots that have been uncovered over the last couple years. This is not to say that all leads shouldn't be investigated -- they should -- or that anyone discovered in any stage of planning an attack shouldn't be scooped up -- they should-- but we've seen a couple of cases in the last few years be blown way out of proportion, and that makes us wonder what the Fort Dix story will become.
The New York Times this morning offers a good example of this grab-bag coverage when it says that the Fort Dix case is "the latest in a series of plots, targeting sites in the United States, that authorities said they have foiled. These included one last June in which seven arrests were made in Miami after the authorities described suspects talking about blowing up the Sears Tower in Chicago and the F.B.I.'s Miami headquarters.
Except, as we later found out, the cult in Miami -- billed by Dick Cheney as being "a very real threat" -- turned out to be more farce than force. McLeary also noted that the "Lackawanna Six" were "hardly the criminal masterminds that they were initially made out to be."
A few other examples come to mind. The plot to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge wasn't quite what it was made out to be. Jose Padilla was not actually prepared to detonate a dirty bomb in DC. The facts of the British hijacking plot didn't stand up well to scrutiny, and the plot to attack Los Angeles' Library Tower turned out to be far less serious than we'd been led to believe.
Has the administration ever heard of the boy who cried wolf?
--Steve Benen
McCain willing to return to the infamous market
It was a credibility-killing moment for John McCain. Last month, the senator insisted that there are parts of Baghdad safe for Americans to go for a stroll and that General Petraeus travels around the city "almost every day in a non-armed Humvee." Obviously, that was wrong. McCain took this to the next step, of course, when he went to a Baghdad market, surrounded himself with 100 soldiers, three Blackhawk helicopters, and two Apache gunships, and then told reporters that he was able to walk freely in Iraq's capital.
Tim Russert asked him about this on Meet the Press this morning. McCain responded:
"I'll be glad to go back to that market -- with or without military protection and Humvees, etc."
It's hard to believe anyone will be impressed by this misplaced bravado, but it's worth remembering that the day after McCain took his heavily-protected stroll, 21 Shia market were ambushed, bound, and shot from the same market.
Nevertheless, McCain thinks he can go for an unescorted walk in Baghdad? It's as if he's given up on being taken seriously altogether.
When a once-proud man becomes a joke, it's a sad thing to watch.
--Steve Benen
Frank Rich on GOP corruption
Frank Rich seems to believe corruption has ruined the Republican brand.
By my rough, conservative calculation -- feel free to add -- there have been corruption, incompetence, and contracting or cronyism scandals in these cabinet departments: Defense, Education, Justice, Interior, Homeland Security, Veterans Affairs, Health and Human Services, and Housing and Urban Development. I am not counting State, whose deputy secretary, a champion of abstinence-based international AIDS funding, resigned last month in a prostitution scandal, or the General Services Administration, now being investigated for possibly steering federal favors to Republican Congressional candidates in 2006. Or the Office of Management and Budget, whose chief procurement officer was sentenced to prison in the Abramoff fallout. I will, however, toss in a figure that reveals the sheer depth of the overall malfeasance: no fewer than four inspectors general, the official watchdogs charged with investigating improprieties in each department, are themselves under investigation simultaneously -- an all-time record.
Wrongdoing of this magnitude does not happen by accident, but it is not necessarily instigated by a Watergate-style criminal conspiracy. When corruption is this pervasive, it can also be a byproduct of a governing philosophy. That's the case here. That Bush-Rove style of governance, the common denominator of all the administration scandals, is the Frankenstein creature that stalks the G.O.P. as it faces 2008. It has become the Republican brand and will remain so, even after this president goes, until courageous Republicans disown it and eradicate it.
That might be a while.
--Steve Benen
The big news orgs begin to pick up the story of the Iowa farmer family snubbed by the Rudy campaign. More to come?
--Greg Sargent
Outsourcing local journalism
The new frontrunner for "worst idea in modern journalism" has to go to James Macpherson, editor and publisher of the two-year-old site pasadenanow.com, who recently ran this job posting: "We seek a newspaper journalist based in India to report on the city government and political scene of Pasadena, California, USA."
Yes, we've apparently entered the era of outsourcing local journalism.
[Macpherson] acknowledged it sounds strange to have journalists in India cover news in this wealthy city just outside Los Angeles.
But he said it can be done from afar now that weekly Pasadena City Council meetings can be watched over the Internet. And he said the idea makes business sense because of India's lower labor costs.
"I think it could be a significant way to increase the quality of journalism on the local level without the expense that is a major problem for local publications," said the 51-year-old Pasadena native.
Got that? It's not just a way to save money; outsourcing news coverage can make journalism better.
Please. Someone can watch a city council meeting anywhere, and dutifully act as a stenographer, but it's a stretch to call it journalism.
--Steve Benen
