| No one is spared in this lively, pointed book—and that makes it a lot of fun. Democrats should read Crashing the Gate to find their way out of the political wilderness. Republicans should read it to understand what their opponents might do if they get smart. -- Larry J. Sabato Amazon :: B&N; :: Powell's :: Chelsea Green |
Midday Open Thread
Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 10:27:22 AM PDT
I've got a speaking gig at lunch, so the irregulars will take care of most blogging duties today (what would we all do without them?). But here's a midday open thread before I take off.
- Katherine Harris lied about her corruption. She sold political favors for illegal campaign contributions. This isn't "lose the election" sort of information, it's "attract the attention of federal prosecutors" kind of stuff. She's even had to hire a lawyer. Wouldn't that be sweet payback for 2000?
- The big Democratic Party's biggest guns come out for Tammy Duckworth in the IL-06 Democratic primary. I know there's a lot of hostility toward her amongst much of the district's grassroots, and Chrstine Cegelis is a great, great person. But Duckworth wasn't recruited by Rahm and the DCCC. She was recruited by Barack Obama and Dick Durbin after they worked with her on behalf of Walter Reed Hospital's amputee community. Among people fundraising for Duckworth are Barbara Boxer, Wes Clark, Ambassador Joe Wilson, and Nancy Pelosi.
- Tom Curry at MSNBC profiles Jerome Armstrong and talks about our book, Mark Warner, and other stuff. Jerome generally shuns the media and has gotten away with it for a long time. Thankfully, that won't work now that we have a book to promote. And speaking of the book, Buzzflash gives it a quick review.
- Great essay on why "Lieberman Democrats" are bad for the Democratic Party. It's not because they are "too moderate" or "too conservative". Lieberman is quite liberal on most issues. It's because of things like this:
To elucidate the substantive cost of capitulation, it is worth reviewing one of Lieberman's most infamous failures. In 2002, he introduced a Democratic proposal for a Homeland Security Department to reorganize government preparation for domestic attacks. It was initially opposed by Bush, who was more interested in using security as a campaign issue than for bipartisan public policy.
When opposing the idea of a Homeland Security Department became politically difficult, Bush reversed his stance and Lieberman naively pursued a "bipartisan compromise" with him. That created an opening for Bush to build credibility on the bill. He stole the idea, stifled its passage to politicize the issue for the midterm campaigns, and lied by claiming that legislation was delayed because "Democrats are not interested in the security of the American people."
And it all worked. The GOP won seats and passed a similar bill after the election. Republicans celebrated, Democrats mourned and Lieberman didn't seem to notice.
- If I wasn't a professional blogger and had a choice of careers, here's some that I would consider: Movie composer, interior decorator (I loves me my HGTV), landscaper, general contractor, CIA agent (almost happened a few years ago).
Have a great weekend.
Another DHS Official Resigns, Brown Calls For Chertoff's Firing
Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 10:05:50 AM PDT
In its handling of the missing Katrina tape, the one where Bush reacts like a deer in the headlights to the alerts of catastrophic damage, the media has once again proven itself to be incompetent and shallow. There was barely a mention in the traditional media about how the Bush administration represented to Congress that the tape did not exist. Rather, when this previously-non-existent tape magically appeared, the media called it an "embarrassment" for the President rather than evidence of a cover-up. Despite six months of evidence all pointing to the a gross failure of governmental responsibility on the federal level, the media still plays the "finger-pointing" talking point while refusing to acknowledge that Bush and his appointees failed the American people.
Yesterday, buried in the fifth paragraph of the Washington Post (and getting just a few more lines of coverage in this CNN article) is the fact that the Operations Director for the Department of Homeland Security has resigned. General Matthew Broderick submitted his resignation to Chertoff yesterday, giving the boilerplate explanation of spending more time his family. In his testimony during the Katrina hearings, Broderick was quite critical of Brown and followed DHS lead in blaming him for the faulty federal response.
More below...
As House Covers Up For Administration, Senators Prepare To Vote On Spying Investigation Next Week
Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 07:33:22 AM PDT
The House Intelligence Committee announced today it will "expand committee oversight of the National Security Agency's Terrorist Surveillance Program and conduct a comprehensive review to modernize FISA." The WaPo headline reads "House Panel Expands Eavesdrop Oversight." Don't let the title fool you; Chairman Hoekstra has been one of the most ardent defenders of the program. The scope of the House "oversight" won't involve any hindsight--rather, the purpose is to discuss how to "modernize" FISA. But as Russ Feingold pointed out:
"We have to address the fact that the president has broken the law." - Senator Russ Feingold
Expect nothing--nothing-- in terms of oversight from the House. Both House Judiciary Chairman Sensenbrenner and now House Intelligence Committee Chairman Hoekstra are dead-set on pushing the administration's propaganda and focusing on "fixing FISA" rather than the fact the President has admitted to breaking the law.
More info and action items below the fold:
Two Different Tales of "Missing Records"
Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 07:06:52 AM PDT
(From the diaries -- Plutonium Page)
Newsweek:
Administration and congressional officials said that the administration provided congressional investigators earlier this year with official transcripts of the daily noon FEMA conference calls conducted before, during and after Katrina. But the administration initially told Congress that the transcript for the Aug. 29 call--the call congressional investigators were most curious about, given that it occurred as the hurricane was actually battering the Gulf Coast--did not exist, with officials initially telling Capitol Hill that someone at FEMA or Homeland Security forgot to push the button on a tape recorder.
"Everybody has been looking for that transcript," former FEMA chief Michael Brown said Wednesday.
A White House official unexpectedly e-mailed the transcript to NEWSWEEK earlier today Wednesday morning--initially without explaining that it was the missing transcript. Two officials familiar with congressional investigations said that the document was turned over to Capitol Hill investigators Tuesday night. Administration officials told both Congress and NEWSWEEK that FEMA officials in Atlanta had taped the Aug. 29 conference call by aiming a video camera at a TV screen rather than following the usual recording procedure. The videotape was subsequently discovered and transcribed.
. . . Congressional investigators say they can't recall seeing a transcript of this Aug. 31 conference call. An administration official said the White House is withholding the Aug. 31 transcript in order to protect the confidentiality of communications between the president and his advisers. Brown now says that after initially being deeply immersed in the crisis, "I think the president assumed, despite my warnings about FEMA's marginalization, that it could handle a catastrophic disaster, too. Clearly that was not the case because of budget and personnel cuts imposed by Homeland Security."
Salon:
Despite the impression left lingering by the nation's leading newspapers, a close scrutiny of the record fails to show that Hillary Clinton is guilty of any Whitewater crimes. In spite of the strenuous efforts of the independent counsel's lengthy, multimillion-dollar investigation, there still has not been any evidence presented to show that the first lady broke the law, or even did anything unethical.
Take the infamous missing billing records of Hillary Clinton's work for Madison Guaranty. When the records finally turned up in the White House in 1996, after having been subpoenaed two years earlier, charges of "obstruction of justice" filled the airwaves and the halls of the Republican Congress. New York Times columnist William Safire called the first lady a "congenital liar." Drowned out in the hubbub was the fact that the records actually substantiated in great detail what Hillary Clinton had repeatedly testified to, publicly and under oath.
All emphasis is mine. (But it should not be just mine.)
So you think your so-called Liberal Media will say anything about BushCo's "missing records" on Katrina? Or the fact the
some meetings with the President need to be "confidential" but some, those two days earlier, now do not? Think anyone will scream about "contempt of Congress"? Me neither.
That's why I am guilty of "contempt for the Media."
Update [2006-3-3 9:18:31 by Armando]: It goes without saying that there are differences to the Two Tales of Missing Records. One involved a failed land deal in Arkansas a decade prior to the Clintons going to the White House. The other involves the deaths of thousands of innocents and the destruction of one of America's greatest cities. You could see why the Media would treat them differently right? Sort of like they way they treat the rule of law. VERY IMPORTANT when it is about a private sexual affair. Meaningless when it involves torture and illegal spying. Perfectly understandable.
Open Thread
Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 07:03:18 AM PDT
Yadda, yadda, yadda.
Science Friday: Swamp Things
Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 05:06:26 AM PDT
One of the most exquisite showcases in all of nature's biological beauty exists in my own backyard. It's not quite land, not quite water. But in the soggy confusion between the two is complex of ecosystems literally bursting with flora and fauna more diverse than a tropical rain forest. Here, the normal roles of plants and animals are often turned upside down: Great cats pad silently along muddy trails between shallow inland lakes patrolled by playful dolphins and toothy sharks. Flowering vines feast on branches dripping with moss and plants devour animals. Cacti can be found underwater and oysters in trees. Prairies of serrated sedge grass are bordered with magnificent old growth forest, all leaping out of dark, endless plains of water. It is the only place on earth where salt-water crocodiles live side by side with fresh-water alligators. It's a nightmarish place teaming with rodents, slithering snakes, cockroaches, leeches, spiders, and clouds of mosquitos, as well as a dreamy paradise of brilliant blossoms, exotic waterbirds, and stately Cypress trees stretching to the horizon. Or so it was, once upon a time.
It is the Florida Everglades. And although there are plenty of familiar bogs and swamps in it, the ecology arises from natural forces unique in all the world: For the Everglades itself isn't a swamp, it's a river.
The wetlands of South Florida have also served as the waterlogged stage for dramatic human conflict over hundreds of years. Tribe Vs. Tribe, Spanish Conquistadors and native Americans, Cowboys and Indians, slaves and owners, tycoons and conservationists, man against nature, and corporation Vs. environmentalist.
Michael Grunwald is the author of The Swamp: The Everglades, Florida, and the Politics of Paradise. His work has earned him numerous national prizes, including the Society of Environmental Journalists award for his reporting on the Everglades. I had a chance to ask Michael about the history, current health, and future of this natural treasure. Sadly, his prognosis below suggests the great river may be vanishing, as surely as the insatiable human appetite for condos, golf courses, orange juice, and sugary confections continues to grow. Multiple Image Warning
Bush Admin: McCain Torture Ban Doesn't Apply to Gitmo
Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 09:24:29 PM PDT
How much lower can this country sink in the moral septic tank currently known as the White House?
From the Washington Post:
U.S. Cites Exception in Torture Ban
McCain Law May Not Apply to Cuba Prison
By Josh White and Carol D. Leonnig
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, March 3, 2006; A04
Bush administration lawyers, fighting a claim of torture by a Guantanamo Bay detainee, yesterday argued that the new law that bans cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of detainees in U.S. custody does not apply to people held at the military prison.
In federal court yesterday and in legal filings, Justice Department lawyers contended that a detainee at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, cannot use legislation drafted by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) to challenge treatment that the detainee's lawyers described as "systematic torture."
Government lawyers have argued that another portion of that same law, the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, removes general access to U.S. courts for all Guantanamo Bay captives. Therefore, they said, Mohammed Bawazir, a Yemeni national held since May 2002, cannot claim protection under the anti-torture provisions.
So anything -- anything -- goes at Guantanamo? No law, no restraints, nothing? That is what that signing statement meant?
Words fail me.
I hope they don't fail Sen. McCain. Somehow I doubt this is what he had in mind when he authored the torture ban.
Lady Harris Doth Protest Too Much
Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 09:04:36 PM PDT
A cover-up only works if both people are smart enough to keep their mouth shut. Unfortunately, the only thing Katherine Harris is good at covering is her face with two pounds of makeup. With her name surfacing this week in a bribery scandal, Harris has babbled one defense after another, with the inevitable consequence of her defenses running afoul of the facts.
Defense contractor Mitchell Wade has pled guilty to bribing California Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham. This week, it was revealed that he also funneled money to two more Republicans, Katherine Harris and Virgil Goode. (diaried by ksh01 here) Harris in particular recieved $32,000 in illegal campaign contributions.
Wade claims Harris didn't know about the bribes, and today, Harris released a statement to that effect. She's donated all the money to Habitat for Humanity. While Harris asserts that there was no quid pro quo deal in effect, her story doesn't match up with the facts. From Paul Kiel at TPMCafe:
What the heck had Wade, MZM's CEO, wanted from Harris in return for that money?
Harris has claimed, to me and other journalists, that she didn't have any idea. She insisted that she had assumed all those MZM-connected people -- who didn't live in Florida and whose $2,000 checks arrived in bundles -- just liked her stands on the issues and wanted to see her re-elected.
She did say Wade had been considering opening a plant of some sort in the Sarasota area. But she said she knew no details and didn't know exactly how that might inspire MZM to break the law to give her so much money, or why it would inspire MZM employees and spouses to send her as much as $4,000 each from their own wallets.
Even after learning Wade had bribed another congressman and had used illegal means to make far bigger donations to Harris than the law allows, she said she still had no idea what the heck MZM's motive was for giving her all that money. (Herald Tribune)
Harris, playing the poor, innocent victim. Yet to quote from Wade's plea agreement:
In his plea agreement, Wade acknowledged dining with Harris at a Washington restaurant in 2005 to discuss a possible fundraiser for her and obtaining funding for a Navy counterintelligence program involving his company. The plan called for a location in Harris' Sarasota district.
More below...
Throw Him an Anvil
Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 08:22:45 PM PDT
Yet another poll has just been released in which Bush is below the 40% threshold. The LA Times/Bloomberg (via Hoffmania!) has him at 38.
Overall Job Rating: Less than two out of five respondents (38%) approve of the way Bush is handling his job as president, down five points since January's Times/Bloomberg poll, while almost three out of five disapprove (58%), up four points from January. This includes 43% who "strongly" disapprove (up from 39% in January). He received positive ratings from Republicans (77%) and conservatives (60%), although in January conservatives gave him a 68% positive job rating. Two thirds of moderate Republicans also gave the president a positive job rating, as did 82% of conservative Republicans.
The internals of this poll mirror many of the others that we've seen released in the last few days. Bottom line? Rove's attempt to make the 2006 election all about national security is looking like a very good idea--for Democrats.
Handling the war on terrorism: In the January poll, the public was divided, 48% approve to 49% disapprove. In the latest poll, this is the first time the president has gotten a negative rating on an issue that has always played an important role in his presidency. He was able to capitalize on this issue to help win a second term. But now, 54% of respondents disapproved of his handling the war on terrorism, while 44% approved. This includes 41% who "strongly" disapproved. In a Times poll taken in January 2005, the numbers were reversed - 54% approved of Bush handling the war on terrorism, while 43% disapproved....
Situation in Iraq: The public's attitude about Bush handling this issue has also declined. Now, a third approved of the president's handling of the situation in Iraq, while 63% disapproved. This includes 48% who "strongly" disapproved. In January it was 41% to 56%. Once again, Republicans and conservatives gave a positive rating of Bush's performance in his handling of the Iraq situation - among Republicans it was 72% to 27%; for conservatives it was 59% to 38%. Moderate Republicans are approving 59% to 40%, compared to 77% of conservative Republicans who approved. All regions of the country disapproved of the president's performance on this issue....
Dubai and the Port Controversy: The controversy surrounding this issue has been a center of attention for many news cycles. A Dubai state-owned company in the United Arab Emirates has made a deal to buy a British company that supervises port shipping operations in six major cities in the U.S. This plan has come under criticism from both the Democrats, Republicans and their leaders in Congress.... Given both sides of the argument, 58% of respondents opposed allowing the Dubai-based company to oversee shipping operations at U.S. ports, including 47% who are strongly opposed to this idea, while just 17% support it. A quarter haven't heard enough to form an opinion or are undecided. All demographic groups are in agreement with opposing the takeover by the Dubai state-owned company - even Republicans (49%) and conservatives (50%). Among moderate Republicans, 69% opposed the deal, while among conservative Republicans, 38% supported it and 39% opposed it.
What do Senate Dems have to lose by pushing for an investigation of the illegal wiretapping? What do they have to lose by pushing for a reversal of the ports sale? What do they have to lose by standing up to King George?
Absolutely nothing.
Open Thread
Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 07:48:02 PM PDT
Yadda, yadda, yadda.
Free Fall Open Thread
Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 04:58:34 PM PDT
Fox: 39
Gallup: 38
Q-poll: 36
CBS: 34
Holden is going to need a stable. This is an open thread.
Hamdi Made Them Do It
Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 03:26:37 PM PDT
Orin Kerr presents an interesting take on why the administration adopted it's outlandish theory regarding the AUMF having provided ample legal grounds for warrantless wiretapping: "Hamdi made them do it."
The Gonzales letter gives a very strong hint that the initial legal justification for the NSA program within the Executive Branch was mostly a strong Article II claim of inherent power, and that the AUMF argument that the Administration is relying on now did not provide the primary legal basis for the program when it was enacted....
What changed that explains the current primary reliance on the AUMF argument? One plausible answer is the Supreme Court's June 2004 decision in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. Most of the Hamdi opinions are hard to reconcile with the Administration's broader Article II claims.
Kerr's theory seems pretty likely. Just remember what Sandra Day O'Connor wrote in Hamdi:
[We] necessarily reject the Government's assertion that separation of powers principles mandate a heavily circumscribed role for the courts in such circumstances. Indeed, the position that the courts must forgo any examination of the individual case and focus exclusively on the legality of the broader detention scheme cannot be mandated by any reasonable view of separation of powers, as this approach serves only to condense power into a single branch of government. We have long since made clear that a state of war is not a blank check for the President when it comes to the rights of the Nation's citizens. Youngstown Sheet & Tube, 343 U.S., at 587. Whatever power the United States Constitution envisions for the Executive in its exchanges with other nations or with enemy organizations in times of conflict, it most assuredly envisions a role for all three branches when individual liberties are at stake.
One other potential reason for the "evolution" of these justifications? The initial opposition of Comey and the Justice Department to the program.
The top deputy to then-Attorney General John Ashcroft refused two years ago to approve important parts of the secret program that allows domestic eavesdropping without warrants, prompting two leading White House aides to try to win the needed approval from Mr. Ashcroft himself while he was hospitalized after a gall bladder operation, according to officials knowledgeable about the episode.
With Mr. Ashcroft recuperating from gall bladder surgery in March 2004, his deputy, James B. Comey, who was then acting as attorney general, was unwilling to give his certification to crucial aspects of the classified program, as required under the procedures set up by the White House.
Comey's opposition seems to be another key factor in the ongoing search for justification of Bush as King. And of course, we know Alberto Gonzales will say whatever he's told to say.
