Crooks and Liars
Remember Manuel Miranda? He was the judicial nominations 'counsel' to then-Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) who got busted and subsequently canned for hacking into senate Democrats' computers up on Capitol Hill. Seems we've sent him to Baghdad to be in charge of teaching Iraqi legislators democracy.
The State Department has hired him to head up the Office of Legislative Statecraft at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad.
--Josh Marshall
Krongard Resigns
But not the one you might think.
Buzzy Krongard resigned today from Blackwater's advisory board.
--David Kurtz
Gonzo's Got Some 'Splainin' To Do
Fired Washington State USA John McKay, on what Alberto Gonzales could be facing:
"It's apparent that he had a conversation with the president about David Iglesias and David Iglesias was fired six weeks later," he said. "There was real live investigation and the Republicans wanted the indictment out in time to help them in the election, and Iglesias said 'no' and they fired him."Now if all of that's true and the attorney general was aware of that when he fired David Iglesias, then he has some 'splainin' to do -- and probably in front of a grand jury."
This isn't the first time that McKay has suggested criminal culpability may attach to Gonzo's conduct. I've had a hard time seeing things evolving very far in that direction, but then again an attorney general doesn't crank up a legal defense fund unless there's a "real live investigation" going on.
--David Kurtz
Fox News Alert
Always good to check in from time to time on the latest nonsense Ailes' bunch has cooked up:
Because if high gas prices aren't Nancy Pelosi's fault, then whose fault are they?
--David Kurtz
Tony Fratto takes his turn at the podium in today's White House press briefing:
--David Kurtz
Rove v. Kos: Does pissing off the right and the left really mean Newsweek is doing good journalism?
--David Kurtz
Noose
I don't usually say this: but you've really got to read Spencer's latest on what "Buzzy" Krongard told Waxman about what he'd told his brother "Cookie" Krongard, the State IG. He'd already given them a decent amount of rope to hang his brother in what he told Spencer a couple days ago. But he heaped on a lot more in what he told Waxman. Almost gave them the guy gift-wrapped.
--Josh Marshall
Itchy and Scratchy
Remember a couple days ago TPMmuckraker's Spencer Ackerman broke the news that "Buzzy" Krongard, brother of embattled State Department IG "Cookie" Krongard, contradicted Cookie's testimony before the Waxman committee earlier this week.
Now Waxman wants to talk to Buzzy to get to the bottom of it.
--Josh Marshall
CNN spokesperson confirms that network picked last night's "diamonds or pearls" debate question from among those submitted by student in advance.
--David Kurtz
Sweeney Cops a Plea
Fmr. Rep. John Sweeney (R-NY) took a plea yesterday in his drunk driving arrest. He'll pay a thousand dollar fine, agree to a suspension of his license and avoid jail time. Sweeney said he pled guilty "as a means of expressing my desire to accept personal responsibility for the events of this past Saturday and Sunday ... I do so and would like to as well offer several apologies. One to the court for burdening it with this matter. Two, to the general public for having creating a risk that I should not have created ... and finally but maybe almost importantly to me, my family for the pain I've caused them through this."
--Josh Marshall
The Least We Can Do ...
The chasm that divides us on Iraq is profound. But there's one thing you'd think the fiercest voices on both sides could agree on: asylum for the Iraqis who worked closely with the US and now seem certain to get killed for it. A USAID official came up with a list of the 800 most urgent cases and so far we've only managed to cough up visas for 10 of them.
(ed.note: To be clear, this isn't about sharks like Chalabi and folks like that. It's translators, assistants -- ordinary folks.)
--Josh Marshall
Are We in Stevens' Crosshairs?
You probably know that we've been pretty aggressively covering the Stevens' investigation for months now -- from his freebie home renovation courtesy of now-convicted briber Bill Allen to all the other corruption and shenanigans Stevens is being investigated for.
Now in a new interview Sen. Stevens (R-AK) is saying that if he comes out of the investigation in one piece he's going to come gunning after the reporters who helped publicize all his scams ...
In the interview, Stevens made vague threats to the people who have suggested that he and his son, former state Senate President Ben Stevens, might be guilty of some sort of wrongdoing. The younger Stevens hasn't been charged with a crime, but his name has come up repeatedly in court proceedings. Plea documents in Allen's own case say that payments of $243,250 the Veco CEO made to Ben Stevens were bribes in exchange for "giving advice, lobbying colleagues, and taking official acts in matters before the Legislature" when the younger Stevens was a state lawmaker."Your papers print (the names of) those people who have been convicted and my son's name and mine at the same time. As far as the public is concerned, it's all the same ball of wax," Stevens said. "I'm not going to comment on that ball of wax."
"But we've been included in a way that I hope people understand the laws that are doing it," he said. "Because when it's all over, some people are going to have to account for what they've said and what they've charged us with."
It was unclear whom Stevens was threatening. When asked if he meant libel or perjury, Stevens said: "No. I'm just saying there are ways to account for this in the future."
When asked if he meant political retribution, he remained vague:
"I think the people out there ought to worry about that the way I worry about the investigation. There are myriad things you can do. Just a myriad of things."
When pressed, he wouldn't elaborate further:
"I've said it," Stevens said.
All I can think to say is you should probably immediately watch our TPMtv episode about Stevens' freebie house renovation deal before he forces us to take it offline or puts us in preventive detention or whatever else he's got up his sleeve.
Actually, while you're at it, you should probably watch our Alaska Mucktacular! episode too.
--Josh Marshall
Can We Just Close Down CNN?
Probably like a lot of people I was stunned at the amazingly lame and I'd say fairly offensive diamonds or pearls question that closed out last night's debate. I'd assumed they'd just given the last question to a complete dingbat. Seems CNN got the girl to ask that one rather than a question about Yucca Mountain.
Just to be clear, I'm not above a few cutesy or fun questions. But it's a friggin' presidential debate. And don't ask the first competitive female candidate for president her jewelry preferences.
--Josh Marshall
Cookie's Excellent Adventures
One of the more curious aspects of Cookie Krongard's exploits as State Department inspector general is him going off to Iraq all by himself to investigate the alleged use of forced labor in the building of the new U.S. embassy in Baghdad: no investigative team and as it turned out not much of an investigation.
In response to a House subpoena, Krongard turned over an investigative file of a whopping 20 pages, six of which were Krongard's own work product -- sketchy handwritten notes from his interviews with the contractor's handpicked witnesses.
All of which gives Cookie's travelogue pictures from his trips abroad a bit of a comical gloss.
--David Kurtz
How Do Republicans Get Away With It?
The NYT has picked up on the McCain "How do we beat the bitch" incident that TPM Election Central first noted earlier in the week, but get a load of the double-triple-reverse psychology that Katharine Seelye's piece employs.
Her angle (albeit not a new one) is how the McCain people are trying to use CNN's report on the bitch comment as a fundraising tool. It's a hackneyed GOP ploy: attack the messenger and your opponent at the same time. But Seelye sees it as just another example of the sort of thing all the campaigns do:
Several presidential candidates this year have tried to cash in instantly on negative publicity, seeing it as a way to tap into anger that their supporters feel on their behalf.John Edwards of North Carolina sent a fund-raising letter after he was attacked by Ann Coulter, the conservative pundit. Mrs. Clinton, a New York Democrat, derided a newspaper article about her cleavage and then used it in a fund-raising appeal.
Are those comparable? Hardly. You be the judge.
But we also learn from Seelye that this whole incident could really hurt Clinton because, you know, it's a reminder of how much voters don't like her:
Mr. McCain’s attack on CNN also serves to keep the episode involving the hostile question alive and as a reminder that many voters view Mrs. Clinton as divisive.
Sort of a polite way of saying Hillary really is a bitch.
The piece concludes with the sort of confounding logic that makes national political coverage oftentimes seem like palm reading in a circus tent:
At the same time, the episode may remind voters that many people have strong feelings about Mrs. Clinton and make them question whether they want to live with animosity and polarization.So it's really all Hillary's fault that some crotchety old conservative grand dame in South Carolina called her a bitch. If Hillary wasn't so divisive (such a bitch) then conservatives wouldn't get so riled up about her (that bitch) and that would in turn make fair-minded people (like those of us who read the Times) happier because then they wouldn't have to hear angry GOPers fouling the air with words like bitch.
See? This really isn't about John McCain at all.
Late Update: More on Seelye's conclusion that the McCain "bitch" flap is bad for Hillary right here.
--David Kurtz
Today's Must Read
Which FISA bill will Harry Reid bring to the Senate floor: the intel committee version with telecom immunity or the Judicary Committee's without?
--David Kurtz
Warning: Asbestos-Clad Debate Highlight Reel
The good, the bad and the ugly from the Dems' Vegas showdown:
Plus, Eric Kleefeld has our written roundup at TPM Election Central.
--David Kurtz
Stoller Responds
Matt Stoller responds to Ed Kilgore's post from yesterday about Obama, Social Security, Net Neutrality and more.
--Josh Marshall
What Did You Think?
So, that was the debate. Below, you can see my live responses as things unfolded, and those concluding thoughts toward the end. But what did you think? Send us your thoughts. And I'll post them at TPM.
For me, there were three key moments in the debate -- the opening skirmish, which I think largely defined the debate, Hillary's answer to Campbell Brown's 'gender card' questions and the final tete a tete over Social Security. Of those three, two were Hillary's. Obama also had a moment when he went after Blitzer over his constant invocation of the presumption that no significant problems can ever be solved. But it was too fleeting.
Late Update: Yglesias has a good point here about one of the most insufferable parts of this debate. The aim behind most of Blitzer's questions was to "put Democrats on the wrong side of public opinion, even if those questions are about things like driver's licenses or "merit pay" for teachers that aren't really under federal purview. Efforts to reframe those questions by putting those topics in the larger context of immigration policy more generally or education more generally are derided as cowardly dodges. The point, after all, is to force a choice -- piss off an interest group, or say something that could be used in a GOP attack ad." My only addition to this point is that I thought Obama should have put Blitzer and his militant simpletonism in its place. Just tell him to shut up. He was terrible. But a presidential candidate should be able to stand down a moderator.
Later Update: More Blitzerly questions ...
1. Do you believe there are any times when abortion is killing a baby? Yes or No?
2. If a million people die in the next 9/11, would you be willing to chill out about torture? Yes or no?
--Josh Marshall
Dem Debate Live Blog
8:03 ... So far, I got nuthin'.
8:03 ... Sam Marshall's 1st birthday today. Dunno if it'll come up in the debate.
8:08 ... Campbell Brown works for CNN now? I'm way behind.
8:10 ... Not sure what Hillary's answer to the first question meant; Obama's answer about as full of generalities as Hillary's. Dunno, looks like Hillary came to fight.
8:18 ... Huh, not sure I ever quite fully got what that meant when a pol talks about people "sitting around the table, just got their kids to bed." Yeah, I get it. Now I get it.
8:30 ... Obama should have cut Wolf off and told him he was stupid -- not just a yes or no question. But he didn't. He let Blitzer hold the floor. Obama also didn't explain his point well enough.
8:33 ... Richardson addressed the question better than Obama.
8:43 ... Guess Campbell Brown's research ain't great.
8:57 ... Barack's talking now, but it seems like he hasn't spoken for like nine hours. Don't know if it's me but this feels like the longest debate in history.
8:59 ... Obama's close on the surge was pretty good. First good moment.
9:00 ... Is Wolf the worst debate moderator ever?
9:02 ... Kit Seelye is a lot wordier live blogger than I am; and she blogs in reverse-reverse chronological order. Or what I guess you might call chronological order if you want to be concise about it. When in Rome! Try actually blogging!
9:12 ... Hillary: "Not attacking me because I'm a woman. They're attacking me because I'm ahead." Good line, well delivered. Regardless, now we've got to go back to Campbell Brown, who at this point I think Hillary has made to look like a fool. That's almost a decent reason to support here right there ... I think Brown thought she was going to trip Hillary up on that one but she was so ham-fisted and lame about it that Hillary basically hit that one out of the park.
My reactions right after a debate often tend to be very different from what the consensus opinion turns out to be. But trying to get a feel for the broader narrative of this debate (75 minutes in) I think the basic tone got set very early in the back and forth between the top three candidates. The story going into this debate was that Hillary's veneer of inevitability had been cracked and that the knives were out for her. But she came out aggressively, and basically knocked Obama and Edwards back. Not that she flattened them, but she was more aggressive than I think either of them were quite ready for (I'll have to go back and watch the tape). And since then I think the debate has been hassled out on that basis -- basically a wash and therefore a plus for Hillary. Not sure what others will think. I think we'll still be talking about the surge for Obama and Edwards. But so far at least I say the first exchange out of the gate was the most significant.
9:49 ... Okay, that was another key moment. Obama/Hillary back and forth on Social Security.
9:52 (commercial break mull) ... One thing that surprises me about the Obama cap issue is that a few more details would I think resolve almost all the issues, at least among Dems. Is he committed to raising the cap now -- as I've said I think would be a bad idea? Or at the point where we start dipping into the trust fund or when the trust fund runs out? Latter makes a lot more sense. And is he saying he'd remove the cap completely or in part? Usually more details are something a candidate wants to avoid, but here I think the opposite is the case.
10:13 ... Am I wrong or was the whole thing pretty painful?
--Josh Marshall
Ed on Barack and Chris and Matt and ...
Before we get started tonight I wanted to flag Ed Kilgore's post over at TPMCafe on the left's obama "problem". He gets into what some of the love/hate is about, and the key role of Social Security.
--Josh Marshall
FISA bill emerges from Senate Judiciary Committee without telecom immunity.
--David Kurtz
Barry Bonds Indicted
CNN: A federal grand jury indicts Barry Bonds on perjury and obstruction of justice charges, AP and CNN affiliate KTVU report.
From the AP:
Barry Bonds was indicted Thursday on perjury and obstruction of justice charges, culminating a four-year federal investigation into whether he lied under oath to a grand jury looking into steroid use by elite athletes.
--David Kurtz
Paulose the Victim of Pro-Sex Slave Cabal?
You may remember the story of Rachel Paulose, the inexperienced right-wing comer and friend of Monica Goodling who got installed in what was first intended to be a Patriot Act appointment to be US Attorney in Minnesota. Her managerial incompetence quickly spawned an office rebellion in which all four members of the office managerial team resigned their positions to go back to being line attorneys in the office, then there's the investigation into her mishandling of classified material and mistreatment of employees. And then there's the unfortunate matter of her using racial slurs ("fat", "black", "lazy", "ass", etc.) to describe staff.
When Paulose lost the confidence of even confirmed Bush party-liner Sen. Norm Coleman, you'd think that people had given up on making the case for this poster-child for US Atty Purge hackdom.
But no.
Minnesota blogger Eric Black has been in the lead on the Paulose story since the spring. And now he brings news that Paulose's supporters are now pushing the story that she's being run out of office by a secret pro-prostitution cabal at the Justice Department.
Black's got the details.
--Josh Marshall
Mukasey's Crew
The President has announced a slew of new top level nominations at DOJ, starting with U.S. District Judge Mark Filip as the new deputy attorney general.
--David Kurtz
Can the secretary of state fire the State Department inspector general? Word is State will be releasing a statement on the mechanics of this issue this evening.
--David Kurtz
Sifting through the wreckage of U.S. policies on Pakistan and Iran, at today's White House press briefing:
--David Kurtz
Mayor of the Universe
TPM Reader AN descends into further Rudyology ...
I just watched the clip that Ben Craw put together of all the various times Rudy Giuliani mentions 9-11. There was one moment in particular that actually made me laugh out loud. With about 2:45 to go in the clip Giuliani says, "I had to be responsible for the safety and security of my assistant U.S. Attorneys; for the law enforcement people who work for me; then for 8 million people..." You've previously pointed out the absurdity of a mayor claiming to be responsible for the safety of a city's residents. But I think claiming to be responsible for the safety of his subordinates while U.S. Attorney and claiming to be responsible for the safety of the very people (law enforcement officials) who are in fact largely responsible for the safety of city residents takes Rudy's hero complex to new heights. Bravo Mr. Giuliani. Well played sir.
My candidacy for Lord High Universal Dungeon Master will be based largely on the fact that I am responsible for the safety and security of one million TPM Readers around the globe. It's a terrible burden to carry. But I'm not complaining.
--Josh Marshall
We'll Talk, We'll Work It Out
TPM Reader SL gets it. Who else does?
Of all the things in Giuliani's past and present I find frightening was his suggestion in the fall of 2001 that the mayoral election be postponed or its result disregarded. And he proposed doing this with the simple agreement of the candidates. This is not someone who understands what a republic is, let alone a democracy. I keep waiting for one of his critics to point this out as an astonishing disqualifier for the presidency.
--Josh Marshall
TPMtv: Yeeeaaaahhh, That's The Ticket!
As in the courtroom, there aren't many real Perry Mason moments in congressional investigations. But Henry Waxman had one yesterday when he was trying to get to the bottom of why the State Department's chief private contractor watchdog (the Inspector General) was running interference for Blackwater and Dyncorp rather than the taxpayers. We bring you the key moments in today's episode of TPMtv ...
--Josh Marshall
House Dems plan big push against GOP on subprime mortgage crisis, while Harry Reid plots to foil recess appointments during Thanksgiving recess.
--David Kurtz
State IG Cookie Krongard gets a less-than-ringing endorsement from the State Department spokesperson.
--David Kurtz
Really That Many Times?
A number of you who watched our Rudy Giuliani 9/11 commercial spoof in yesterday's episode of TPMtv have written in to ask, "Did you re-use any of those Giuliani 9/11 moments for effect? Were there any repeats? Or was every single clip a unique Rudy milking 9/11 moment?"
Well, don't tell him I told you this. But TPMtv producer/editor Ben Craw was actually kind of hurt that the question was even asked. Because, yes, every clip is unique. I actually handcuffed Ben to his editing chair and told him I didn't want to see him again until he came back with the montage of Rudy's moments trying to exploit 9/11 all the way to the White House.
Anyhow, by the time Ben was done putting the thing together he was pretty much fried. So even he didn't know how many individual clips were used.
So check it out if you missed it yesterday. And if you're a good counter, try to figure out how many individual clips are included ...
--Josh Marshall
What If Huckabee Wins Iowa?
It's early to speculate. Perhaps Huckabee is even peaking too early. It's always hard to know with these things. But the polls out of Iowa now leave little doubt that Mike Huckabee isn't just surging or in the first tier. He may even now be tied with Romney.
Now, Huckabee has little organization outside of Iowa and the classic problem of not enough money and infrastructure to effectively capitalize on a strong showing in Iowa. But the issue is less what a Huckabee "win" does for Huckabee as what it could do to Mitt Romney.
There's been a loose assumption for a while that Romney will sweep or at least dominate the early primaries. But if Huckabee wins in Iowa (and depending on the state of the expectations game a strong second could be a "win") it could be devastating for him.
Let's walk through it.
If Romney doesn't win Iowa then anything but a crushing victory in New Hampshire amounts to a loss since it's his backyard (a big chunk of New Hampshire is part of the Boston media market and many New Hampshirites work in Massachusetts). And if there's no momentum coming out of either Iowa or New Hampshire it's really hard to see how he does well in South Carolina since he's never been ahead there in the first place.
The Romney strategy is to capitalize on momentum coming out of the first contests just as most voters are really starting to pay attention to the race. But live by the mo, die by the mo. So much of the logic of Romney's candidacy is based on those early states and he's spent so much money to build up those leads, that an Iowa loss followed by the probable negative feed back loop would pretty much mean the Romney candidacy is over.
So you can see how a Huckabee win in Iowa, while probably not doing much good for Huckabee, could have a profound effect on the outcome of the GOP race.
--Josh Marshall
Today's Must Read
Now you, too, can make a difference: Contribute to the Alberto R. Gonzales Legal Expense Trust.
--David Kurtz
A Blue Light Special
The White House is pushing the meme that it is already withdrawing troops from Iraq, and the AP picks it right up:
House Democrats pushed through a $50 billion bill for the Iraq war Wednesday night that would require President Bush to start bringing troops home in coming weeks with a goal of ending combat by December 2008.The legislation, passed 218-203, was largely a symbolic jab at Bush, who already has begun reducing force levels but opposes a congressionally mandated timetable on the war. And while the measure was unlikely to pass in the Senate — let alone overcome a presidential veto — Democrats said they wanted voters to know they weren't giving up.
This of course is a reference to the fact that some elements of the ballyhooed surge are coming to an end. It reminds me of the old retail trick of artificially inflating a price so that you can call the actual price a "sale."
--David Kurtz
David Broder again writes about Clinton marriage -- less than a week after vowing not to.
--David Kurtz
Not So Fast, David ...
From the Times-Picayune ...
The "D.C. Madam" served a subpoena Tuesday on Sen. David Vitter, R-La., requiring him to testify about his use of the Washington, D.C., escort service federal prosecutors say was a prostitution ring.The subpoena calls on the freshman senator to testify at a federal court hearing Nov. 28 looking into the business operations of the $2 million escort service Deborah Jeane Palfrey operated in the nation's capital for 13 years.
Vitter has acknowledged being a client of Palfrey's company, Pamela Martin & Associates, and his telephone number appeared six times in the firm's phone records between 1999 and 2001, when he was a member of the House of Representatives. He was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2004.
--Josh Marshall
Dems Pass War Funding Bill
From The Hill ...
Staring down the threat of a White House veto and some internal opposition, House Democrats Wednesday night passed legislation linking $50 billion in funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to a withdrawal date.The spending bill, which requires Bush to begin bringing troops home from Iraq within 30 days and to complete that withdrawal by Dec. 15, 2008, passed 218-203. Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), who had said he was undecided earlier in the day, voted present.
Republican Reps. Phil English (Pa.), Walter Jones (N.C.), Christopher Shays (Conn.) and James Walsh (N.Y.) supported the bill. English and Walsh had never sided with Democrats on war-related funding measures.Fifteen Democrats voted against the bill, including conservative Democratic Reps. John Tanner (Tenn.), Brian Baird (Wash.), Dan Boren (Okla.), Jim Cooper (Tenn.), Gene Taylor (Miss.), John Barrow (Ga.), Jim Marshall (Ga.), Jim Matheson (Utah), Nick Lampson (Texas) and Vic Snyder (Ark.) voted against the bill.
--Josh Marshall
Hillary comes out against driver's licenses for illegal immigrants after NY Gov. Eliot Spitzer drops his plan to do just that, providing instant fodder for her opponents.
--David Kurtz
"P" is for ...
Not looking good for State Department Inspector General "Cookie" Krongard. Today he told the House Oversight Committee that his brother wasn't on the Blackwater advisory board. Then when he was later confronted with news to the contrary, he said he'd only just found out and would henceforth recuse himself from all Blackwater inquiries.
But Spencer Ackerman just interviewed Krongard's brother, "Buzzy" Krongard, who told Spencer that he definitely did tell his brother all about it. Only a few weeks ago apparently.
Perjury charges have been made of much less.
--Josh Marshall
The Gift That Keeps on Giving
The indictment in the Kerik case suggests the White House knew about the mafia problems well before they trotted out the "nanny" cover story.
--Josh Marshall
At today's White House press briefing, we learn that the troops are coming home (and they're winning!) . . . that terrorism is born of poverty and despair . . . and that Dana Perino is no longer commenting on the Blackwater shooting:
--David Kurtz
Remember those amusingly mendacious wingnuts from yesterday? Now they've responded to The Horse's Mouth.
--David Kurtz
Falling Hard
As we've been reporting on the Kerik-Giuliani relationship, a number of TPM Readers have referred to this NYPD blog NYPDConfidential.com. The November 12th entry, still the most recent as of this moment, gives some background on Rudy's soft spot for Bernie and other crushes which trumped all else.
--Josh Marshall
McCain: Only I Can Beat the Bitch!
Is McCain doubling down with the paranoid wingnuts? McCain's campaign manager just sent out an email claiming that CNN ran the McCain/Hillary "bitch" vid because CNN execs know he's the only Republican who can beat Hillary. Feast your eyes ...
Friends,The CNN Network, affectionately known as the Clinton News Network, has stooped to an all-time low and is gratuitously attacking John McCain for not defending Hillary Clinton enough when a South Carolina voter used the 'B' word to describe her when John McCain stopped into a luncheon yesterday at the Trinity restaurant in Hilton Head, SC.
A voter used a word that I would not have used to describe Senator Hillary Clinton and asked the Senator how he was going to beat her. Senator McCain first responded by saying that he respected Senator Clinton, as he has said repeatedly throughout the campaign. Then, focusing on the question, he pointed to the new Rasmussen national poll showing that he is the only Republican candidate who can beat her in a general election. No other Republican candidate beat Clinton in the poll.
As an independent news agency, CNN owes John McCain an apology because of the outrageous behavior of their network host Rich Sanchez. Liberal bloggers and their friends at CNN went on the attack yesterday and continued their attacks through the night. They said the McCain campaign was over because of the statement of one, lone voter in South Carolina. Well friends, we are on a comeback, we are the only campaign that can defeat Hillary Clinton and CNN knows it. We are not going to let Senator Clinton's friends in the liberal blogosphere and on CNN try to destroy our campaign. Senator McCain is a fighter and he is not going to back down to CNN.
Please click here to watch how John McCain responded to the question.
Please click here to watch CNN's Rich Sanchez's biased and factually incorrect "reporting" try to end the McCain candidacy.
Why are they doing this?
Because John McCain is the only Republican who beats Hillary Clinton in recent national polling data and who will beat her in the general election. The Rasmussen poll shows that he leads Senator Hillary Clinton by two or three points while Rudy Giuliani loses to Hillary Clinton by six points. State-by-state polling shows that he can win important swing states in the general election whereas Rudy Giuliani loses those swing states. John McCain is now in a strong second place in most, if not all, recent national polling. These polls emphasize what CNN and their liberal friends are afraid of: John McCain is the best general election candidate.
John McCain is improving in primary polls. A poll released yesterday by CBS News shows that he is now in second place in New Hampshire. He won New Hampshire in 2000 and he will win New Hampshire in 2008. The McCain comeback is here and it is real.
John McCain displayed leadership on Iraq when others were silent. He was the only candidate who criticized the Rumsfeld strategy and argued for a new strategy in Iraq - a strategy that is now succeeding. The liberal media knows that if John McCain is nominated they can no longer try to use the War in Iraq for political gain.
The liberal media has figured out that John McCain is the only thing that stands between a Hillary Clinton presidency, and they are therefore trying to stop the McCain comeback. Simply put, CNN is scared that John McCain will beat Hillary Clinton. They are right to be scared. We are not going to back down.
We need your help. We need you to stand with John McCain, a man of honor, integrity and love of country, against the liberal media and liberal blogosphere that are trying to bring him down. We need you to stand with John McCain against Rick Sanchez and his friends at CNN and their biased reporting. We need you to stand with John McCain against Hillary Clinton's allies who will do anything to prevent him from winning the Republican nomination.
Can we count on you to stand up and support John McCain against these attacks?
Will you stand up and help strengthen the resurgence of our campaign as the best candidate to defeat Hillary Clinton?
--Josh Marshall
Rudy Asked About Regan Allegations
As to whether a News Corp. official asked Judith Regan to mislead federal investigators about her relationship with Bernie Kerik, as she claims, Rudy has a surprisingly elusive response:
Rudy Giuliani dismissed questions Wednesday about allegations made by his ex-police commissioner Bernard Kerik's former lover - that she was asked to lie about the affair to avoid hurting Giuliani's presidential ambitions.The candidate laughed when reporters asked for his response to one-time publishing powerhouse Judith Regan's $100 million lawsuit claiming that her former employers directed her to lie to federal investigators about Kerik because of the implications for Giuliani.
"I don't respond to the story at all. I don't know anything about it. And, it sounds to me like a kind of gossip column story more than a real story," Giuliani said at the end of a 20-minute campaign stop, his only one of the day in this early voting state.
Asked if he was aware of Kerik and Regan's relationship, the former New York mayor said: "I think that's a gossip column story, and the last thing in the world you want to do when you're running for president is respond to gossip column type stories."
--David Kurtz
D'Oh!
I guess you could say these hearings aren't going to well for Howard "Cookie" Krongard. Anytime the morning's questions lead you to recuse yourself from investigations you're currently accused of blocking or whitewashing, that just can't be good.
In case you're joining the programming late, Howard "Cookie" Krongard is the Inspector General at the State Department, the guy charged with investigating fraud, waste or wrongdoing at the department or by contractors working for the department. But he seems to have spent his time blocking or hobbling investigations into big money military contracting outfits like Blackwater, Dyncorp and others.
Cookie's brother (small world) was #3 at CIA. And at the committee hearing this morning it emerged that "Buzzy" Krongard is on Blackwater's advisory board.
No word yet on the Krongard family's aversion to normal names.
--Josh Marshall
Greg Anrig on "intelligent design" as a window into the machinery of conservative politics.
--David Kurtz
Fox in the Henhouse
We've been trying to nail down whether the brother of State Department Inspector General Howard "Cookie" Krongard is a member of the Advisory Board of Blackwater. The Democrats on the Waxman committee are saying he is; and Krongard himself appeared to deny it in his testimony this morning. But we've just received confirmation from Blackwater that he in fact does sit on the board.
There was some confusion at first because Rep. Waxman seemed to say that Krongard's brother, himself a former #3 man at the CIA, was on the company's board of directors, which would be a bigger deal. But sitting on Blackwater's advisory board is still plenty to create a clear conflict. And it sheds a lot of light on Krongard's habit of scuttling investigations into Blackwater's business practices.
As a secondary matter, there's also now the question of why Krongard denied it.
Beyond that though there's a lot of evidence emerging that the State Department has been peculiarly lax in its dealings with a number of major military contractors in Iraq, seemingly enabling a lot of the subsequent rip-offs of taxpayer money as well as arguably creating the climate in which incidents like the Nisour Square shooting were allowed to take place.
More coming soon.
--Josh Marshall
TPMtv: Rudy's First TV Ad!
You've probably heard the news that Rudy Giuliani is finally hitting the airwaves with his first TV ad. Well, we've got it. And we're actually premiering it here at TPM. Even we were a bit surprised, though, at just how 9/11 focused it is. But you take a look and make your own call ...
--Ben Craw
That's the Way the Cookie Crumbles
Already under FBI investigation, State Department Inspector General Howard "Cookie" Krongard testifies before Rep. Henry Waxman's committee today. Spencer Ackerman anchors our ongoing coverage of the hearing.
Right out of the gate this morning, Waxman has dropped the bombshell that Krongard's brother Buzzy--the former No. 3 at CIA--sits on the board of Blackwater, State's most controversial contractor.
Perhaps a minor conflict of interest?
Late Update: At issue is whether Buzzy Krongard sits on a Blackwater advisory board--not the Blackwater board of directors.
--David Kurtz
Today's Must Read
The FBI has determined that the Nisour Square shooting was unjustified--but will the Blackwater shooters be prosecuted?
--David Kurtz
Already Making His Feelings Known?
Everybody seems to be reporting this morning that Judith Regan claims, in her $100 million lawsuit against NewsCorp, that an unnamed NewsCorp Executive told her to lie to and conceal evidence about Bernard Kerik from federal investigators to protect Rudy Giuliani.
Except the Wall Street Journal.
Even the New York Post has it.
Late Update: The online version of the Journal article noted above has now been updated with a discussion of the Kerik-Giuliani issue.
--Josh Marshall
Driving While ...
Getting a Lapdance?
From the Times-Union ...
State Police received an unexpected surprise when they stopped former Rep. John Sweeney on the Northway early Sunday a female passenger on his lap, a law enforcement source said Tuesday. When troopers began following the ex-lawmaker north on I-87, just south of Exit 9, they assumed the Clifton Park Republican was driving alone in his 2004 BMW, said the individual, whose identity is being withheld by the Times Union.The 23-year-old woman, who has not been identified, was on Sweeney's lap, the source said.
--Josh Marshall
The Rudy and Rupert Chronicles
Just out from the NYT:
Judith Regan, the book publisher who was fired by the News Corporation last year, asserts in a lawsuit filed today that a senior executive at the media conglomerate encouraged her to mislead federal investigators about her relationship with Bernard B. Kerik during his bid to become homeland security secretary in late 2004.The lawsuit asserts that the News Corporation executive wanted to protect the presidential aspirations of former Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, Mr. Kerik’s mentor, who had appointed him New York City police commissioner and had recommended him for the federal post.
--David Kurtz
Some amusing mendacity from self-described conservative "media watchdogs."
--David Kurtz
Kick Some Butt, John!
I guess we can count on McCain's response to the "How do we beat the bitch?" question to rally the wingnuts.
--David Kurtz
Mukasey Makes First Big Move?
The DOJ's internal investigation into warrantless wiretapping--an investigation once blocked when the White House refused to authorize security clearances for the investigators from the Office of Professional Responsibility--has been restarted.
--David Kurtz
Finally, The Numbers ...
In our coverage of the US Attorney Purge story a major issue looming in the background was the Republican party's effort to reduce minority voting. And a key way of doing that was to get states to pass (and the gutted Voting section at DOJ to approve) so-called voter ID laws to crack down on vote fraud for which there was in fact no evidence.
The truth is that if you're an educated and reasonably well-off person who has time free to read about politics during the day at TPM you very likely have one or more pieces of ID, in all likelihood a drivers' license. But among minorities, low-income voters, the young and the old that's often not the case. And those who don't have acceptable voter IDs are disproportionately Democrats.
Remember, the point of voter ID laws is not to eliminate fraud it is to eliminate Democratic voters. So if your voter ID law disenfranchises 10% of voters and 80% of those are Democrats you've just handed yourself several percentage points that can win you a bunch of close elections -- it's certainly easier than winning them the old fashioned way.
In any case, I return to this topic because one of these laws has been enacted in Indiana. And the Brennan Center and others have filed an amicus brief with a new quantitative study which finally puts real numbers on how many people will effectively lose their right to vote.
I'm quoting here from the press release on some of the study's key findings ....
# 21.8% of black Indiana voters do not have access to a valid photo ID (compared to 15.8% of white Indiana voters - a 6 point gap).# When non-registered eligible voter responses are included - the gap widens. 28.3% of eligible black voters in the State of Indiana to not have valid photo ID (compared to 16.8% of eligible voting age white Indiana residents - a gap of 11.5 percent).
# The study found what it termed "a curvilinear pattern (similar to an upside down U-curve)" in the relationship between age and access to valid ID - younger voters and older voters were both less likely to have valid ID compared to voters in the middle categories. 22% of voters 18-34 did not have ID, nor did 19.4% over the age of 70. (compared to 16.2% of Indiana voters age 35-54 without valid ID and 14.1% for 55-69 year olds).
# 21% of Indiana registered voters with only a high school diploma did not have valid ID (compared to 11.5% of Indiana voters who have completed college - a gap of 9.5%).
# Those with valid ID are much more likely to be Republicans than those who do not have valid ID. Among registered voters with proper ID, 41.6% are registered Republicans, 32.5% are Democrats.
The study puts in a very stark relief what the Republican effort to keep minority and low-income voters from the polls is really about. And the Supreme Court will soon sign off on whether this is permitted -- a decision that will have a huge effect on voting rights in this country for years to come. Please take a moment to check out the press release and find out more.
--Josh Marshall
There's a more complete version of that video of McCain responding to a supporter's query of "How do we beat the bitch?" After a bit of rueful chuckling, he says, "But that's an excellent question."
--David Kurtz
Edwards is asked again about whether he'll support Hillary if she wins nomination.
Late Update: Watch the video. Is that a hedge?
--David Kurtz
Trippin'...
Musharraf says Bhutto's actions since her return to Pakistan have been "producing negative vibes."
--Josh Marshall
The Laws Don't Apply?
I should probably preface this post by conceding that I was quite sure that Rudy's pro-choice, pro-modernity stance on a number of key social issues would make his run for the Republican nomination a non-starter. I'm still fairly confident I'll be vindicated on that one in the final analysis. But clearly my political antennae leave something to be desired on the Rudy front. That said, can Rudy really win the nomination after losing Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina? One, two, three, in that order?
As far back as I can remember, there's always been a candidate who tries something like this, tried to hang back on the low-count early primaries and then break out nationwide on that year's "Super Tuesday". Often it was a candidate trying to wait until a slew of Southern primaries and try to break out there. But this has basically never worked. The catalytic effect of victories in the early states almost always creates unstoppable momentum and an aura of victory for whichever candidate wins Iowa, New Hampshire or both. For the Republicans at least the list definitely also includes South Carolina.
There's an added factor here because it seems likely that Mitt Romney will win Iowa and New Hampshire and at least has a decent shot of taking South Carolina too.
Does Romney really get six weeks of solid wins in the early primary states and then get stiff-armed by Rudy on February 5th?
Late Update: Here's an AP article relaying Rudy's argument for why this will work for him when it hasn't worked for anyone in the past. The one significant factor he has in his favor is that the primary season is much more compressed. Still, history is very much against him.
--Josh Marshall
Rep. Tom Feeney (R-FL), under investigation for his Abramoff connections, turns to a former Abramoff protege for fundraising help.
--David Kurtz
Off With Their Jobs
Following up on last night's post on Rudy's plain to slash the federal workforce down to about two-thirds of its current size, I find that Rudy apparently first rolled this plan out at the beginning of the summer. And it's already generated a lively discussion among those who actually follow the federal workforce as an issue full time. Here's one example here and another here.
One basic point -- not a surprising one -- is that if you approach this issue only as a matter of cutting federal workers rather than the less politically popular one of announcing which services you plan to cut, you quickly run into trouble. Either you farm the work out to crony contractors or you do what Rudy himself did as mayor when he had a similar job attrition plan. He quickly realized that cutting the number of city workers just wasn't consistent with improving the quality and reliability of city services. So he quickly bagged the whole idea.
--Josh Marshall
TPMtv: The Return of John Bolton
Remember John Bolton? The neocon installed at the State Department to keep Colin Powell under control and then later given a recess appointment to be US Ambassador. I could give you a list of particulars but suffice it to say that Bolton was a key factor in basically all the Bush White House's most disastrous decisions and he's still got the Iran war coming up.
Now he's back on the airwaves with a new book and the ear of a certain Republican presidential candidate who's running on his record as mayor of New York. We bring you all the ugly details in today's episode of TPMtv ...
Watch this episode on YouTube.
--Josh Marshall
Not a Good Sign
CNN called out on sloppy journalism practices by professional wrestling organization.
--Josh Marshall
TPM Turns 7
It's not the way I'd like celebrate it, as I'm home sick today. But I didn't want to let the day go by without noting that today is the 7th Anniversary of Talking Points Memo. The first post to the site was on November 13th, 2000. You can see what TPM looked like at different stages of its evolution in this episode of TPMtv we did back in July when we debuted the most recent redesign of the site.
--Josh Marshall
Today's Must Read
Administration refuses to provide Congress with key Iraq strategy document.
--David Kurtz
Edwards won't promise to back Hillary if she's eventual Democratic nominee.
--David Kurtz
Lotta Cuts
Okay, we're starting to get some good tips to help us flesh out Rudy's new promise that he'll replace only 50% of federal workers slated to retire over the next decade.
TPM Reader JR points us to this article in Government Executive magazine that notes that ...
The government faces a potential wave of exits over the next decade as about 60 percent of federal workers overall and 90 percent of senior executives become eligible for retirement.
Now, I've never been much of a math wiz. But half of 60% is I think 30%. So Rudy seems to be saying he'll cut the federal workforce by about 1/3, which sounds like it would likely have some pretty serious consequences.
Meanwhile, another recent study says that over the next two years alone the federal government plans to hire 193,000 new workers for "mission-critical" jobs. And about 1/3 of those are in "security, protection, compliance and enforcement."
The study also notes that most of those new hires are for the Department of Homeland Security for stuff like customs enforcement, border security and immigration enforcement. Presumably he's willing to gut those enforcement responsibilities.
--Josh Marshall
Breaking!
A headline that sort of captures where we are.
From The Politico: "Dean says Jews can go to heaven"
And how is it we got here exactly?
Late Update: Okay, couldn't help myself. Here's the second graf of the piece ...
In another statement likely to stir debate among the evangelical Christians his party is urgently trying to court, Dean also asserted “there are no bars to heaven for anybody,” according to the report by JTA, a 90-year-old non-profit organization which calls itself “the global news service of the Jewish people.”
It is a risky move, isn't it? As long as Democrats are trying to court people of faith, it would probably be the wiser course of action to note the probable damnation of the Jews.
Even Later Update: I actually found it even more shocking that more than a few readers read this post apparently just after having their irony and sarcasm surgically removed.
--Josh Marshall
Number-Crunch
Courtesy of TPM Reader SD, here's the latest from Rudy on the trail ...
To cut government spending, Giuliani promised to replace only half of the federal workers expected to retire over the next eight to 10 years. He promised to retain the tax cuts put in place by the Bush administration. Those two actions, he said, would require that average Americans take more responsibility for their lives.
Anybody know some solid estimates for how many federal workers are scheduled/predicted to retire over the next decade? I'm sure there are pretty detailed estimates. I'd be curious to see some of the details sketched out on this one.
--Josh Marshall
Federal Judiciary ...
From the Houston Chronicle ...
The federal court employee at the center of a sexual misconduct complaint against U.S. District Judge Samuel Kent first went to her boss about the judge allegedly touching her inappropriately in 2003 — four years before the March incident that led to his reprimand by the 5th Circuit judicial council.In mid-2003, case manager Cathy McBroom told her supervisor that the judge lured her into an office used as an exercise room and groped her, according to interviews with McBroom's friends, her mother and other sources.
But her female supervisor advised that McBroom could lose her job if she made a formal complaint, and no further action apparently was taken.
...
McBroom was summoned to the judge's chambers on Friday, March 23, at about 3 p.m.
Her hands were full of legal papers when the judge — a former high school athlete who is more than 6 inches taller and at least 100 pounds heavier — asked for a hug.
She told him she didn't think that was appropriate, but reluctantly approached.
The judge grabbed Mc-Broom, pulled up her blouse and her bra and put his mouth on her breast. Then, Kent forced her head down toward his crotch.
As McBroom struggled, Kent kept telling the married mother of three what he wanted to do to her in words too graphic to publish. The papers fell to the floor. The pet bulldog Kent kept in his chambers began to bark.
The incident was interrupted by the sound of footsteps from another staff member in the corridor, and the judge loosened his grip. As she left, the judge said McBroom was a good case manager and then made suggestions about engaging in a sexual act.
--Josh Marshall
This is the sort of ad your crazy xenophobic, jingoistic uncle would air if he were running for President. Instead, it's Rep. Tom Tancredo's.
--David Kurtz
Bernie Kerik's alleged lies to White House officials are key to the case against him. How much has the White House cooperated with Kerik investigation?
--David Kurtz
Getting the Timeline Straight
Implicit in most of the discussion of the Giuliani-Kerik relationship are two basic ideas of what led Rudy to promote Kerik despite all the dirty laundry and criminal conduct in his background. If you're more sympathetic to Rudy, the idea is that Rudy's loyal to his friends and supporters. The two bonded. And Rudy just didn't pay close enough attention to the warning signs. If you take a darker view of Rudy, you probably figure that he heard a lot of this stuff and either didn't want to hear or didn't really care. Kerik was loyal and that was enough.
But I'm not so sure.
The red flags with Kerik were so numerous and conspicuous that it seems hard to believe either of these explanations really adds up. Remember that Rudy made his name as a mob prosecutor as US Attorney in New York. So you'd figure he'd have experience not just being sensitive to mob connections of city employees but also used to being suspicious of city employees with ties to organized crime figures.
So we're digging further into this.
One thing that caught my attention is that Kerik's period as Rudy's chauffeur wasn't as long as I'd understood. According to a December 24th, 1997 article in the New York Post, Kerik volunteered to be Rudy's driver during his second (and successful) run for mayor in 1993. Then "after six weeks as an official NYPD bodyguard in the mayor's security detail" Rudy gave him a job at the city Corrections department. Six months after that he was promoted to First Deputy Corrections Commissioner. Three years after that he was in charge of the whole place.
So a few questions. How much time did Rudy and Kerik spend together in the chauffeur phase of the friendship? How much after he got Kerik the job in Corrections?
We'll keep at it. If you know more, drop us a line.
--Josh Marshall
Ringside Seat
Former FCC Chairman Reed Hundt tells us about his weekend trip through Iowa to see how the politicking is going.
--Josh Marshall
Does the internet breed extremism and conformity?
That's the question from Law Professor Cass Sunstein, author of Republic.com, who is sitting down at TPMCafe's Table for One for the week to discuss the internet's effects on democracy.
--David Kurtz
The Kerik Files
So it seems the Giuliani/Kerik relationship is finally starting to get a little attention from the media -- in large measure because of the latest indictment and also because his competitors (especially John McCain, for now) are hitting him on it. You can see our roundup of what happened on the Sunday Shows here. And you can find our mega-Kerik scandal list here.
So far, the fact that Rudy was warned about Kerik's mafia ties before giving him multiple appointments is getting the most attention.
But there's also this matter of Kerik's personnel policies. Kerik and the City of New York were twice sued by city corrections employees who claimed that Kerik had blackballed them for not treating his mistress, who was also a corrections department employee while he was head of the department, with kid gloves.
The city settled one of the cases for a quarter of a million dollar pay out. The other case was finally thrown out only this year because a judge said the plaintiff, former Deputy Warden Eric DeRavin, hadn't come up with enough evidence to sustain the case. Surely Rudy knew about this, no?
--Josh Marshall
Bernie May Be Dead (Politically), But He's Still the Life of the Party!
Bernard Kerik - former New York City Police Commissioner, Secretary of Homeland Security nominee, and close personal friend of Rudy Giuliani - was formally indicted Friday on a slew of federal corruption charges. With the legal proceedings set to unfold concurrently with the presidential campaign, and with the issue seeming to penetrate the core of Giuliani's "judgment" and "national security" campaign theme, just how badly does Bernie hurt Rudy?
Watch this episode on YouTube.
--Ben Craw
Today's Must Read
How did more than 190,000 weapons sent to Iraq for the Iraqi security forces disappear almost as soon as they were unloaded off the C-17s?
--David Kurtz
Admiral Fallon's words of wisdom
Admiral William Fallon, head of U.S. Central Command, which oversees military operations in the Middle East, has heard plenty of war-mongering rhetoric from the right when it comes to Iran. He's come to an important conclusion: it's not helping.
“None of this is helped by the continuing stories that just keep going around and around and around that any day now there will be another war which is just not where we want to go,” he said.
“Getting Iranian behaviour to change and finding ways to get them to come to their senses and do that is the real objective. Attacking them as a means to get to that spot strikes me as being not the first choice in my book.”
I look forward to Rudy Giuliani and his foreign policy advisors explaining why Admiral Fallon is guilty of pre-9/11 thinking. Who knows, maybe we'll even hear Limbaugh dismiss him as a "phony soldier."
--Steve Benen
Krauthammer's Kerik rationalization
For most reasonable people, the fact that Rudy Giuliani urged the White House to put Bernie Kerik in charge of the Department of Homeland Security is humiliating. After all, Giuliani had already been briefed on Kerik's connections to organized crime when he made the recommendation, which puts a crimp in the Republican candidate's "competent manager" schtick.
Apparently, however, we've got it all wrong. Charles Krauthammer wants us to know that Giuliani's DHS recommendation, which even he now concedes was an embarrassing mistake, is actually an encouraging point for the former mayor.
On the November 9 edition of Fox News' Special Report, during a discussion of how Republican presidential candidate and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani has "dealt with" his former police commissioner Bernard Kerik's recent 16-count federal indictment, syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer asserted that "the fact that [Giuliani] recommended [Kerik] for [secretary of the Department of] Homeland Security is, in some odd way, exonerating." Krauthammer continued: "[T]he man is not an idiot. If he had actually thought there was real criminality here, as we see in the indictment, you don't recommend a guy for a post like that if you assume he really is linked with the Mafia, he really has been involved in corruption."
But according to a November 3 New York Times article, in 2006 Giuliani "acknowledged" in "testimony to a state grand jury" that "the city investigations commissioner, Edward J. Kuriansky, had told him that he had been briefed at least once" about Kerik's connections to Interstate Industrial Corp., which the Times described as a company "suspected of links to organized crime." Additionally, according to the Times, Kuriansky also briefed Giuliani's chief of staff and had documentation of those "sessions," both of which occurred before Giuliani appointed Kerik as police commissioner in 2000.
I don't expect much from Krauthammer, but c'mon. If you're going to shamelessly carry water for Giuliani, it's best to probably just avoid the Kerik subject altogether.
The former mayor appointed a criminal to head the NYPD, and wanted a corrupt cop with mob ties to be responsible for the domestic security of 300 million Americans. Krauthammer's valiant efforts notwithstanding, it's unspinnable.
--Steve Benen
NYT takes Schumer to task
How disappointing was it to see Sen. Chuck Schumer's (D-N.Y.) role in helping Attorney General Michael Mukasey win his confirmation "fight"? The New York Times exlpains.
Senator Charles Schumer, the New York Democrat who turned the tide for this nomination, said that if the Senate did not approve Mr. Mukasey, the president would get by with an interim appointment who would be under the sway of “the extreme ideology of Vice President Dick Cheney.” He argued that Mr. Mukasey could be counted on to reverse the politicization of the Justice Department that occurred under Alberto Gonzales, and that Mr. Mukasey’s reticence about calling waterboarding illegal might well become moot, because the Senate was considering a law making clear that it is illegal.
That is precisely the sort of cozy rationalization that Mr. Schumer and his colleagues have used so many times to back down from a confrontation with Mr. Bush. The truth is, Mr. Mukasey is already in the grip of that “extreme ideology.” If he were not, he could have answered the question about waterboarding.
--Steve Benen
Blaming the wrong president for an overstretched military
Of all of Bush's misstatements from the 2000 presidential election, one of the most obviously-false attacks was on military readiness. Indeed, then-Gov. Bush blamed Clinton and Gore directly for "hollowing out" the military. "If called on by the commander-in-chief today, two entire divisions of the Army would have to report, 'Not ready for duty, sir.'" BC00 campaign aides later acknowledged it was a bogus charge, but that didn't stop Bush from repeating it. A lot.
And now, seven years later, the next batch of Republican presidential hopefuls are doing the same thing.
Here's the top story out of Iowa: Rudy Giuliani told an audience at Iowa State University that the American military needs to be bigger, and he lashed out at Bill Clinton for cutting the military during the 1990's.
"Our military is too small to deal with the Islamic terrorism threats," Giuliani said, "but it really is too small to deter would-be aggressors to even think of challenging us. And that's due to Bill Clinton."
Does this make any sense? What threats are we incapable of dealing with? And if they exist, why hasn't Bush/Cheney (and congressional Republicans) done anything about it? We already spend more on the military than most of the world put together -- who else does Giuliani want to invade? (Oh wait, don't answer that.)
Giuliani made a similar argument a couple of months ago, insisting that "the biggest mistake [Bill Clinton] ever made doesn't get the focus it deserves -- and that is gutting our military."
Fred Thompson has argued along the same lines, insisting that the U.S. must rebuild its military to fight global terrorism because leaders "took a holiday" in the 1990s.
Look, I realize the GOP is in a bind. Bush has stretched the military to the breaking point, and Republican presidential candidates want to emphasize rebuilding the Armed Forces as part of their platforms. But to acknowledge the incredible strains on the current military is to implicitly hold the president to account for his irresponsible policies.
What to do? Blame Clinton, of course.
Nonsensical rhetoric notwithstanding, Giuliani and Thompson have identified the correct problem, but they're blaming the wrong president.
Podhoretz really is giving Giuliani quite an education, isn't he?
--Steve Benen
The 'big mo' from the J-J dinner?
Iowa Democrats hosted a boisterous Jefferson-Jackson dinner last night, with 9,000 enthusiastic attendees packing the Veterans Memorial Auditorium in Des Moines. If you missed C-SPAN's coverage, most of the candidates posted their appearances on YouTube: Dodd, Edwards, Obama, Richardson, and Clinton (though Clinton's clip is only a brief excerpt). Biden hasn't posted his speech, while Kucinich and Gravel weren't invited because they lack, according to the state party, "active campaigns in Iowa."
Whether the J-J dinner is even capable of shaking up the race is unclear. As the NYT noted, "The dinner here has become a signature event on the Iowa political calendar [but] the vast majority of attendees had already chosen a candidate, so the practical political effect of the night was uncertain."
That said, The Des Moines Register's David Yepsen, arguably most respected political voice in Iowa's media, seems to have declared Barack Obama the big winner of the night. "Five of them gave really good speeches," Yepsen said. "Barack Obama's was excellent."
It was one of the best of his campaign. The passion he showed should help him close the gap on Hillary Clinton by tipping some undecided caucus-goers his way. His oratory was moving and he successfully contrasted himself with the others - especially Clinton - without being snide or nasty about it. [...]
Obama was particularly impressive Saturday night. Should he win the Iowa caucuses, Saturday's dinner will be remembered as one of the turning points in his campaign in here, a point where he laid down the marker and began closing on Clinton, the national frontrunner.
In a recent TPMtv interview, Markos Moulitsas asked where the Obama from the 2004 convention had gone. I argued that, if anything, Obama was too much like he was in 2004 -- in the "Audacity of Hope" speech, he offered practically no partisan red-meat, and didn't mention Bush, Cheney, or Republicans at all. In today's political climate, it's awfully tough to win primary fight, especially from second place, with a post-partisan worldview.
If last night's speech was any indication, Obama is now trying to strike a balance, threading an ideological needle. He used '04 themes ("I don't want to pit blue America against red America, I want to lead the United States of America"), while slamming Bush-style politics ("The era of Scooter Libby justice, Brownie incompetence, and Karl Rove politics will finally be over"), and subtly criticizing the Democratic frontrunner ("Not answering questions because we're afraid our answers won't be popular just won't do it").
Apparently, it was a rhetorical challenge that worked pretty well, though one can't help but wonder what the race would look like now if Obama had hit some of these same notes sooner.
--Steve Benen
Bush wonders where his poodle went
Here's an unexpected turn of events: the Bush administration wants England to be more like France when it comes to a conflict in the Middle East.
The Bush administration is losing patience with Gordon Brown over Iran, with senior American diplomats frustrated by his reluctance to declare bluntly that the Islamic state must never be allowed nuclear weapons.
Allies of Condoleezza Rice, the US Secretary of State, have told The Sunday Telegraph that the Prime Minister should emulate France's President Nicolas Sarkozy and warn that Iran may face military action, in order to help avert a new war in the Middle East.
The concerns reflect growing irritation in Washington, from the White House down, that Mr Brown will not match his more robust private conversations on Iran with hard-hitting public statements that would put pressure on the Teheran regime.
The Heritage Foundation's Nile Gardner, a former Margaret Thatcher adviser, said, "Britain is clearly losing influence in Washington after Tony Blair. Brown is the invisible man in terms of his profile here. It should be of concern in London that France is muscling in on traditional British territory."
No one misses Tony Blair like George W. Bush. It's kind of sad, really.
--Steve Benen
The race tightens -- a little
If anything, Hillary Clinton's leads in recent polls have almost been too big. As the race for the Democratic nomination tightens, as these races almost always do, it gives the appearance of Clinton faltering and losing momentum.
It's probably not a fair characterization. After all, when a frontrunner goes from a big double-digit lead to a more modest double-digit lead, she's still in a strong position.
That said, especially in the early primary states, the gap is narrowing. A new poll from the Boston Globe poll of New Hampshire Democrats shows Hillary Clinton leading the pack with 35%, Barack Obama second with 21%, and John Edwards third with 15%. It's hard to look askance at a 14-point lead, but the Globe notes that Clinton's margin has shrunk nine points since September.
A new Marist poll in New Hampshire offers similar results.
Hillary Clinton’s once commanding lead over her Democratic rivals for the 2008 New Hampshire Democratic Presidential Primary has been nearly halved. Last month, Clinton led her closest competitor, Barack Obama, by 21 percentage points. Now, the gap has narrowed to just 11 percentage points. 36% of likely Democratic presidential primary voters support Senator Clinton followed by 25% for Senator Obama. Former Senator John Edwards receives 14%.
All of this is also in line with the latest Rasmussen data out of New Hampshire, which shows the Democratic race tightening.
As for Iowa, the latest Zogby poll shows an even more competitive race, with Clinton ahead at 28%, followed by Obama with 25%, and Edwards with 21%. Filtering out the undecideds, the race is even closer: Clinton 30%, Obama 29%, Edwards 27%.
The moral of the story: the race isn't over yet.
--Steve Benen
Vice President Lieberman?
Just eight years after Joe Lieberman was on the Democratic Party's presidential ticket, a growing number of conservatives have a better idea: put in him on the Republican Party's presidential ticket.
The Weekly Standard's William Kristol touted the idea in his column this week. After running a lengthy excerpt of a speech Lieberman recently gave, imploring Democrats to embrace Bush's vision for combating "Islamist extremism," Kristol concluded:
Read the whole speech on Lieberman's website. As for Rudy and John and Fred and Mitt and Mike: Take a break from kissing babies to pick up the phone and congratulate Joe. Seek his endorsement after you win the nomination. What the heck--offer him the vice presidency. (Rudy, you might try State or Defense, since you'll need a pro-life running mate.)
But McCain-Lieberman, Thompson-Lieberman, Romney-Lieberman, Huckabee-Lieberman -- those sound like winning tickets to us. It's true, given the behavior of the congressional Democrats, the GOP nominee might well win with a more conventional running mate. But why settle for a victory if you can have a realignment?
The idea is, oddly enough, drawing praise in several conservative circles. National Review's Peter Wehner seems to like Kristol's suggestion, while conservative blogger Mark Noonan at Blogs for Bush went so far as to describe Lieberman as "the ideal candidate for Vice President on the Republican ticket in 2008."
At the risk of raining on the parade, this seems ridiculously far-fetched. As humiliating as Lieberman is on matters of foreign policy and national security, he's also fairly liberal on most domestic policy matters, including abortion and gay rights. Is the Republican Party so devoid of leaders that can win a national election that it has to look beyond the GOP for running mates?
--Steve Benen
Krugman 1, Brooks 0
It's rather unusual for high-profile columnists at the same newspaper to engage in a public quarrel, but the NYT's Paul Krugman and David Brooks have been subtly going at it for days.
In a recent column about race and politics, Krugman noted the Republican Party's use of the Southern Strategy to pit whites and blacks against one another. It's an argument Krugman also emphasized in "The Conscience of a Liberal."
Republican politicians, who understand quite well that the G.O.P.'s national success since the 1970s owes everything to the partisan switch of Southern whites, have tacitly acknowledged this reality. Since the days of Gerald Ford, just about every Republican presidential campaign has included some symbolic gesture of approval for good old-fashioned racism.
Thus Ronald Reagan, who began his political career by campaigning against California's Fair Housing Act, started his 1980 campaign with a speech supporting states' rights delivered just outside Philadelphia, Miss., where three civil rights workers were murdered.
David Brooks responded this week, without mentioning Krugman by name, but nevertheless slamming his colleague for his use of the Reagan anecdote.
Today, I'm going to write about a slur. It's a distortion that's been around for a while, but has spread like a weed over the past few months. It was concocted for partisan reasons: to flatter the prejudices of one side, to demonize the other and to simplify a complicated reality into a political nursery tale. [...]
Still, the agitprop version of this week -- that Reagan opened his campaign with an appeal to racism -- is a distortion.... It's spread by people who, before making one of the most heinous charges imaginable, couldn't even take 10 minutes to look at the evidence.
Krugman returned the volley on his blog yesterday, refraining from mentioning Brooks' name, but nevertheless driving his point home nicely.
Over to you, Mr. Brooks.
--Steve Benen
