Mixed Government
None of the following is meant to take away from the gravity of the events taking place today in Pakistan. But, as I've said before, I'm constantly fascinated by the way the Pakistani constitution (in the British sense rather than in the sense of the formal document) manages to create this hybrid form of dictatorship and constitutionalism.
I know that Gen. Musharraf has over the last decade regularized his position to a great degree. But in most military dictatorships, the general in charge wouldn't need to be bothering with the country's Supreme Court in the first place. And when we hear he suspended the constitution today, didn't he kind of do that when he deposed the elected Prime Minister in 1999 and made himself head of government?
I know there are answers to these rhetorical questions. I even know most of them, at least at a layman's level of generality. But I find the whole topic one of great fascination.
More concretely, and more relevant to the questions we'll now be facing, what changes now? Since Musharraf was already running an extra-constitutional military government (perhaps 'dictatorship' is too strong a word, given the above), what will be different tomorrow?
--Josh Marshall
Today's Must Read (Saturday Edition)
If you're perhaps only vaguely familiar with whole sordid tale of Rudy Giuliani and Bernie Kerik, the NYT delivers the story in spades today, with a nearly 3,000-word effort at capturing the relationship between America's Mayor and the mobbed-up former jail warden who nearly became the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security:
Mr. Kerik was a comic book hero come to life, a decorated undercover detective with a ponytail and earrings, thick biceps and a taste for four-letter words as nouns, verbs and adjectives. He cultivated relationships with powerful people, including an influential sheriff who five years earlier had made him the youngest jail warden in the history of Passaic County, N.J.When Mr. Giuliani ran for mayor in 1993, Mr. Kerik organized his security detail of off-duty officers, reserving the weekend shift for himself.
When Mr. Giuliani became mayor, he gave Mr. Kerik a job in the Correction Department. A year later, the mayor asked him to drop by Gracie Mansion.
The two men sat upstairs and shared a bottle of red wine, a gift to the mayor from Nelson Mandela. Mr. Giuliani said he planned to appoint Mr. Kerik as first deputy correction commissioner.
Mr. Kerik, who wrote of this in his autobiography, “The Lost Son,” was taken aback; he was a year removed from being a police detective.
“Mayor, I appreciate your confidence in me, I really do,” he said. “But I ran a jail. One jail. Rikers is like 10 jails.”
Just do it, the mayor replied.
Mr. Kerik followed Mr. Giuliani downstairs to a dimly lighted room. There waited Mr. Giuliani’s boyhood chum Peter J. Powers, who was first deputy mayor, and other aides. One by one, they pulled Mr. Kerik close and kissed his cheek.
“I wonder if he noticed how much becoming part of his team resembled becoming part of a mafia family,” Mr. Kerik wrote. “I was being made.”
--David Kurtz
Dean on Mukasey
Friend of TPM and former Nixon White House Counsel John Dean knows a few things about lawless presidents. He just sent us his thoughts on the now certain confirmation of Judge Mukasey ...
A Last Thought Before the Senate Judiciary Committee Confirms Judge Mukasey
By John W. Dean
As the Senate Democrats complete another sad concession to President Bush, and confirms a nominee who refuses to declare “water-boarding” torture, allow me to offer a brief historical reminder: the Senate Judiciary Committee has conspicuously forgotten that there are direct situational and historical parallels with Judge Mukasey’s nomination to be Attorney General and that of President Richard Nixon nominating Elliot Richardson to be Attorney General during Watergate.
Nixon’s Attorney General had been removed (and was later prosecuted for lying to Congress) – a situation not unlike Alberto Gonzales’s leaving the job under such a cloud. Nixon was under deep suspicion of covering up the true facts relating to the bungled break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate, not to mention widespread rumors that he had engaged in abuses of power and corrupt campaign practices. Today, Bush is under even deeper suspicion for activities far more serious than anything Nixon engaged in for there is evidence Bush has abused the laws of war, violated treaties, and ordered (or approved) the use of torture and political renditions, which are war crimes.
Since Judge Mukasey’s situation is not unlike that facing Elliot Richardson when he was appointed Attorney General during Watergate, why should not the Senate Judiciary Committee similarly make it a quid pro quo for his confirmation that he appoint a special prosecutor to investigate war crimes? Richardson was only confirmed when he agreed to appoint a special prosecutor, which, of course, he did. And when Nixon fired that prosecutor, Archibald Cox, it lead to his impeachment.
Before the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee completely cave-in to Bush, at minimum they should demand that Judge Mukasey appoint a special prosecutor to investigate if war crimes have been committed. If Mukasey refuses he should be rejected. This, indeed, should be a pre-condition to anyone filling the post of Attorney General under Bush.
If the Democrats in the Senate refuse to demand any such requirement, it will be act that should send chills down the spine of every thinking American.
--Josh Marshall
Rudy: I Believe I Can Fly!
Well, among other things, it seems Rudy's a bit of a fibber. Says one thing one, then denies it a few hours later, apparently not familiar with the concept of audio and video recordings. Check it out ...
And here we also get a view of Rudy's comic egomania. Whatever else you think about Joe Biden, he's been in the Senate for going on forty years and is a longtime chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. Rudy says Biden doesn't have any foreign policy experience; he's got nothing that compares to Rudy's foreign policy experience as mayor. Mayor? You can't make this stuff up. Can Rudy fly too? Predict the future?
Late Update: Joe Biden responds:
“Today’s comments come from a guy—Rudy Giuliani—who said Dick Cheney, the architect of Bush’s failed policy in Iraq, was a great choice for vice president and who recommended the now discredited Bernie Kerik to be Secretary of Homeland Security. Once again, Rudy has demonstrated his complete lack of knowledge of U.S. foreign policy.”
--Josh Marshall
BREAKING: Schumer and Feinstein Will Vote For Mukasey
According to CNN, Sens. Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) will vote for the confirmation of Michael Mukasey as attorney general.
The move by the two Judiciary Committee Democrats all but assures that the nomination will make it to the Senate floor where confirmation is expected.
Roll Call (sub. req.) also confirming.
From the AP:
"This is an extremely difficult decision," Schumer said in a statement, adding that Mukasey "is not my ideal choice."
We have more at TPMmuckraker.
--David Kurtz
Responding to the Cafe controversy over Tom Perriello's post yesterday condemning pornography, Nathan Newman argues that "Condemning Porn is the New Porn."
--David Kurtz
Feingold Still Undecided
The Wisconsin Democrat who sits on the Judiciary Committee has issued a statement in which he concedes he has not yet made a decision on Mukasey:
He may be the best nominee we can get from this administration in this respect. But I am concerned about his views on executive power, and I am weighing whether his answers to questions in that area adequately demonstrate a commitment to the rule of law.
Late Update: What is it about the indecisive Wisconsin delegation? Sen. Herb Kohl's office tells us that he, too, remains undecided on Mukasey.
--David Kurtz
Leahy Says No
Breaking: Leahy will vote no on Mukasey.
What say thee Feingold, Feinstein, Kohl, Cardin and Schumer?
--David Kurtz
Wrapping things up for the week, Tom Perriello offers a defense of the religious left.
--David Kurtz
What a Difference a Day Makes
Yesterday, John McCain was singing the praises of Michael Mukasey, whose refusal to say that waterboarding is torture has put his confirmation as attorney general in jeopardy.
Today, McCain is criticizing his GOP opponents for not taking a harder line on waterboarding being torture:
The Arizona senator's position on an interrogation technique that simulates drowning — he says it constitutes torture and is illegal — puts him at odds with Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson, who haven't taken such a hard line."There's a clear division between those who have a military background and experience in these issues and people like Giuliani, Romney and Thompson who don't — who chose to do other things when this nation was fighting its wars," McCain told reporters after touring a shipyard in this military bastion.
--David Kurtz
Romney defies Fox News cease and desist letter by using debate footage in campaign ad, and he puts GOP uber-lawyer Ben Ginsberg on the case.
--David Kurtz
The Other NSA Domestic Surveillance Program
Why was the NSA trying to enlist the telecoms in a surveillance program before 9/11?
The National Journal's Shane Harris digs deeper into what has emerged in recent days about Qwest's role in that earlier NSA effort:
A former White House official, who at the time was involved in network defense and other intelligence programs, said that the early 2001 NSA proposal to Qwest was, "Can you build a private version of Echelon and tell us what you see?" Echelon refers to a signals intelligence network operated by the NSA and its official counterparts in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom.The NSA realized that it was blind to many of the new online threats and to who was using the privately owned telecom networks, and it thought that Qwest was in a position to help. The agency needed better intelligence in the face of a burgeoning Internet, and Qwest was then building a high-speed network for phone and Internet traffic that had caught the attention of senior intelligence officials. The NSA, in effect, wanted Qwest to be the agency's online eyes and ears.
Another source said that the NSA wanted to analyze the calls, e-mails, and other transmissions crossing Qwest's lines, to detect patterns of suspicious activity. Telecom carriers routinely monitor their networks for fraudulent activity, the former White House official noted, and so the companies "have an enormous amount of intelligence-gathering" capability. They don't have to target individual customers to "look for wacky behavior," or "groups communicating with each other in strange patterns." That information could augment intelligence that the NSA and other agencies were gathering from other sources, the former official said. . . .
Qwest's then-chief executive officer, Joseph Nacchio, rejected the NSA's request. "He didn't want to go along with that," and his refusal was not greeted warmly in the intelligence community, the former White House official said.
--David Kurtz
Silencers?
So what's the story with those silencers Blackwater was smuggling into Iraq? I put the question out to readers who might know more about firearms and/or the private contracting biz. And the verdict seems to be that there's not necessarily any reason to think there's something amiss. Why Blackwater was bringing them into the country without declaring them is a separate issue. But in terms of why they might want them, a number of readers suggest that with modern weapons the use of a 'silencer' can simply be a matter of getting the decibel level of the discharge down to a level that doesn't damage the shooter's ears and/or allows him or her to still here orders at the same time.
I don't say this is necessarily dispositive. But initial information suggests it's not as suspicious as it might seem to a layman.
--Josh Marshall
Trumping the Gender Card
Matt Lauer asked Barack Obama this morning how he would respond to Hillary Clinton's apparent playing of the gender card. Obama had what strikes me as a very effective response. Take a look:
--David Kurtz
Awaiting Leahy's Decision
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat Leahy (D-VT) is expected to announce his vote on the confirmation of Michael Mukasey in a press conference at 3 ET this afternoon at his office in Vermont. If Leahy comes out in favor of Mukasey, confirmation is practically assured.
--David Kurtz
Finally! A pundit asks the key question about Rudy's dissembling, his character and the media.
Late Update: Is Krugman criticizing the editors of his own paper as soft on Rudy?
--David Kurtz
In today's White House press briefing, Dana Perino fields questions on the Mukasey confirmation process . . . the shortage of FSOs in Iraq . . . UFOs . . . and Rummy's "snowflake" about Muslims' aversion to "physical labor":
--David Kurtz
Grand Old Party
"Republican Stategist" Rachel Marsden: "One man's torture is another man's CIA-sponsored swim lesson."
We know that 'strategist' is Washingtonese for 'looking for work', right? Just checking.
Late Update: Hmmm. Seems Marsden has a record of false accusations and charges of stalking and criminal harassment. Actually, in May, after appearing on Fox News at FNC's Manhattan HQ, she had to be dragged out of the building by Fox security for "bizarre and erratic" behavior. Now, consider that one for a second. Just how bizarre and erratic does a Fox pundit have to be? Right?
CNN sure knows how to pick'em.
--Josh Marshall
Judiciary Committee Will Decide It
Last night I promised further explanation of how the Mukasey confirmation vote is likely to go down in the Senate Judiciary Committee. Paul Kiel provides the details.
Basically it comes down to this. There are a few different ways the nomination could get to the Senate floor even if the Judiciary Committee votes against recommending Mukasey for confirmation. But a spokesperson for committee chairman Pat Leahy (D-VT) tells us to expect a straight "yes-no" vote in committee.
So as of this moment, it comes down to Leahy, Kohl, Feinstein, Feingold, Schumer, and Cardin--the six Judiciary Committee Dems who have yet to announce their intentions. That's assuming no Republicans on the committee break ranks, which appears unlikely.
--David Kurtz
Lieberman calls on Judiciary Committee to confirm Mukasey.
More soon . . .
Late Update: Here's some video of Lieberman calling for Mukasey's confirmation. --gs
--David Kurtz
Is Rudy's argument against government-supported health care so weak that he must constantly fudge health statistics?
--David Kurtz
'Sprintin' to the Finish Line'
The highlights of the President's speech on GWOT today at the Heritage Foundation:
--David Kurtz
DOJ Investigating Clinton Contributions
From the AP:
On the wall of Hsiao Yen Wang's apartment, a cramped, 17th-floor public housing unit on the city's Lower East Side, are photographs of her husband, David Guo, a cook who specializes in Fujian cuisine.One photo stands out: Guo shaking Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's hand, a memento from a $1,000-a-person fundraiser for the New York senator held in New York's Chinatown last April.
Last week, Wang got another memento - a calling card from a Justice Department criminal investigator. The investigator asked Wang if she was coerced into giving money to the campaign and whether she knew of anybody else who may have been forced to contribute.
In an interview with The Associated Press, Wang said she and her husband had given willingly and that she knew of no coercion. A Justice Department spokeswoman would not comment on the inquiries.
--David Kurtz
Kennedy to Oppose Mukasey
Sen. Ted Kennedy will vote against confirming Mukasey.
That brings to four the number of Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee who have announced their intention to vote against Mukasey. The remaining six--Leahy, Kohl, Feinstein, Feingold, Schumer, and Cardin--have not announced their intentions.
Late Update: We've updated our chart and highlighted the senators who sit on the Judiciary Committee.
--David Kurtz
Silencers?
This isn't just a rhetorical question. There certainly may be reasons I'm not aware of. But why does Blackwater need silencers in Iraq? If they're conducting offensive missions, sniping, raids, etc., it would make sense. But for purely defensive security missions protecting State Department employees? Again, not just a rhetorical question -- it's certainly not my area of expertise. I'd be curious to hear from folks who know more about the subject.
The fact they appear to have smuggled them into the country doesn't weigh heavily in favor of an innocent explanation.
--Josh Marshall
A Conspicuous Silence
Is it newsworthy when the Vice President gives a speech and makes no mention of Iran. Should it be?
--David Kurtz
Strange bedfellows: Wingnut bloggers and MoveOn launch campaign against Fox News.
--David Kurtz
On Second Thought
U.S. Rep. Tom Udall (D-NM) may run for Pete Domenici's open Senate seat after all.
--David Kurtz
USA A-OK!
Karen Hughes, the Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs - the woman essentially in charge of making sure the rest of the world really likes America - announced on Wednesday that she would be retiring from her post by the end of the year. In today's episode of TPMtv we take a look back at just how wildly successful she has been in promoting America's image abroad over the past few years ...
Watch this episode on YouTube.
--Ben Craw
Today's Must Read
The very real legal quandary presented by Michael Mukasey acknowledging that waterboarding is torture.
--David Kurtz
Married to the Mob
According to the Times, or at least sources the Times reporters spoke to, Rudy Crony Bernie Kerik has a legal defense trust set up to help him defray his weighty legal bills. Considering that Giuliani's candidacy can probably only survive if Kerik keeps quiet, it'd be very interesting to know who's contributing to that fund. People who were just fans of his public service?
Of course, even if Kerik does keep quiet a Rudy nomination would have to force a lot of questions about why Rudy put a mobbed-up, crooked cop in charge of the NYPD and tried to get him installed as the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.
(ed.note: Thanks to TPM Reader DG for the catch.)
--Josh Marshall
What Will Schumer Do?
Sen. Chuck Schumer's early support for Michael Mukasey may end up paving the way for his confirmation, notwithstanding Mukasey's refusal to call waterboarding torture. From Roll Call (sub. req.):
Still, it’s unclear how Schumer will vote on the nomination because the well-known spotlight seeker has been uncharacteristically mum on Mukasey’s continued refusal to clearly define waterboarding — an interrogation technique in which a detainee is subjected to a simulated drowning — as torture and illegal in the United States.Asked Wednesday whether he was being noncommittal on Mukasey’s nomination, Schumer replied, “I am not commenting at the moment is what I am.” . . .
One senior Senate Democratic aide said Schumer’s credibility with the Democratic Caucus had been damaged somewhat by the issue, because many saw his status as a member of Judiciary and the No. 3 Senate Democratic leader as giving them clearance to praise the nomination when it was first announced.
“That made a lot of Democrats think he must know what he’s talking about,” said the aide. “People followed his lead and now they’re having to dial it back.”
--David Kurtz
Small World
Blackwater brought in the PR firm of Mark Penn, Hillary's chief pollster/strategist, to prepare for their congressional testimony a couple weeks ago.
--Josh Marshall
You're No Larry Craig
Yesterday, we brought you news of the case of Washington State Rep. Richard Curtis (R) who got into a money dispute with a gentleman, Cody Castagna, he paid for sex with after meeting Castagna in an erotic bookstore while on a legislative retreat with state Republicans. Despite telling state police that he "wanted to keep the incident as low key as possible," the story began to spin out of Curtis's control after he went to the authorities with charges that Castagna was extorting him for cash.
Earlier this week, Curtis was insisting that, in the words of Larry Craig, "I am not gay." Before that he had told police that his memory of the night in question was hazy and that he may have been slipped a drug that accounted for his behavior that did not comport well with his strong anti-gay voting record.
Now however comes news that Curtis is resigning from office to spare his family.
--Josh Marshall
Stop Saving Social Security
I said last night that I disagreed with the oft-stated claim that it just gets harder to 'fix' the non-existent Social Security crisis the longer you wait. In fact, as I thought about Obama's proposal to remove or retool the cap on Social Security taxes I got to thinking that it's not just not necessary to do right now but that it actually might be a bad idea altogether.
Many have argued that having this debate at all buys into the right-wing argument that there's a 'crisis' that needs to be solved and thus that the politics are all wrong. But put that aside, let's talk about whether it makes sense even on substance.
When it comes to the policy and number-crunching nitty-gritty of Social Security I'm definitely an amateur. But I think I've got a decent sense of the political-economy of the question. We need to remember that now and for at least a decade into the future Social Security is actually subsidizing the rest of the federal budget. The program brings in much more than it pays out. As we all remember from the voluble debates two years ago, the surplus is being used to buy US government bonds which go into the Trust Fund. And that socked away money will keep the program solvent through the middle of this century as the baby boomers retire, and revenues in no longer cover promised payments out.
We've been doing that for about a quarter of a century.
The problem on the political side of the equation is that the enemies of Social Security have spent a couple decades arguing that the Trust Fund doesn't exist or that it is simply a bookkeeping device with no true financial meaning. If that's true, it means that American workers have spent the last twenty-five years using their payroll taxes to subsidize general revenues and make it easier to float big tax cuts for upper-income earners without getting anything in return.
If we start pumping a lot more money into Social Security coffers now it will by definition go into more government bonds, which is another way of saying that it will go toward funding our current deficit spending. In fact it will enable more deficit spending and probably more upper-income tax cuts because it will make the consequences of both easier to hide.
If we want to push the buffer of the Trust Fund further out onto the horizon, then fiddle with payroll taxes when Social Security would need to start dipping into Trust Fund. In other words, in a decade or so. I see no reason why this approach doesn't work just as nicely then as it would now.
As Paul Krugman noted in the interview I did with him a few weeks ago, the window of time we had to seriously pare down the national debt to prepare for the retirement of the baby-boomers is close to over. Still, though, our best way of ensuring the future health of Social Security is to stop running up the national debt now. So I'm very reluctant to put more payroll taxes in the pot while we're still running big deficits because of the Bush tax cuts. The money will just go to subsidizing that irresponsible fiscal policy.
If there is any sense in which the 'Trust Fund' is not 'real' it is that it must be paid back from general revenues. And that will only be harder the more other debt we're running up. So rather than solving the problem, I think we're actually enabling it.
The second problem is that we need a national agreement or consensus that the Trust Fund is real, that it will be honored, and have the debate about the future of the program on that basis. Otherwise, we're still risking getting played in the same bait-and-switch privatizers have been trying to pull for years -- using regressive payroll taxes to fund current government spending and then telling future recipients that that money has disappeared and thus Social Security has to be phased out altogether.
Lifting the payroll tax cap while Social Security is still running a big surplus not only solves a problem that doesn't exist it enables the very policies that put the program in danger. Perhaps this is all another way of saying that I'm not a fan of putting more hens in the hen house while the foxes are still at the door, or even in the house.
I'm interested to hear your thoughts.
--Josh Marshall
A Confirmation Battle?
We've compiled a handy-dandy chart to keep track of the Mukasey confirmation vote in the Senate. For now, we've started from the safe assumption that most Republican senators will back Mukasey. In the few instances where a GOP senator has expressed some concern or hesitation, we've labeled that senator as undecided. On the Democratic side, we've assumed a senator was undecided unless he or she had affirmatively stated their intent to vote against Mukasey.
We'll be updating the chart as senators make their positions clear. There's been waffling in some quarters (i.e., Specter, no surprise there), but until there's an affirmative statement one way or the other on Mukasey, we'll consider a senator undecided. Be on the lookout. If you come across a senator taking a position, shoot us an email with a cite, preferably a link, so we can track it down.
All that being said, if you take a look at the numbers as they stand now, confirmation still looks pretty likely. No Republicans have yet broken ranks, and that means only a few Democrats must defect for Mukasey to pull a majority on the Senate floor. So for all the murmurs this week about a real confirmation battle shaping up, I don't see it. At least not yet.
Now the Judiciary Committee itself may be a different matter. The vote on Mukasey is scheduled for Tuesday. We'll have more tomorrow on the mechanics of the Judiciary Committee vote and referral to the full Senate. Stay tuned.
--David Kurtz
Always Follow the Money
The Wall Street Journal had an interesting graphic today on who is spending what and where in the presidential race (click to enlarge):
As the Journal pointed out in its companion piece, the big difference this cycle is that Iowa and New Hampshire are not the only games in town. With a crowded January calendar, candidates are hedging their bets by putting substantial amounts of money into other states, especially on the Republican side. Giuliani and Thompson, for instance, have spent more of their money in Florida than in any other state.
The Democrats have been more traditional, with the challengers to Hillary Clinton pouring money into Iowa in hopes of dislodging her as frontrunner--or at least establishing one of them as a viable alternative. Obama has actually out-spent Clinton in Iowa, by the Journal's calculation.
The other thing that leaps out is how much more Romney has spent than his GOP counterparts. He has burned through a lot of money so far, and the graphic shows it.
--David Kurtz
Poor Misunderstood Joe
Alternating between his trademark sanctimony and a "who me?" false modesty, Joe Lieberman finds the ruckus over the Kyl-Lieberman amendment troubling:
Adopting a tone of sorrow and bewilderment, not anger, Lieberman said Tuesday before the debate that his and Kyl’s measure “ought to be non-controversial.”He said the use of the resolution as a litmus test for Democrats “troubles me, as it troubled me when the amendment came up on the floor of the Senate that 22 senators voted against it.” . . .
Lieberman explained, “I thought it was so direct, factual, based on evidence the U.S. military has given us of the involvement of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps in training and equipping Iraqi extremists who… have been responsible for the killing of hundreds of American soldiers.”
Chuckling a bit, apparently in disbelief, Lieberman asked, “How can you vote against a request that the administration impose economic sanctions on a group that the U.S. military has presented us ample evidence is a terrorist group killing American soldiers?” . . .
Lieberman acknowledged Tuesday that some senators don’t trust Bush, but said, “At some point, we’ve got to get over this distrust and partisanship.”
--David Kurtz
On Second Thought
Clinton endorses Spitzer plan.
Late Update: Maybe there's more to it. Greg Sargent looks at the fine print.
--Josh Marshall
Judiciary Dems Lining Up Against Mukasey
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) just announced on the Senate floor that he will vote no on the Mukasey nomination. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) announced his opposition earlier today.
--David Kurtz
Dana Perino is grilled about those Abramoff docs that Henry Waxman wants and about Karen Hughes' failed effort to improve the U.S image abroad, in today's White House briefing:
--David Kurtz
Fork It Over
Breaking: FEC tags Cunningham briber Mitchell Wade and his old company MZM with $1 million fine--second largest in FEC history--for campaign finance violations. According to the FEC:
Mr. Wade used MZM corporate funds to reimburse employees and their spouses for contributions to the campaign committees of Representatives Virgil Goode and Katherine Harris.
--David Kurtz
What has caused the U.S. intelligence failures of this decade? Ex-CIA analyst Larry Johnson knows one reason why.
--David Kurtz
The jury could get the case against Duke briber Brent Wilkes as early as this morning West Coast time. Paul Kiel has the roundup of Wilkes' last day on the stand in his own defense.
--David Kurtz
From the Ridiculous to the Absurd
The humorous sidelight of last night's debate was the UFO question. Take a look:
--David Kurtz
TPMCafers Respond to Dem Debate
Most important for me was that the Iran issue was at last confronted. I think that her vote for Kyl-Lieberman was Hillary's big mistake of the campaign season.
To continue to shy away from attacking conservative ideology, which is the root cause of almost all of the Bush administration’s failures, amounts to political malpractice.
--David Kurtz
Hillary in the Debate
The post-debate spin seems to be that Hillary had a pretty rough night. Early in the debate I noted her unflappability and her refusal to ever flub a debate question. But I admit it got a lot rougher toward the end, perhaps especially on the immigration question. Frontrunners can and usually do get away without giving many specifics. That's just how campaigns work. The other contenders can and should try to hammer on that and force her to show her hand on key issues. But let's not kid ourselves about the fact that this is hardly unique or new to Hillary.
That said, she does seem to be taking it to an almost absurd length. To me, the illegal immigrant driver's license exchange was less interesting because of her evasion than because of the dual personality she's brought to the debate. Most frontrunners dodge tough questions or give politically safe answers. But Hillary also wanted to have a serious-minded conversation about the question, noting the public safety rationales behind the very unpopular policy of giving driver's licenses to illegals. She actually grappled with the issue and pointed to the apparent necessity of the policy. But as soon as it came to 'endorsing', which here meant embracing the logical extension of everything she just said, she pulled back.
It's almost as if her background as a serious policy person is coming back to bite her. She can't restrain herself from injecting actual policy discussions into her public presentation as an annoying teflon frontrunner.
--Josh Marshall
Drexel Debate Highlights!
The Democratic candidates (save Mike Gravel, whom MSNBC chose to bar for failing to meet certain polling requirements) took the stage Tuesday night at Drexel University in Philadelphia. It was the first debate since Senators Obama and Edwards had vowed to take more aggressive aim at their frontrunning opponent, Senator Hillary Clinton. Did she survive the onslaught? And what does everyone think about Iran? Find out all the answers in today's Debate Highlight Reel episode of TPMtv ...
Watch this episode on YouTube.
--Ben Craw
Today's Must Read
Did the State Department routinely offer immunity to contractors involved in shootings in Iraq?
--David Kurtz
Who won, who lost, and who believes in UFOs? Eric Kleefeld recaps the Democratic debate.
--David Kurtz
Diversifying
After this staff effort carving a Mitt Romney pumpkin, the board has decided to maintain our strategic focus on blogging.
--Josh Marshall
NGRs = Not Gay Republicans
Unsolicited advice from TPM to closeted Republican politicians: if you offer to pay a guy $1000 to have sex with you, don't try to wriggle out of paying the thousand dollars.
More advice: if you get into a payment dispute with the guy you paid to have sex with you, contacting the authorities to get them involved to hassle the guy is a very bad idea.
Also, some metaphors just won't take you to a good place. From the Columbian's new article on Washington state legislator Richard Curtis (R) ...
Spokane Police Detective Tim Madsen wrote in his report that Curtis wanted to keep the whole incident quiet. At one point, Madsen told Curtis that “the toothpaste was already out of the tube.”“Curtis told me he was just trying to put the cap back on the tube,” Madsen wrote. “I told Curtis that the suspect may victimize other people in the future, and Curtis acknowledged that part of his job was to protect people in the state of Washington. … Curtis said he wished he would have just paid the additional money to the suspect because he didn’t wish the case to be prosecuted. If the incident became public, it could cost him his marriage and career.”
Yes, paying the additional money may have been wise.
For more about the incident, see more here.
--Josh Marshall
Live Debate Blogging
Diplomacy, diplomacy and also diplomacy. Did I mention diplomacy?
9:25 PM ... Hillary "I will do everything I can" to prevent from Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. Good answer.
9:26 PM ... Obama: We cannot act as if we are the weakest nation in the world when we are the strongest. That's pretty much a quote, but I'm not sure I got it word for word. The first sign of life I've seen out of him in the debate. Up until then sort of disappointing.
9:30 PM ... I'm actually somewhat surprised at the relative outbreak of sanity among the Democratic presidential candidates on Iran. The key point, though they've all been afraid to say it, is that allowing Iran to get one or two penny-ante nukes is not the worst thing that can happen for us. It doesn't threaten us. It's not great. It would be a really bad development. But it doesn't justify doing something positively insane that won't really prevent the Iranians from getting a nuclear weapon and if we could have this debate honestly isn't even about the Iranian nuclear program. Say it again, fundamentally this is not even about an Iranian bomb. But another point -- diplomacy is a tactic, not a strategy. Our whole strategy is wrong in the region. Leaving more time for the diplomatic phase of the policy just delays getting to where the policy is taking us: full-scale war with Iran.
9:41 PM ... TPM Reader RS disagrees ...
With all due respect, Josh, Hillary’s answer was not a good one. To me, it came across as trying to split the middle on a very direct question. She’s trying to sound aggressive without actually sounding aggressive (if that makes any sense). Why not just say “If I am elected President, Iran won’t get nuclear weapons. I will do everything in my power…..etc etc”? Really, what’s the harm? You know for damned sure the Repugs are going to jump all over it.
I disagree. This is a bullet you have to bite. If you make an absolute statement, you put yourself onto the ground for military action. Yes, Republicans will probably jump all over it. But for both reasons of substance and politics, at a certain point you need to grab hold of the root of this issue. Otherwise, you're constantly on the defensive, off-balance and enabling disaster.
9:45 PM ... Whatever you think of Clinton's answer to this experience question, I still get a chuckle out of Giuliani's idea that he was somehow commander-in-chief of New York City. Responsible for the safety of millions of people? The Mayor?
9:52 PM ... Again with this doofus Giuliani 'experience' question. Made a payroll? Rudy? Opening and rainmaking consultancy to cash in on your public service. That doesn't count. Face it. Giuliani was a government lawyer his entire life until he served two terms as mayor. Nothing wrong with that. Very honorable. But don't pretend you're some sort of business man.
10:01 PM ... Okay, I may have to endorse Biden after this tear against Rudy. Right, the least qualified man running for president since George Bush. Actually, this whole answer is pretty great. Not really being in the race is sorta liberating.
10:03 PM ... Why do we indulge Tim Russert's delusion that he's an expert on social insurance programs?
10:04 PM ... Here's the thing with Hillary. Not always inspiring answers. But, man, she never flubs an answer. Simply unflappable. Like a machine. And I mean that as a compliment.
10:07 PM ... This is more a policy point than a political point. But all sorts of people say that it gets harder to work on Social Security the longer we wait. I don't think that's true. If you raised the cap now, before there's even any drawing down on the Trust Fund, all it would do would be to subsidize upper income tax cuts. I know that requires some more explanation. I'll try to address it in a post tomorrow.
10:10 PM ... And Russert, please pull this guy's license. Truly living in a fantasy world imagining that he's some sort of social policy mandarin. Enough. Off with you!
10:11 PM ... Good Obama answer on swift-boating and what a fool Mitt Romney is. (Probably a better option than the dangerous and buffoonish Giuliani, but still lame.)
10:23 PM ... We appear now to be in the lame question segment of the debate.
10:39 PM ... Maybe debates should only last one hour?
11:02 PM ... Who can make Tim Russert go away?
TPM Reader SR seems to agree ...
10:59. I don't know whether Obama effectively smacked-down HRC tonight, but repeatedly throughout the night, he exposed TIm Russert as the buffoon that he is. Surely he deserves a bump in the polls just for that.
11:13 ... Post debate inane chatter segment. Andrea Mitchell, please send her where we're sending Russert.
11:37 ... Not sure what I think about the Hillary/drivers' license exchange. It does seem like a typically bogus hedge. It's a good idea, a good approach, but she won't formally endorse it. Good idea, I support it. I just don't endorse it.
--Josh Marshall
PreDebate Comedy
In case you missed it, join us on our search for the true meaning of Islamofascism Awareness Week.
Watch this episode on YouTube.
--Josh Marshall
DOJ Statement on Blackwater, just out ...
STATEMENT BY JUSTICE DEPARTMENT SPOKESMAN DEAN BOYD
ON THE BLACKWATER INVESTIGATION
"The Justice Department and the FBI cannot discuss the facts of the Blackwater case, which is under active investigation. However, any suggestion that the Blackwater employees in question have been given immunity from federal criminal prosecution is inaccurate. The Justice Department and the FBI continue the criminal investigation of this matter knowing that this investigation involves a number of complex issues. We are unable to comment further at this time."
Late Update: A highly knowledgeable responds ...
You know you're getting bamboozled when the reassuring statement is so carefully worded.However, any suggestion that the Blackwater employees in question have been given immunity from federal criminal prosecution is inaccurate.The immunity the employees reportedly got is not "immunity from federal prosecution" (also known as "transactional immunity") it's what prosecutors call "use immunity" (or "use and fruits immunity"). There is a difference that is important in a court proceeding that makes the DOJ statement technically correct, but as a practical matter if the Blackwater folks got use immunity, there is virtually no chance they will be tried or convicted for any crime. If they did get that kind of immunity, then prosecutors would theoretically be able to indict, but they would then have to prove that every piece of evidence used in the prosecution was obtained completely independent of the employees' statements. Especially in DC federal courts, where the Ollie North case produced an extreme version of that doctrine, that's pretty much an impossible task -- the prosecutors would also have to show that none of their witnesses had heard what the employees said in their immunized statements.The State Department had no authority to give the employees "immunity from federal prosecution," but it's a much thornier question whether a promise not to use statements is also beyond their authority -- or whether it's any less binding on DOJ than the usual "use immunity."
Bottom line: DOJ's statement is a very careful bamboozle. Don't be fooled.
--Josh Marshall
Will Mukasey's answers on waterboarding satisfy Senate Dems? Not Joe Biden.
Late Update: Leahy is "concerned" and Durbin says Mukasey's answer "falls far short," but neither tips his hand on how he will vote.
--David Kurtz
Calling All Readers
Over at TPM Election Central, Greg has a post up about a mailer that the McCain campaign is distributing in South Carolina. You can take a look at the mailer and Greg's post here.
But it raises another issue and with just about two months to go before the Iowa caucus, now's as good a time as any to raise it.
We're going to be depending on you, our readers, to help us provide the TPM brand of nitty gritty, retail-level campaign coverage in 2008. So we'll be looking to you to alert us to things like that McCain mailer, as well as radio spots, TV ads, phone calls, campaign emails, and all the other campaign goings-on that might otherwise fly below the radar were it not for our national network of loyal readers. That goes for the presidential race, but also for Senate and House races, and any other race we happen to be covering.
So keep an eye out. We look forward to hearing from you--and thanks in advance.