Holiday Muck-O-Rama Contest!
Okay, we're moving right along on our end of the year Muck-O-Rama contest, the winners of which are going to be announced on December 31st 2007. We're well on our way to picking out our panel of distinguished judges who'll be picking the winners (about half way there). We're going to be announcing our award categories next week, based on your suggestions and then we're opening it up to your nominations. Biggest crook? Biggest fib? Biggest self-inflicted dignity loss in congressional testimony?
To refresh your memory, check out yesterday's episode of TPMtv, with some of the choicest moments of Bush administration congressional testimony bamboozlement from 2007 ...
--Josh Marshall
Stick'em Up
Here's a fascinating statistic, and one I find quite heartening as resident of New York City (I think I probably need to log a few more years before I can label myself a genuine New Yorker.)
New York City is on track to have fewer than 500 homicides this year.
As an aside, I think this gives more credence to a suspicion I've had since the late '90s: that the current low murder rates in this country -- particularly in New York City -- probably make the whole concept of the TV police procedural unrealistic. Can the two detectives at Law & Order really have one murder case to solve once a week? And all three series? Or what about the old NYPD Blue? The structure of the show was based on murders right and left for just the single precinct.
But back to the stats. So far they've analyzed about half the murders in the city. And of those only 35 were committed by strangers. That is in a city of over 8 million people. All the rest are by acquaintances of one sort or another -- intimates, business or gang rivals, parents and children, etc.
Death at the hands of people we know has always been an understated factor in the mental picture of crime. But this does suggest that in New York City at least the sort of anonymous death by violence that bulks largest in our fears of crime has fallen to almost microscopic proportions.
--Josh Marshall
Huckabee: I'm against illegal immigration, but I'm not a lunatic about it.
--David Kurtz
Lesson of the Day
I'm always reluctant to flag quotes ascribed to famous individuals because there's a pernicious tendency for quotations of unknown origin to be ascribed to famous individuals to imbue them with more force and authority. (See for example about 30% of the quotes ascribed to Abraham Lincoln and about 90% of those ascribed to John Kennedy.)
But here I'll make exception. If you go by Google at least, it seems widely ascribed to Albert Einstein ...
We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.
Anyone know the actual citation? I guess it's possible that it is a translation from German, though it sounds like perhaps a quote from late in his life so perhaps it was originally in English.
--Josh Marshall
Today's Must Read
The feds are now routinely getting real-time tracking info from cellphone companies--without any showing of probable cause.
--David Kurtz
TPMtv: Testimony We Give Thanks For
2007 has been a pretty big year for muck and scandal. And here at TPM we've brought you a lot of congressional testimony from some of the biggest bamboozlers, crooks and fibbers the Bush administration has to offer. So today in honor of Thanksgiving we're bringing you our ultimate mega-montage of all the lowest moments tidied up and whittled down to a compact five minutes of pure concentrated bamboozlement ...
--Ben Craw
TPMtv: Holiday Muck-O-Rama Contest Preview
And get set for tomorrow's episode for our super Thanksgiving Congressional Testimony Bamboozlement Montage!
--Josh Marshall
One for the Road
One more Bush administration scandal resignation to get the holiday off to a proper start.
--Josh Marshall
Nuts
It would seem that, despite leaving the White House, Scott McClellan's testicles remain in protective custody.
--Josh Marshall
Sorry, but it looks like Scott McClellan won't be implicating President Bush for knowingly lying about Plamegate after all.
--David Kurtz
Romney: Thinking I'm behind the push-poll is like being a World Trade Center conspiracy theorist.
As you'll also see, Romney also suits up for battle in the new War against Thanksgiving. (ed.note: He's pro-Thanksgiving.)
--Josh Marshall
TPMtv: Holiday Muck-O-Rama Contest
We're coming up to the end of the year. And here at TPM we're going to see off 2007 with a contest to recognize things like the biggest bamboozle of 2007. Biggest fib. Most abject loss of dignity in testimony before Congress.
We're looking for your help on a couple fronts. What should the categories be? And most of all we need your nominations for winners. For more details and how you can participate, check out today's Holiday Muck-O-Rama episode of TPMtv ...
--Josh Marshall
Today's Must Read
The real story of Rudy Giuliani's post-9/11 foray into the business world has yet to be told. Today we get another glimpse into Rudy the "bidnessman."
--David Kurtz
Romney's story on those anti-Mormon 'push-polls' just gets fishier and fishier.
And it was already pretty fishy.
--Josh Marshall
Clueless as She Wants to be
In which Ruth Marcus (recites the DC seriousness catechism: I believe with perfect faith that ...) shows you can really go to town on the Social Security issue if you're clueless about how it's financed.
Late Update: Krugman has a good response-cum-smackdown here.
--Josh Marshall
Cuz 9/11 Changed Everything ...
From the ChiTrib ...
Nine days after registering his presidential exploratory committee last November, Rudolph Giuliani appeared in Singapore to help a Las Vegas developer make a pitch for a $3.5 billion casino resort.Though the bid ultimately failed, and there was nothing illegal about the involvement, it drew Giuliani into a complex partnership with the family of a controversial Hong Kong billionaire who has ties to the regime of North Korea's Kim Jong Il and has been linked to international organized crime by the U.S. government.
Giuliani's participation as a security consultant in the Singapore gambling venture illustrates the challenge he faces while attempting to win the Republican presidential nomination with a law-and-order message while maintaining a far-flung, international business portfolio, an unknown portion of which remains in the shadows.
Late Update: Paul Kiel has more on Rudy the "bidnessman" in Today's Must Read.
--Josh Marshall
Push Pollers Beware!!!
I'd meant to mention this today. But I got sidetracked on a few other projects we're trying to get squared away before the holiday.
If you're a long-time TPM Reader you know that one of the things we've done a lot of over the last few years and particularly during the 2006 cycle has been to get a jump on stories unseen by the national media by relying on tips from readers in the field. One of the things we did a lot on last November (was that really a year ago?) was getting information from folks who'd received push-polls or deliberately offending "robocalls" in the lead up to the election.
One of the great limitations we've always labored under though is a simple lack of resources. We've never been able to really bring the process to scale to put together tips and from folks who've gotten polled in different parts of the country, with different messages and so forth.
But Huffington Post's 'Off the Bus' crowd sourcing venture is putting the concept to work with the kind of technical infrastructure and resources we've always envied. It's called the Polling Project. And they just launched it today. We, along with a number of other online news outlets and blogs, right and left, are cosponsoring it. And you can find out more about it here. Definitely give it a look and share what you're hearing from those annoying pollsters on the other end of the line.
--Josh Marshall
TPMtv: What the Hell's Going on?
We're coming down on the Thanksgiving holiday. So before we tell you about our year-end Muck-o-Rama contest and before the bird gets stuck, we thought we'd give you our rundown of the latest on who's surging and fading in Iowa and New Hampshire ...
--Josh Marshall
Cough It Up
As you know, soldiers often get bonuses for signing up for new hitches in the service. But some of them now aren't able to complete the period of enlistment because some have had limbs blown off and sustained other injuries. So the Pentagon's asking them to cough up those bonuses for not fulfilling their commitments.
--Josh Marshall
The Clintons' main man, James Carville, will be on Meet the Press this Sunday--but, alas, there was no space for any Obama or Edwards backers.
--David Kurtz
Mitt Polls
We've got TPM Reader MA wondrin' ...
I started off being very skeptical that the Romney campaign would push-poll itself...but these pieces add up to a creepy claim of plausibility:1. The Utah based company that did the polling has ties to BYU. It's hard for me to imagine a company with Mormon leanings willingly allowing itself to be paid by Mitt's rivals to attempt to tar a Mormon candidate -- on the basis of his Mormonism.
2. The fact, as you noted, that this doesn't have the appearance of a typical push poll. That this wasn't set up to influence large numbers of voters makes the notion that the goal was to create a mini-scandal and generate sympathy for a victimized Mitt a bit more plausible.
3. It's hard to imagine any other campaign not understanding that such a tactic would backfire on them and give Mitt ammunition.
this is a tactic worthy of the legendary battles for leadership of the college Republicans. But still, the downside danger of doing something like this and getting caught seems too big too risk. I remain skeptical.
--Josh Marshall
Bush Efficiency in Action!
They may be incompetent running wars, managing the fisc and almost everything else. But they're getting real results disenfranchising minority voters.
--Josh Marshall
Michelle Obama: "Imagine our family on that inaugural platform. America will look at itself differently. The world will look at America differently. There is no other candidate who is going to do that for our country. You know that."
--David Kurtz
Push Polls, Grammar and Usage Edition
A few folks in the polling and campaign business have noted that these Romney "push-polls" really aren't push polls in the classic sense. According to the reporting they lasted roughly 20 minutes. Or if they are they're being done in an exorbitantly expensive way. A push-poll has to be made to really large numbers of people to have any effect. So to be cost-effective, they need to be really quick. And they can be since you're usually trying to convey only a short-snippet of information.
So, "I'm doing a poll. Would you be less likely to vote for Tom Tancredo if you knew he kept a harem of giraffes?" Done, end of message.
Lasting twenty minutes, though it sounds much more likely that these really were intended to gather public opinion and, specifically, to gauge the effectiveness of certain lines of attack tied to Romney's mormonism.
At this point of course the story has taken on a life of its own. Romney struck so hard at McCain over the story that if it turns out that Romney supporters, even without the campaign's knowledge, were responsible for the call, he'll have a real problem on his hands.
--Josh Marshall
Self-Inflicted
Hmmm. This could get very sticky for the Mittster. There's been some weird circumstantial evidence suggesting that the candidate with the most connections to the firm behind those anti-Mitt, anti-Mormon push-polls was none other than Mitt himself. Now the campaign is furiously denying that he was push polling himself.
--Josh Marshall
Today's Must Read
DC grand jury investigation of Iraq shootings goes beyond Blackwater.
--David Kurtz
Wingnut bloggers rejoice that AP photog held by U.S. military will now face trial with inadequate defense.
--David Kurtz
Sinking like a Stone in the Granite State?
Very interesting new poll out of New Hampshire.
Rudy's has fallen to third, a big 17 points behind frontrunner Mitt Romney. And look at McCain. In second with 18%. See the rest here.
--Josh Marshall
If It Weren't for Those Meddlesome Kids!
Seems Sen. Stevens (R-AK) has a history of threatening reporters with retribution for reporting on his and his family's various scams.
--Josh Marshall
Rudy Ready to Admit to 9/11 Heroism?
Is Rudy trying to pull a Dole on 9/11?
For the younger among you, in pretty much every campaign he ran, former Sen. Bob Dole (R-KS) ran heavily on his heroism and grievous wounds suffered during the Italy campaign in World War II. And there was nothing to be ashamed of in his doing so. The 21 year old Dole had his body shattered by German machine gun fire in northern Italy just before the end of the war. He spent something like a year in Army hospitals recovering. And remained permanently disabled -- most visibly in his paralyzed and withered right arm.
The thing is that in pretty much every campaign when he discussed this part of his life it was presented as the first time he'd chosen to discuss it. In other words, as though he'd never been ready or willing to discuss it until this campaign, whichever campaign it was. And the press would fall for it each time.
Now comes word of the latest from Camp Rudy. It seems like that while Rudy's supporters have been pushing his 9/11 heroism, Rudy himself has been unwilling to focus on it. This from the (Rudy-affiliated) New York Post in today's story about the 9/11 flyers Rudy is sending out in Iowa and New Hampshire ...
Rudy Giuliani is trumpeting his leadership in the wake of 9/11 in campaign mailings to voters in Iowa and New Hampshire.In one piece, Giuliani is hailed as "America's Mayor" who displayed "Strength through Leadership."
While Giuliani's supporters have long boasted about his performance after the attacks, he himself had not, until now, mentioned it as prominently.
"After the worst attacks on US soil, Rudy Giuliani went to work rebuilding New York City and faith in America," reads the mailing, which features a photo of the former mayor set over the city skyline.
So it seems like Rudy has finally overcome his issues and resistance to discussing his 9/11 heroism.
I'm sorry, no choice but to review Rudy's 9/11ism ...
--Josh Marshall
Rudy and Bernie, the Biz Years
It seems that the Kerik indictment has finally put the Rudy-Kerik story into the thick of the 2008 presidential debate. And why not, Rudy put protecting New York City in the hands of a crooked cop. And he tried to do the same with the whole country.
To date, almost all of the attention to the Rudy-Bernie relationship has focused on the eight year between 1993 and 2001 when Rudy helped Bernie mount and then shimmy up the greasy pole of New York city public safety officialdom.
But it seems to me that that's not where the choicest story is going to be told.
Remember, after they left city government, these heroes of 9/11 guys went into business together. And things were going gangbusters for three long years -- 2002, 2003 and all but a couple weeks of 2004. That's when the real money started flowing. And it's when these two were working together possibly closer than they ever had. International clients, lots of government contracting work. Plenty of material there for some first-run muck if you're dealing with folks who aren't exactly straight arrows. And think who we're talking about.
--Josh Marshall
TPMtv: Fred's Fantasy Island
Remember how Fred Thompson was the GOP's ticket to holding the White House in 2008? One of the great stories of the 2008 campaign has been the non-story of Fred Thomspon, his almost complete irrelevancy to the progress, discussion and direction of the campaign so far. In today's Sunday Show Roundup episode of TPMtv, we look at how the Fred fantasy started coming unhinged from the Fred reality ...
--Ben Craw
Obama's stump speeches are now alluding to Jeff Gerth's reported 20-year plan for Clinton co-domination.
--David Kurtz
Today's Must Read
A lawyered-up Cookie Krongard claims: my own notes exonerate me of perjury.
--David Kurtz
Crony US Attorney Paulose says members of the Federalist Society are victims of a new McCarthyism and black-list.
She further alleges she's being hounded out of her office for her religion, ideology, gender and skin color.
--Josh Marshall
More Obama
Let me just add a little more on the discussion last night of Obama and his campaign.
Since I've been focusing so much on what I see as his campaign's shortcomings, it might come off to some like I'm saying his advisors are idiots, that he's running the worst campaign ever and that his chances at the nomination are hopeless. And I want to assure you I'm not saying any of those things. Anything can happen. And as the 2004 primaries show, it often does. I think Hillary is much, much less likely to suffer a Dean-like implosion than Dean did. But the truth is that Obama really isn't that far behind and Hillary's lead isn't nearly as prohibitive as the conventional wisdom suggests.
My disappointment with Obama's campaign to date is that it's really, ironically, been pretty old politics to me. And I mean that in this sense. Going back several cycles, you've often had some version of the Gore v. Bradley campaign in 2000. One candidate who's the establishment party figure and another who talks about new stuff and change and principle and generally whets the appetites of the party's cerebral types but then never quite delivers with anything specific and gets crushed by the well-oiled campaign of the establishment candidate. I've seen different versions of this in Mondale/Hart, Clinton/Tsongas, Gore/Bradley. And the same result every time.
The reason it seemed like it might be different this time is that Obama was raising the kind of money that would allow him to match Hillary dollar for dollar in ads, foot soldiers and infrastructure. But so far I haven't seen a case made for Obama over Hillary behind the fact that it'd be cooler to have him as president than her -- a point I concede, but one I doubt is sufficient to get him the nomination.
And the truth is that however we got to this point, he needs to take the initiative and change the dynamic of the race. Or else the conclusion we're headed toward looks pretty clear.
--Josh Marshall
More on Initiative and Attack
TPM Reader GS responds ...
I disagree with your analysis that Obama and Edwards need to provide some distinct policy difference and base their offense on drawing distinctions on those issues. Voters simply don't care much about issues. Voters care about how they feel about the candidate--whether they feel they share the same values with the candidate (this is why the would-I-have-a-beer-with-him question has loomed so large in presidential politics while whether a universal healthcare proposal has a mandate is relegated to an afterthought). Then they care about whether they feel that the candidate will follow through and act on those values. This is why questions of integrity and constancy loom so large. Then some voters care about some single issues. Issues come into play when candidates can use them to illustrate their values. Democrats have long held a large lead on the issues that concern most Americans, yet have lost election after election. More importantly, once you draw a distinction from Hillary, she will try to make it seem like she is on board with your plan and blur any distinctions you can make. All signs point to a more successful strategy of distinguishing on Clinton's values and integrity. It is much more likely to be successful to attack on those points because that is what people care about and there is a pre-existing story line about the Clintons that can be used in this effort. I encourage you to talk to Drew Westen and to read the Political Brain--I am shamelessly stealing his ideas.
Many have made the argument about what I think Marc Schmit has called the Dems policy literalism. And it's a point I agree with. Strongly. But saying shared values doesn't make it so. And it's very easy to get led astray by a lot of jargon and nonsense. I probably should have been more clear. The point is not to beat Hillary on the issues. But if Obama's angle is to show he's more principled, less likely to sway in the political winds and so forth, he needs to ILLUSTRATE IT and not just assert it.
And that's basically what I've seen so far.
On the issue of the pre-existing story line, I don't buy it. Not as a sufficient vehicle for Obama to take the nomination. The main reason is that the Clintons -- both of them -- are really well known to Democratic voters. And that story-line is really well-known to Democratic voters. And with both of these being the case, she's crushing Obama in nationwide polls and doing pretty well in most individual primary states.
I find it very implausible that Obama's going to change people's verdict on this essential question about Hillary over the next couple months when she's such a known commodity.
Relatedly, I think this ignores the fact that many of these arguments, or versions of them, have been made for years by Republicans. And that creates a big hurdle in and of itself for selling them to a strongly-identified Democratic primary electorate.
In any case, going back to the point of the original post, Obama is starting to go on the attack against Hillary. But I agree with Reed that he's not in any meaningful sense on the offensive. Hillary's taken some real hits over the last few weeks. But her campaign still maintains the initiative. And it's being run on her team's script.
--Josh Marshall
Attack!
I highly recommend Reed Hundt's new post over at TPMCafe about the state of the primary campaign and confusion about the difference -- in a modern political context -- between going on the offensive and going on the attack. I won't try to summarize or restate Reed's argument, just suggest that you go read them. But I'll touch on an overlapping point about the state of the race.
Like a lot of people I'd recently been criticizing Barack Obama's aimless and unaggressive campaign. And that has changed, at least to a degree, in the last week or two. But being more aggressive doesn't mean unloading on Hillary. It might involve some attacks on her, sure. But that's not the basic point. As a practical matter, given Hillary's longevity in Democratic politics (meaning basically how much she's a known quantity to partisan Democrats) I don't think it will accomplish that much. And largely because of that it won't be enough to make Obama the nominee by default.
What's the premise of Obama's campaign? I hear less triangulating, more principle (which basically means the same thing), change, etc. But those are slogans. To make these work politically I think Obama would have to say, Clinton is the cautious Democratic politics of the past. It was good in its day. And I respect all that Sen. Clinton has accomplished for our party. But I'm about something different and that's why X, Y and Z. Perhaps it's something dramatic on climate change. But that's not the point. I'm not running his campaign. But I think you need policy specifics that demonstrate the point.
So Obama says we Democrats know X, Y and Z is necessary. And I'm going to propose and commit to passing legislation in my first two years in office. And you can see I'm different because watch, Hillary won't follow me.
As it is, at the beginning of the last debate when they both made their basic pitch for their candidacy, it was Hillary's poll-tested platitudes and then Obama criticizing Hillary's establishmentarian platitudes with platitudes about change and other platitudes about avoiding platitudes.
--Josh Marshall
We won't have Allen to kick around
Following up on an item from last week, State Rep. Bob Allen (R) -- aka, Florida's Larry Craig -- was convicted recently by a six person jury of one misdemeanor count of solicitation for prostitution.
Late last week, to the delight of Florida Republicans, Allen resigned from the legislature.
Allen's letter to House Speaker Mario Rubio said he would resign on Feb. 15, 2008, or earlier if a replacement election can be held. [...]
In his letter, Allen citied "the requirements of my family and my private life, and in order to seek justice in the upcoming appeal process" as reasons for his decision.
The University of South Florida professor Susan A. MacManus, an expert in Florida politics, responded, "With the environment today and the anger of voters ... it's probably a good thing personally and professionally." She added that a political comeback for Allen "would be difficult."
Apparently, if you're an anti-gay Republican who offers to pay an undercover police officer to allow him to perform oral sex on him in a public park restroom, voters hold a grudge.
--Steve Benen
John McCain, revisionist historian
Campaigning in New Hampshire today, John McCain, well aware of the Iraq war's unpopularity, insisted that he's been a critic of the administration's approach for years.
McCain also notes, especially for anti-war voters, that he was an early critic of the war strategy waged by former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.
"The strategy was going to fail with Rumsfeld. I fought against. I spoke against," he said.
He's been repeating this line quite a bit lately, holding himself out as one of the leading critics of the Bush war policy before Rumsfeld's ouster a year ago. Indeed, two weeks ago, McCain told a GOP audience that it was he, and no one else, who was willing to step up and make the Republican case that the White House policy was failing.
Most political reporters are noting McCain's talking points, but few are explaining how wrong they are.
In his stump speech, McCain argues that he "clearly pointed out [what] was a failed strategy." This just isn't true. In December 2003, McCain praised Bush's strategy as "a mission accomplished." In March 2004, he said, "I'm confident we're on the right course." In December 2005, he said, "Overall, I think a year from now, we will have made a fair amount of progress if we stay the course."
And now he wants to position himself as a critic of Bush's pre-2007 policy? For anyone who's been paying attention, it's a little late for that.
--Steve Benen
Ted Olson makes a funny
Of all the ways to introduce Rudy Giuliani, this has to be the least sensible. From the Federalist Society's 25th anniversary conference:
Just a week after the indictment of former Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik, [former Solicitor General Ted Olson] said Giuliani had shown "the wisdom and humility to surround himself with talented, dedicated and energetic people" as mayor.
Seriously? Giuliani's strength is his choice in associates? Let's put that to the test:
* Giuliani inexplicably backed Bernie Kerik, and made him the city's police commissioner, after he'd been briefed on Kerik's organized crime connections.
* Alan Placa was accused by a grand jury report of sexually abusing children, as well as helping cover up the sexual abuse of children by other priests. Giuliani then put Placa, his life-long friend, on the payroll of Giuliani Partners. (Adds Anne Barrett Doyle, co-director of BishopAccountability.org, which tracks suspected priest abuse, "I think Rudy Giuliani has to account for his friendship with a credibly accused child molester.")
* Kenneth Caruso, a close Giuliani friend and business partner, has been accused of conspiring to steal $10 million invested through a Caribbean bank.
* Thomas Ravenel, the chairman of Giuliani's presidential campaign in South Carolina, was indicted on cocaine distribution charges.
* Arthur Ravenel, the replacement chairman of Giuliani's presidential campaign in South Carolina, has characterized the NAACP as the "National Association for Retarded People," and has an unusual fondness for the Confederate battle flag.
* Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), the family-values conservative caught up in a prostitution scandal, was not only Giuliani's top Senate backer, he was also the regional chairman of Giuliani's campaign.
A "talented, dedicated and energetic" group, to be sure.
--Steve Benen
Friedman envisions Obama-Cheney '08
Just when it seemed Thomas Friedman realized the destructive nature of Dick Cheney's foreign-policy vision, the New York Times columnist suggests today that the VP's approach is not only healthy, but should play a role beyond 2008 if a Democrat succeeds Bush. Specifically, Friedman seems excited by the prospect of an "Obama-Cheney ticket." (Friedman goes so far as to say "they complete each other."
I think a President Obama offering to go to Tehran would have a huge impact on that country and create lots of internal debate, especially if we made clear that America would be satisfied with a verifiable change of Iranian behavior.
But Mr. Obama's stress on engaging Iran, while a useful antidote to the Bush boycott policy, is not sufficient.... Mr. Obama's gift for outreach would be so much more effective with a Dick Cheney standing over his right shoulder, quietly pounding a baseball bat into his palm.
Glenn Greenwald tears this apart quite effectively.
--Steve Benen
Why Regan matters to Rudy
On Wednesday, the New York Times added a twist to the humiliating story surrounding Rudy Giuliani and Bernie Kerik. Apparently, celebrity book publisher Judith Regan alleges in a new lawsuit that a News Corp. executive urged her to lie about her extramarital affair with Kerik in order to protect Rudy Giuliani's presidential campaign. It was probably not the distraction the Giuliani campaign was hoping for.
By Wednesday night, media personalities sympathetic to Giuliani were already dismissing the relevance of the story, insisting that it had nothing to do with the former mayor directly. MSNBC's Chris Matthews, without a hint of irony, told his audience, "You know what it strikes me as? A media echo chamber here." (Digby responded, "Here you have a juicy scandal involving possible collusion between a presidential candidate and a rival network, and old Chris just can't wrap his mind around it.")
Matthews' confusion notwithstanding, Frank Rich argues today that Regan "knows a lot about Mr. Kerik, Mr. Giuliani and the Murdoch empire. And she could talk."
Few know more about Rudy than his perennial boon companion, Mr. Kerik. Perhaps during his romance with Ms. Regan he talked only of the finer points of memoir writing or about his theories of crime prevention or about his ideas for training the police in the Muslim world (an assignment he later received in Iraq and botched). But it is also plausible that this couple discussed everything Mr. Kerik witnessed at Mr. Giuliani's side before, during and after 9/11. Perhaps he even explained to her why the mayor insisted, disastrously, that his city's $61 million emergency command center be located in the World Trade Center despite the terrorist attack on the towers in 1993.
Perhaps, too, they talked about the business ventures the mayor established after leaving office. Mr. Kerik worked at Giuliani Partners and used its address as a mail drop for some $75,000 that turns up in the tax-fraud charges in his federal indictment. That money was Mr. Kerik's pay for an 11-sentence introduction to another Regan-published book about 9/11, "In the Line of Duty." Though that project's profits were otherwise donated to the families of dead rescue workers, Mr. Kerik's royalties were mailed to Giuliani Partners in the name of a corporate entity Mr. Kerik set up in Delaware. He would later claim that he made comparable donations to charity, but the federal indictment charges that $80,000 he took in charitable deductions were bogus.
--Steve Benen
Another candidate with planted questions?
After the recent brouhaha over Hillary Clinton and some planted questions, most political observers had to concede that the practice is hardly unusual at the presidential level. The Clinton campaign got caught, and it was embarrassingly sloppy for the usually-flawless operation, but the reaction was muted thanks in part to the frequency with which this occurs.
So frequent that another candidate has been caught? The Chicago Tribune's Jill Zuckman speculates after John McCain's most recent event in New Hampshire.
On the heels of the Iowa controversy in which a campaign staffer told a college student what to ask Sen. Hillary Clinton, McCain received at least five highly suspicious questions.
Voters asked him to expound on his position for torture as well as climate change, the issue that got Clinton into trouble.
Another praised McCain for his "physical and political courage" and said: "Could you tell this audience about your consistent opposition to abortion?" [...]
Then McCain received this hardball: "When you are the Republican nominee, who do you think your opponent will be in the general election?" [...]
Jack Tarlin, an independent voter, stood and told McCain that the polls show he would have the best chance of any of the Republican candidates to beat Clinton. "The news isn't getting out right now," he told McCain. "We don't have a whole lot of time left till January."
Reporters covering the event apparently laughed in response to the incessant softballs, but a senior McCain aide swore that "no one from the campaign asked any voter to ask any question or make any statement."
Zuckman seemed skeptical, which is perfectly understandable given the circumstances. But I can't help but wonder: maybe a lot of Republican audiences are just naturally sycophantic?
--Steve Benen
Skipping the fact-checking
The journalist roundtable on "Meet the Press" this morning considered Rudy Giuliani's Kerik problem -- but forgot to even consider whether Giuliani's defense was true. (Here's a hint: it's not.)
Greg Sargent has the details and the video clip.
--Steve Benen
Novak and Clinton and Obama ... oh my
If the acrimony between the Clinton and Obama presidential campaigns was kindling, Robert Novak's shamelessly unethical column was a match.
If you're just joining us, Novak reported yesterday that Hillary Clinton's "agents" are gossiping in Democratic circles that the Clinton campaign has "scandalous information" about Obama, which they reportedly will not share.
Of course, as a matter of journalism and professional standards, Novak's piece was a textbook case of media irresponsibility. His column shouldn't have even run -- Clinton supporters (who he will not name) are allegedly spreading rumors about rumors (which he cannot identify) addressing an Obama scandal (which may or may not exist). Joe Klein suggested that Novak may have "simply abandoned all pretense of being a journalist."
What's most striking, however, is the full-scale war between the Clinton and Obama camps in the wake of the piece. Mark Halperin has a timeline of events, which is both lengthy and painful.
A few observations. First, Novak's column smeared both Clinton and Obama, and the two campaigns proceeded to make it worse by spending the entire day bickering over what was, as a practical matter, a dumb column devoid of any substance.
Second, I guess Obama's rapid-response operation is finally up and running -- and Clinton's rapid-response operation is on hair-trigger alert.
Third, any talk about a Clinton-Obama ticket seems quite silly in light of recent events. One gets the sense that the two campaigns genuinely dislike one another.
And fourth, this is only going to get worse -- not just because the tensions will worsen as the primaries and caucuses draw closer, but also because in the short term, the chattering class will have nothing else to talk about this week.
--Steve Benen
The Coalition for a Conservative Majority joins the fray
Disgraced former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay has been making noises for a year about creating his own MoveOn.org-for-the-right activist group, which presumably would offer him a vehicle for, well, whatever it is DeLay does. A couple of days ago, he made it official.
Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay has formed a new grass-roots organization that he says will help conservatives better convey their message to voters and take back control of Congress.
The Coalition for a Conservative Majority (CCM) -- co-founded by Mr. DeLay, Texas Republican, and former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell -- will establish "chapters" in all 50 states, which will be used to lobby lawmakers, coordinate political messages and influence members of the press.
"Right now, liberals are better organized, funded and active than I have ever witnessed," Mr. DeLay said. "Our goal is to work with the talented leaders of the conservative movement to complement their efforts, using an army of activists to push for the policies and leadership conservatives are begging for."
It looks like the DCCC's Doug Thornell hit the right note: "Given their historic loss in 2006, it is surprising Republicans would turn to Tom DeLay, an indicted former member of Congress who became the symbol of everything wrong with the corrupt Republican majority. I guess the more things change the more they stay the same for the GOP."
I'd just add that it's not at all clear why the right needs another activist organization. Is there really some niche that the "Coalition for a Conservative Majority" expects to fill?
We have plenty of established far-right institutions (Heritage Foundation, Council for National Policy, Arlington Group, Young Americans for Freedom), social-conservative activist groups (Focus on the Family, Family Research Council, American Family Association), and a bunch of new outfits that have popped up to revitalize the moribund movement (Freedom's Watch, The Vanguard, Victory Caucus, Gingrich's new outfit, Dick Armey's FreedomWorks, Reagan 21, Move America Forward, and the revitalized Citizens For The Republic)
DeLay and Blackwell are looking at this landscape and thinking, "You know what conservatives really need? Another organization." Odd.
--Steve Benen
Not exactly a great judge of character
There are all kinds of important news items about Pakistan in the dailies this morning, including revelations about a heretofore secret U.S. program to secure the country's nuclear weapons, a renewed interest in adding some oversight to the billions of dollars the Bush administration gives Pervez Musharraf for counter-terrorism efforts (which may not actually exist), and the fruitless efforts to convince Musharraf to declare a date for the end of his de facto martial law.
But the story that stood out for me was this gem about President Bush once again misjudging a foreign leader's soul.
In the six years since Pakistan's president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, joined President Bush in the fight against Al Qaeda, it has been an unlikely partnership: a president intent on promoting democracy and a military commander who seized power in a bloodless coup.
Mr. Bush has repeatedly called Gen. Musharraf "a friend." In 2003, the president invited the general to Camp David, a presidential perk reserved for the closest of allies. Last year, at the general's insistence, Mr. Bush risked a trip to Pakistan, jangling the nerves of the Secret Service by spending the night in the country presumed to be home to Osama bin Laden.
But now that the general has defied the White House, suspending Pakistan's Constitution and imposing emergency rule, old tensions are flaring anew. Mr. Bush is backing away from the leader he once called a man of "courage and vision," and critics are asking whether the president misread his Pakistani counterpart.
You think?
It's worth noting, from time to time, that among this president's many glaring misjudgments is a stunningly weak capacity for judging characters. He looked into Vladimir Putin's eyes and admired his "soul." Closer to home, Bush was equally quick to embrace men like Donald Rumsfeld, Alberto Gonzales, and Dick Cheney.
I'm reminded of this Ron Suskind piece from 2004:
The president chose Bernard Kerik to lead the Department of Homeland Security because he was "a good man," an intangible, gut-check standard that the president also applies to judicial nominees and world leaders.
After seven years of failures, one would like to think that perhaps Bush would start ignoring his "gut." It clearly hasn't served him well.
--Steve Benen
