I must say that I was surprised not so much with the heated reactions to the post below about civil liberties (which I expected) but the over-interpretation of it, or rather projection on to it. More than a few readers seem to read this passage -- "a good deal less doctrinaire on civil liberties issues than, I suspect, many of the readers of this site ... And a lot of the things that were done in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 were, I think, justifiable in theory, if not always in execution." -- as clearly justifying the use of torture to extract confessions or for any other purpose.
Perhaps my interpretive skills are flagging, but can someone point out the reference to torture here? Torture does not exhaust the range of issues covered by civil liberties, to say the least.
--Josh Marshall
More mailbag ...
Subject: the law vs. survivalJosh,
I think that what I object about <$NoAd$>the Bush administration's actions is that they are trying to legitimize torture. That is a significant change.
Realistically, there are times when a person decides to do whatever is necessary to survive. If you're dead, having the law on your side doesn't help much.
It occurs to me that it's similar, in a strange way, to civil disobedience. In theory, civil disobedience means breaking the law to make a larger point. In such a case, the person breaking the law is willing to face the legal consequences in order to make that point. You might stage a sit-down strike. You don't resist being arrested, but you might plead not-guilty and insist on a jury trial just to gum up the legal works and make yourself as inconvenient as possible to the authorities.
The point is torture has no legitimate place in U.S. law.
Regards,Jim R.
See this June 7th post for more discussion of the point at issue here.
--Josh Marshall
Bazinet and Kennedy nail the Kerik story in the Daily News ...
"Rudy cashed in a chip on this one," said a White House source, who earlier this week predicted there was "no way" Kerik could land a cabinet-level job in the Bush administration.
Rudy's chit.
--Josh Marshall
If there was ever a subject for the Sunday shows, certainly this is it.
By Kevin Drum's count there are seven cabinet secretaries now left standing. Four of them are at second-tier posts (Interior, Labor, HUD and VA) and another, Treasury Secretary Snow, is just (briefly) being kept around for humiliation value -- like the goofy kid in the club whose role and utility is to provide a ready target for the application of wedgies.
And that leaves Don Rumsfeld who, according to this report tonight on CNN, is not only still standing, but will keep standing probably for the rest of the Bush presidency ...
The official said the president asked Rumsfeld, 72, to stay during a weekly meeting on Monday because the nation is at war and he is the best person for the job. Rumsfeld has said he wants to finish his reforms at the Pentagon and continue overseeing the Iraq war and that country's hoped-for transformation.
And of all these <$Ad$>people -- Powell, Ashcroft, Paige, Abraham, Thompson, Veneman, Evans -- does any of them hold a candle to Don Rumsfeld when it comes to the number of screw-ups, debacles and disasters that have happened on his watch?
I mean, it's not even close, is it?
One criticism of the president that loomed large in the last election -- and not just among Democrats but with many Republicans too -- was that this president either does not recognize or will not admit mistakes. And whichever it was, there was no accountability for them. In most cases those 'mistakes' people were talking about were ones under Rumsfeld's purview. And he would seem to be the only one -- certainly the only one of the principals -- that the president insists on keeping in place.
In this administration, the buck may not stop at the Oval Office, but the hard line against accountability sure does start there.
--Josh Marshall
Mailbag ...
"Like Andrew (at least I suspect this is so, though he can speak for himself), I'm a good deal less doctrinaire on civil liberties issues than, I suspect, many of the readers of this site. As Justice Jackson put it, the constitution is not a suicide pact. And a lot of the things that were done in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 were, I think, justifiable in theory, if not always in execution."Shame on you.
You - and idiots like you - are evil and you don't even know it.
You don't believe in human rights. You believe in winning. Simple.
Might makes right. Back to the jungle.Dumb. You lost me.
John S.
Certainly, there'll be <$NoAd$>more of this.
Lincoln and habeas corpus.
--Josh Marshall
I think Andrew Sullivan is just right in his run-down of what is now emerging about the system of secrecy, torture and extra-constitutional power the Bush administration has set up at Gitmo and other far-flung undisclosed locations around the world.
Like Andrew (at least I suspect this is so, though he can speak for himself), I'm a good deal less doctrinaire on civil liberties issues than, I suspect, many of the readers of this site. As Justice Jackson put it, the constitution is not a suicide pact. And a lot of the things that were done in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 were, I think, justifiable in theory, if not always in execution.
But what stands out about this administration is not the willingness to sacrifice certain civil liberties safeguards in the face of demonstrable necessity, but the eagerness and almost delight in doing so. Having walled themselves off from the more harmless varieties, this is apparently the one form of transgression the Ashcroftites cannot resist.
Most telling is the addiction to secrecy. The clearest, or rather the most basic, test of whether strong measures are compatible with a free society is whether the government is willing to be open with the public about what it is doing in their name. By every measure, this administration is not.
--Josh Marshall
If you haven't seen it, a House Appropriations Committee staffer, Richard E. Efford, has stepped forward to take responsibility for the Istook Amendment. His boss is Rep. Istook. But he says he never ran it past the congressman -- at least not until it was too late to do anything about it. Sleepless nights and the agonies of the appropriations process are to blame, we're told, not bad intentions. The Post has an interview with Efford and the details of his story.
--Josh Marshall
Like Rep. Istook, Bob Novak is a very sorry columnist. Only he's never said he was sorry about the Plame episode, even though it was one of his sorriest. Now, before I get myself too tangled up in verbal gymnastics about how being Bob Novak means never having to say you're sorry, check out the new Novak profile just out from the Washington Monthly: 'Bob in Paradise: How Novak created his own ethics-free zone'.
--Josh Marshall
Don't lose sight of the Tom DeLay crony Indian gaming (aka Indian shakedown) scandal. Bull Moose provides today's update.
--Josh Marshall
We got word this morning that everyone at HHS had been called together at noon for a big announcement/meeting. And there it is, Thompson resigns.
--Josh Marshall
If you're curious to see CBS's rationale for rejecting the UCC inclusion ad, as clipped from the letter they sent the church, click here.
--Josh Marshall
In the coming Social Security debate, Democrats should dust-off Clinton's 'mend it, don't end it' rhetoric. I can't take credit for this idea; I heard someone suggest it in an email exchange. If it's a bad idea I take the grief for pushing it forward. But I think it is very shrewd since it frames the debate in advance as equating privatization with abolishing Social Security, which of course it does.
I'm not saying the phrase should be adopted intact without any adjustments or that it's a perfect fit. But this debate is a classic case where framing the issue is key -- the strategic choice that determines who wins the battle before it even begins.
The strength of the Republican privatization argument -- and all their rhetoric and strategy point to this -- is the contention that privatization is just a reform, a way to improve or save Social Security, or to put it simply, a way to make sure people get their checks when they retire. But what this is really about is abolishing Social Security; and that fact needs to be taken as granted -- not even a subject of debate -- in the way Democrats frame the debate and how they talk about the subject.
To look at this debate in any other way is to be willfully ignorant of history. Republicans -- particularly the party's conservative wing which now entirely dominates the party -- have wanted to abolish Social Security for half a century.
--Josh Marshall
This is a delicate topic. But I think it's worth asking.
If you look in today's Reliable Source column in the Washington Post, the final item is identified as a verbatim press release ...
On Nov. 21, Vice President Dick Cheney (along with approximately six Secret Service agents) visited the Johnston & Murphy retail store at Tyson's Corner Shopping Center in McLean. Cheney has been a longtime Johnston & Murphy customer, but recently found it necessary to make a personal visit to the store because his shoe size changed to a size 10EEE. Cheney selected the Lasalle wingtip loafer in brushed mahogany. He also bought a pair of shoe trees to keep his 10EEEs in top shape. Bob Ciuffoletti, store manager, has helped Cheney with his footwear needs in the past. . . . 'It was such a pleasure to see him again and help him select a pair of shoes that fit,' said Ciuffoletti.
The item does not identify <$Ad$>who the press release is from. But it turns out that it came from the shoe store chain, not the White House.
But why is the Vice President's shoe size getting bigger? Of course, it doesn't explicitly say they've gotten bigger only that his feet have changed sizes. And 10EEE is a rather large size.
Here's why I say this. Swollen feet is a symptom of congestive heart failure, particularly when the enlargement is in both feet (thus signalling a systemic cause.) It is by no means the only thing it can mean. Ankle and foot swelling can also be caused by fluid build-up due to renal insufficiency, among other causes. And, of course, even later in life one's shoe size can simply change for entirely benign reasons.
But Cheney's history of severe heart disease at least points to the possibility of a heart-related cause.
If you look around on the web you'll find many descriptions of foot and ankle swelling as a possible symptom of congestive heart failure. And this afternoon I spoke to a physician to whom I described an unnamed man in his mid-60s with a history of heart disease and newly-enlarged feet. Congestive heart failure was the first possibility he suggested, particularly if the enlargement was in both feet.
Now, diagnosis by press release is a rather inexact form of medicine. And this doctor made clear that he simply lacked enough information to make even a tentative diagnosis, let alone his not being able to examine the patient. I should also make explicitly clear that I know nothing else about Cheney's health beyond what is already publicly known. Perhaps the shoe chain PR folks are just wrong that the size of the Vice President's feet has changed. Or perhaps they have changed, but they've shrunken. But given the Vice President's medical history and his position in the line of succession to the presidency, it seems like a question worth asking.
--Josh Marshall
Rep. Ernie Istook, a very sorry congressman. From The Hill: "Rep. Ernest Istook (R-Okla.) sent a written apology this morning to GOP lawmakers whose transportation projects he stripped from the omnibus appropriations bill in retaliation for their endorsement of additional funding for Amtrak."
--Josh Marshall
What a pleasant surprise. CBS's and NBC's rejection of the UCC's church inclusion ad got big billing in the Boston Globe and the Chicago Tribune. (If you're in Chicago or Boston, drop us a line telling us exactly where the story ran in the paper.) Let us know how your local paper covered it.
Coming soon: Sen. Bill Frist test-drives Social Security privatization with his own campaign warchest and comes up half a million short.
Late Update: It turns out the Trib and the Globe both ran the story on page 1 below the fold. The Austin American-Statesman, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Providence Journal-Bulletin (the 'Projo') and the Des Moines Register also seem to have gone with it on the front page
--Josh Marshall
In case you didn't know, there's a tight House race still going on down in Louisiana's 7th District. The Democratic candidate is former Lake Charles Mayor Willie Landry Mount. And the run-off election is on Saturday.
Check out her site here and media coverage of the race here.
This is an important race. Majorities are built one seat at a time.
Late Update: My bad, my bad. Louisiana's got -- count 'em -- two House races still going on. In the third district Democrat Charlie Melancon is battling to stop retiring Rep. Billy Tauzin from handing off his seat to his son, thirty-year-old Billy Tauzin III.
--Josh Marshall
I don't know what else to make of Nebraska Gov. Mike Johanns nomination as Agriculture Secretary. But Johanns is now the second cabinet secretary appointment of the second term whose current office is more than a hundred feet from the president's. So I guess this marks a new phase of reaching out.
--Josh Marshall
Today a reporter asked me whether I'd noticed, as he had, the sudden drop-off of interest in things political since the election and whether I'd seen this drop off registered in the traffic at TPM. I gave the matter some thought and looked over the traffic logs. And having done so and given him an answer, I thought I'd share what I told him with you. (And I assume, though I have no direct knowledge, that similar sites have had roughly similar experiences.)
The answer turns out to be that, yes, traffic is down substantially, but not nearly as much as I'd expected. And if you set aside the furious final month of the campaign, October, the viewership of the site hasn't fallen at all.
A few examples ...
In the last two weeks, the average number of weekday visits has hovered around 140,000. That is close to indistinguishable from the average in September and markedly higher than August.
In October, weekday daily visit totals never went below 165,000 and often went over 190,000. But it was only in the last week or so of the campaign that the real pre-election updraft began. Visits hit 223,000 on Monday, October 25th, the first day (I believe) they'd ever gone over 200,000. And they never went below 200,000 again until after the election.
So, I've tossed out a lot of numbers here. But the upshot seems to be that traffic to center-left political websites like TPM has been relatively unaffected by either the end of the election cycle or the Kerry defeat.
--Josh Marshall
Another update from the JTA on the FBI's investigation of AIPAC.
Their latest update reveals ...
Sources close to the investigation told JTA that the four [AIPAC staffers] ordered to appear before a grand jury were Howard Kohr, the group’s executive director; Raphael Danziger, the research director; Richard Fishman, the managing director; and Renee Rothstein, the communications director. An FBI spokeswoman confirmed the search, but had no further comment.
Various knowledgable sources tell me that this investigation is heating up and that AIPAC, and specifically Steven Rosen, are the primary targets, rather than Larry Franklin.
--Josh Marshall
Another JTA update on the FBI search at AIPAC headquarters today.
The Bureau also got subpoenas for grand jury appearances by four AIPAC staffers.
I hear the investigation remains quite active and continues to focus almost entirely on Steven Rosen, AIPAC's Director of Foreign Policy Issues.
--Josh Marshall
A wonderful piece of magazine journalism in the current New Yorker, "God Doesn't Need Ole Anthony." Unfortunately, it's not online, only in the print version.
--Josh Marshall
Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn) wants a certain chief executive to resign over the failures of his Iraq policy because the "massive scope of this debacle demands nothing less."
Click here to find out who he's talking about.
--Josh Marshall
James Tobin, the man at the center of the 2002 New Hampshire phone-jamming scandal and the regional head of Bush-Cheney '04, has been indicted.
--Josh Marshall
FBI searches AIPAC offices again. See the news bulletin on the lower right hand side of the JTA website for more.
--Josh Marshall
I just spoke to a spokesman for CBS who walked me through their policy.
So here it is.
The network -- as opposed to affiliate stations -- runs no issue advocacy ads in cases where the issue is a matter of public debate. However, they will run political candidate ads.
Their policy of running candidate ads is pretty much moot since it seldom pays for a national candidate to spend money blanketing the whole country with an ad. But the spokesman said they will run them.
Then I asked about anti-smoking ads or the anti-drug ads paid for by the Office of National Drug Control Policy. The spokesman told me that the network does sometimes run these ads and does so in cases where the issue is not one of public controversy.
So, for instance, they might run an anti-smoking ad because no one disagrees that smoking is bad for your health, etc.
CBS's rationale for this policy, said the spokesman, is their desire not to let groups with "deep pockets" control the public debate through paid advertising.
I can think of a lot of reasons why this is neither a good nor a coherent policy. But that's their explanation of it.
--Josh Marshall
Another point on the UCC/CBS ad issue.
What is striking about CBS's refusal (text quoted here) to air the ad is that they seem to go out of their way to use the weakest and most troubling rationale.
The CBS memo to the UCC includes three basic points.
1. The alleged policy of not running ads which address issue of public debate or controversy.
2. An alleged rule against ads from religious organizations which can be said in any way to proselytize.
3. And the fact that President Bush has recently called for a constitutional ban on gay marriage.
Reason #2 seems like the best argument (though it's pretty weak in itself). But the CBS memo specifically says that this isn't the reason they're rejecting it. Reason one, they say, was an entirely sufficient reason for rejecting the ad.
But having enunciated this bar against ads which discuss or take a position on any "current controversial issue of public importance" they then gratuitously add this line about President Bush's call for a constitutional ban on gay marriage.
Here's the text (emphasis added) ...
"Because this commercial touches on the exclusion of gay couples and other minority groups by other individuals and organizations, and the fact that the Executive Branch has recently proposed a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, this spot is unacceptable for broadcast on the [CBS and UPN] Networks."
I would think that the general rule, if evenly enforced, would be sufficient. I cannot think of any good reason why President Bush's (who's now apparently been renamed 'Executive Branch') stated position should have any bearing at all on whether the ad should run.
Can you?
--Josh Marshall
As of noon on Wednesday, a quick look at Google News suggests that reporting on CBS's and NBC's refusal to run the United Church of Christ inclusion ad is almost entirely limited to the gay press (gaywired.com, 365gay.com, etc.). There's an AP story which has been picked up by the Akron Beacon Journal, but little else.
--Josh Marshall
I'm looking now at the text of CBS's refusal to run the United Church of Christ ad and it's really astounding. It seems to me that there are two issues. First, whether they're applying their policy fairly and second, why they have such a ridiculous policy.
The memo says: "CBS/UPN Network policy precludes accepting advertising that touches on and/or takes a position on one side of a current controversial issue of public importance." It then goes on to say that the issue is exclusion of homosexuals and other minority groups and specifically references the president's call for a constitutional ban on gay marriage as reasons that the ad is "unacceptable."
CBS/UPN then adds the following. They "accept advertising from churches and religious organizations which deliver secular messages that are beneficial to society in general [but not] advertising that proselytizes on behalf of any single religion ... In our view, this commercial does proselytize."
The statement, however, makes clear that the first reason, rather than the second, is the reason they're rejecting the ad.
Now, let's take this in order.
Where to start? Has CBS ever run political advertising? Any political ad must by definition run afoul of their rule barring ads that take "a position on one side of a current controversial issue of public importance" unless they only run ads for candidates running in uncontested races.
Second, political speech is supposed to be the queen of the various sorts of speech. It is the most inherently socially valuable form of speech. And often the protection of various sorts of speech that many people find crude or distasteful is justified on the argument that one can't make hard and fast distinctions between narrowly political speech and speech which conveys broader cultural or social messages. Many theorists argue against any sort of hierarchy of different forms of speech for just these reasons -- but I'm not aware of one who argues that political speech should get the least protection. In any case, CBS's policy of excluding the most important kinds of speech seems ridiculous on its face and, as noted above, doesn't seem like a policy they can possibly be following.
And how about proselytizing? This actually seems like a marginally better argument than the one they claim is controlling. But a quick look at the ad makes that argument pretty dubious too since the ad is only prosyletizing in an extremely general sense.
We have calls in to CBS and NBC. We'll let you know what we hear.
Late Update: Has CBS ever run an anti-smoking ad? This isn't a rhetorical question but one that, again, would help show whether they're applying this rule fairly or arbitrarily. If you can think of other examples, let us know.
--Josh Marshall
Doubting Thomas ...
Josh,I’m a researcher who spends loads of time on Thomas [the congressional website which publishes the text of legislation and other information on Congress] and I can tell you with 100% certainty that…
1) Thomas is slow to update. Fast moving bills don’t get posted in a timely manner. I’m talking weeks and not days.
2) Certain bills or amendments “of interest” do not appear until they are (well) passed.
Thanks,
GM
Sounds right.
--Josh Marshall
The United Church of Christ (UCC) plans to run a major ad campaign in December to raise public <$Ad$>awareness of the denomination. One of the ads is meant, in the words of a UCC press release, to convey the message "that -- like Jesus -- the United Church of Christ seeks to welcome all people, regardless of ability, age, race, economic circumstance or sexual orientation."
You can see the ad here -- it features two burly bouncers turning various people away from a church service. And if you watch it you'll see that the broad message of inclusion over intolerance places a prominent emphasis on acceptance of homosexuals in the life of the church.
Yet, according to a press release out this evening from the UCC, both CBS and NBC have refused to air the ad because the subject matter is "too controversial."
Again, look at the ad because the spot raises the topic in about as innocuous and uncontroversial a way as is imaginable. Homosexuality is never even broached explicitly.
(This case is similar to this instance last September when CNN refused to air an ad by the Log Cabin Republicans because it too was deemed "too controversial". In that case, at least the ad was hard-hitting. But even that feeble excuse doesn't apply in this case.)
According to the UCC press release, CBS explained its decision, in part, as follows ...
"Because this commercial touches on the exclusion of gay couples and other minority groups by other individuals and organizations," reads an explanation from CBS, "and the fact the Executive Branch has recently proposed a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, this spot is unacceptable for broadcast on the [CBS and UPN] networks."
(I'm unclear on why the CBS statement would speak for CBS and UPN. And at first I wondered whether the dispute was with an affiliate or a station owner who owns both CBS and UPN affiliates. But the press release seems quite specific and clear that the ads have been rejected by both the "CBS and NBC television networks.")
If this is really the case, we seem now to be in a country where political campaigns can be waged with flurries of ads replete with demonstrable falsehoods. And yet clear and tame political speech aimed at a pressing national debate isn't acceptable.
CBS's explanation seems to rest on the preposterous argument that because the ad addresses a major public debate that that makes it "unacceptable".
Or is it just that discussing homosexuality is "unacceptable"?
Late Update: As numerous more media-consolidation-savvy TPM readers have now pointed out to, Viacom owns both CBS and UPN, thus the joint refusal to air the ad.
--Josh Marshall
A number of readers have pointed out that the text of numerous pieces of pending legislation is already available online on Thomas (which is, by the way, a very useful resource).
And that's true. Indeed, it's also true, as I understand it, that the three day rule is still in place. And since bills are public documents, which could easily be tossed up on the net, you might almost say that my proposal is already in place.
But of course the problem is that the rules are flouted when they really count, when the really unconscionable provisions are being added in at the last minute. If the shades can be drawn whenever the folks on the Hill want something hidden, then the rules are meaningless, a joke.
--Josh Marshall
Yet again (from Reuters)...
Bush's current homeland security adviser, Frances Townsend, is one of the leading candidates to succeed Ridge. Another possible successor is Undersecretary Asa Hutchinson, analysts said.
That, or the guy who installed the alarm system at the ranch.
--Josh Marshall
A few days ago I said that the Democrats have yet to really understand what it means to be or act like a true party of opposition. I mean many things by this, which I hope to explore in the coming weeks and months. But in this case, for what we're discussing on the site now, I'm referring to how opposition can enable reformism.
Before 1994 and, to a lesser degree, before 2000, Democrats simply weren't in a position to adopt a genuine reform agenda because they were too implicated in the institutional corruption, the money chase, that is modern Washington. They could want change in some abstract way and they push for it at the margins. But their way of doing business on the Hill and in Washington generally was inseparable from it. It's how they ran Congress; it was how they raised their money to win elections; their friends (and that means personal and professional friends) who'd already cycled into the lobbying sector made their money from it; and many or most of them expected eventually to do the same.
I know this paints with a broad brush; and in some ways it may paint an ungenerous picture. But it is in most respects accurate.
For some years after 1994 congressional Democrats understandably acted as though they were the natural majority just temporarily displaced. So all those tendencies remained. And, as I noted above, to a lesser degree, they persisted through 2000 because holding the White House created parallel dynamics.
But now none of those are true. And the Democrats’ exclusion not just from power but from the money and lobbying game is far greater than that which the Republicans faced when they were in the minority.
There are two reasons for this: one structural and one political.
First, when the Democrats were in the majority, the two parties roughly split the money. By and large, business gave money to the Dems because they had power and to the Republicans because of their policies. That doesn’t mean there weren’t lots of pro-business Democrats, both in good ways and bad. But that basic paradigm captures the pre-1994 reality, particularly for the last ten to twenty years of the Dems’ majority. Once the Dems lost their majority and seemed destined for a long period out of power, political money swung strongly in the Republicans' favor.
Second, folks like Tom DeLay, Grover Norquist and others have worked diligently for the last decade to turn K Street into an arm of the Republican machine. That has meant telling trade groups and industry lobbies in no uncertain terms not to hire Democrats. Do so and you’ll be blackballed, is the message.
Placing Republican soldiers (ex-Hill staffers, pols, and operatives) as heads of the major trade organizations not only gives the GOP machine a finer control over K Street --- its money-giving, its political influence and its capacity to make trouble --- it also creates a ready source of patronage, a source of high-salaried jobs where political talent and loyalists can be placed before they move on to their next task. This is the nuts-and-bolts of what people are talking about when they compare the GOP’s Washington machine to Tammany Hall and the urban political machines of old.
There are quite a few downsides to total exclusion from power in Washington; but there are a few upsides too. And one is the ability to push for genuine reform, to think seriously, creatively and (relatively) unrestrainedly about change (and not just ape it, as the Republicans did in the early ‘90s.) Yet, too many Democrats don't seem to see clearly enough that on this point politics and principle entirely coincide for them.
Let me finish on this note.
I’ve always been a bit sour and suspicious about that political creature homo goodgovernmentus, and the allure of a politics unconnected to interests or money or patronage. There is such a thing as ‘honest graft’, to use the phrase of the old city machines. Patronage and political machines can and often do help to shape politics in beneficial ways. And to me getting good results in legislation and governance is much more important than the purity of how those results are achieved. At their worst good government or clean government types put the niceties of process and purity over the good legislation. (That's one reason why reformism has often had a hard time escaping an elitist coloration.)
But American history goes in cycles; the tide of institutional corruption ebbs and flows. And one needn’t indulge in naïve fantasies that the power of money or interests or greed can ever be expelled from politics to see that the pendulum has swung very far in their direction at the moment and that their influence can and must be restrained far more than they presently are.
Just as you can’t prevent barnacles from fixing themselves to the hulls of ships that doesn’t mean that you don’t periodically scrape them off when they become wildly overgrown.
Right now the hull of the ship of state is horribly overgrown with barnacles and all manner of other moneyed and interested crustaceans. And just as it makes no sense to let positive change be stymied by a too fastidious concern with clean political process, we’re now at the point where the dirtiness of politics --- or rather the institutional corruption, no, the legalized prostitution that our politics now is --- makes progressive legislation in the public interest close to impossible. All the more reason for Democrats to yoke together their values and their political interest and become a genuine party of reform.
--Josh Marshall
More reader response ...
Public review of bills: Having worked in government relations for a major corporation, I can tell you without hesitation: Big business would hate it and it would help cleanse the process (reduced pork and hidden deals ) and return the media to a role more in keeping with the framers' intent.Greg F.
More to follow ...
--Josh Marshall
A personal and professional note: I would be remiss if I did not mention that as of today the TPM world headquarters has relocated from Washington, DC to New York. I've actually been spending the majority of my time here for a few months. So you shouldn't notice any great difference. And I'll be in DC regularly. (In fact, I'm training down this evening.) But this is now the home base.
--Josh Marshall
Some reader response to the public access to legislation idea.
Most responses were quite positive. But one reader wrote the following ...
Josh, I've only viewed lawmaking from afar, but the idea of opening up bills to public viewing seems problematic. As a journalism student I hear about and, to a degree, internalize the value of transparency in the editorial process, so it seems a logical extension to support the same principle in legislative process. The rub, though, lies in the obvious follow-up questions: what kind of citizen action ensues once we open bills to public view? Will interest groups and constituents begin poring over bills and blogger comments on them, then flood Congresspersons with emails and calls and letters? My guess is yes. Then what effect does this action have on legislators and staff? Will the tide of feedback choke the process, resulting in gridlock? Again, my guess is yes. Given the GOP agenda, it's tempting to call this a good thing, but it just feels wrong to support a new rule because of its obstructive value, especially because it doesn't really jibe with the goal of promoting good government. As a principle, transparency is great, but we need to weigh its likely consequences before giving any measure our support or disapproval.Dan N.
Another former Hill staffer provided the following historical context ...
Josh: I've been away from the Senate for 2 years ( I left after 26 years in senior management positions for three Democratic US Senators), so I'm sure one of your friends might have a more contemporary response to your post. But, here's mine: What you propose--having the bills available to the public at least 3 days before being voted on--was, at one time, the normal course of business. The process the way it's suppose to run (and the way it ran when I first came to work in Congress 25+ years ago):A budget gets adopted in April or so, which gives the appropriations committees their spending target levels.
Once they have their target levels, each appropriations subcommittee puts together its bill. I believe there are 13 different subcommittees and 13 different bills.
Each one of those bills is brought to the floor for consideration. A copy of the committee-passed bill is published in advance for members and the public, along with a committee report, which is a layman's description of the bill.
The normal course of business is to pass 13 separate, free standing appropriations bills.I believe the problem this past year was the Republicans were unable to agree on a budget. The appropriations committee waited for that budget until they could wait no longer, and then started forward with spending targets they worked on themselves. An election year, coupled with infighting among Republicans on what their spending priorities should be, led them to conclude it would be better to wait until after the election to finish their "business."
Democrats in Congress could pledge to:Not have multi bill appropriations, like this 3000 page bill;
Or, at a minimum, have any appropriations bill available to the public for at least three days, regardless of whether its a single bill or big package of appropriations bills.
Hope this helps. Let me know if you have questions.
GB
[In a subsequent email, the same emailer added following ...]
One point to make clear--there obviously were similar, multi-subcommittee bills that passed as one large appropriations bill when the Democrats controlled Congress. I don't have access to stats on how many times "we" did it, but we did it, too. I don't remember whether we sprung it on people without the opportunity to review it.
However, the more common situation was one or two, or maybe three of the most controversial bills being put together in one bill at the end, when it became clear that they couldn't pass on their own. If my memory is correct, I think the stats would reveal that to be more often the case.
More on this to <$NoAd$>follow ...
--Josh Marshall
With the three Cabinet replacements Bush has announced so far for his second term, he kept his circle tight by dispatching White House staff members to take over the State, Justice and Education departments. Aides said many other such moves will be announced, because Bush and senior adviser Karl Rove are determined to "implant their DNA throughout the government," as one official put it.
No dissent, no second-guessing, no challenging preconceived notions.
--Josh Marshall
I mentioned a couple days ago how important reader emails are to this site. At the same time, though, in the hundreds or often thousands of emails that come in every week there are many suggestions which can't but seem naive or unrealistic to a jaded Washington eye. Sometimes they're infected with blog triumphalism, an unrestrained belief that blogs or similarly-situated sites can and should revolutionize all politics and media (an attitude with which I have little patience.)
Last week, when news of the Istook Amendment first surfaced, I received several emails that seemed clearly to fall into this category. Since the tax-snooping language was only spotted by a rushed staffer in the few hours Senators and their staffs had to read over the bill, a number of TPM readers suggested that blogs and their readers be harnessed to comb through future bills to uncover whatever foolish, nefarious or simply unconscionable provisions might be lurking inside them.
At first, as I said, though the intention seemed admirable, I wasn't particularly impressed by this idea. But over a few days, as I considered it further, it occurred to me that maybe I was the one who wasn't being realistic or rather was too stuck in conventional ways of thinking.
Allow me to explain.
Democrats are already pushing for a return to the observance of the rule which mandated that members of congress must be given at least three days to review legislation in its final form before it was called to a vote.
But why stop there? Giving legislators a reasonable opportunity to review a bill before they vote to make it law is the barest of bare minimums, especially now that bills are often coming out of conference in a dramatically new form. But why should only legislators get a chance to look at the bill? Forget the issue of purported centrality of blogs. Why not make bills publicly and readily available (and I emphasize 'readily') for three days before they can be brought to a vote?
I can think of a number of reasons why not to. (I can imagine friends on the Hill sending me long lists of them.) But I'm not sure any of them are good reasons. Yes, it would expose the unseemly work of legislative horse-trading without which successful coalition and law-making may not be possible. A more valid concern is that the 'public' process would be heavily weighted toward single-interest advocacy groups -- pro-choice and pro-life, gun control vs. pro-gun, etc. -- since those are the only ones organized and resourceful enough to act.
But again, are any of those reasons good ones balanced against the public's right to know in advance what their elected representatives are voting on? And, remember, this isn't some abstract issue of transparency. Keeping the contents of legislation not only secret from the public but from legislators themselves kills accountability and makes it far too easy for private interests to feed off the public interest.
Lurking in the background here are two related issues we'll be returning to: whether the Democratic party can embrace a true, rather than a cosmetic, agenda of reform and whether Democrats, after ten years out of power in Congress and four years in exile from the White House, can start acting like a true opposition party.
--Josh Marshall
){kind=link}