We’ve been getting some great nominations in for our 2007 Golden Duke Awards to honor great achievement in public corruption. But there’s one point that I think we thought was implicitly clear but perhaps wasn’t.
To be eligible, a nominee must either have committed their bad acts in 2007 or said bad acts must have come to light principally in 2007.
So Tom Noe, Mark Foley, Jack Abramoff — not happening. On the other hand, while I don’t think Shag Fund is really of the magnitude to be in contention, in theory Rudy could be eligible since the Fund only came to light this year even though the shagging was back in the late 1990s and 2000-2001.
But really people, the 2007 cup runneth over. So this shouldn’t be too great a restriction.
How long does it take you to find a mention of the Iran NIE at Foxnews.com?
Golden Duke Nomination from TPM Reader CB …
Forget Larry Craig, the scandal involving former Washington state Rep. Richard Curtis, R-Vancouver, is my nominee for Best Sex Scandal for 2007.
Curtis, a representative who voted against gay marriage and domestic partnership legislation, was found to be the alleged victim of an extortion attempt by gay escort/porn model/casino thief Cody Castagna while out of town attending a Republican caucus meeting in Spokane, Washington. As we learned in the detailed police reports, there’s a little bit of everything, from toy stethoscopes to collecting DNA evidence, to an alleged failure to pay for an unprotected sex act.
Even further, there’s the initial denial of any wrongdoing to Curtis’ local paper that he isn’t gay nor did anything illegal, followed by the release of the police reports which led to the resignation. A damaged legislator, combined with a damaged GOP brand pedaling furiously to shore up the flood gates. Later reports showed that Curtis paid for the hotel room of the alleged acts using state reimbursement. What is still uncovered is why an ex-oficio member of the state gaming commission (those designated to vote on tribal casino matters only) was gambling in a tribal casino property the night of the encounter with Mr. Castagna.
Some will probably nominate Larry Craig for this esteemed award, but some foot tapping in a bathroom stall pales in comparison to what is documented by the Spokane police department in reference to Richard Curtis.
Thank you to the Academy for your consideration of this nomination.
I have to admit that Curtis does give Craig a run for his money, though obviously the not-gay, though still apparently rather promiscuous, Idaho senator has the inside track for award category # 5 — Best Scandal — Sex and Generalized Carnality. Here’s our first report on Curtis. For my money, the kicker with Curtis was the bright idea of going to the cops when he got in a dispute with the hooker over payment. Not a good idea. Remember too, for a lot of categories we’re going to get multiple nominations for the same person. So we’ll pick the nomination — with explanation — that best captures the miscreant/crook’ claim on the prize.
Curtis may be the sleeper candidate in category #5. TPM Reader JDV also nominated him …
I respectfully nominate the scandal surrounding former Washington state Rep. Richard Curtis, R-Vancouver, for Category 5, “Best Sex Scandal.”
This scandal had a bit of everything: a hypocritical GOP legislator who had voted against gay marriage and civil rights, a low-life porn actor/hustler by the name of Cody Castagna, claims of extortion and a real life police sting, bizarre props (stethoscope?) and a flat out denial by Curtis to his local newspaper that was obliterated overnight by graphically detailed police reports.
Thank you to the Academy for your consideration of this nomination.
We’re holding a Book Club discussion this week at TPMCafe that I’m really excited about. It’s a new book about nuclear terrorism (On Nuclear Terrorism — hey, I didn’t say the title was original) by Michael Levi. Unlike most books on this subject, one of Levi’s central arguments is that successful nuclear terrorism would be much more difficult than a lot of imagine. Precisely because no one has ever gotten very far trying it, it’s left our collective imaginations to run pretty wild about all the ways it might happen. Anyway, Levi has his first post up here. And he’s be joined by Jeffrey Lewis of armscontrolwonk.com and the New America Foundation and Pulitzer prizing winning journalist Steve Coll.
Huckabee sat down with reporters tonight in an on-the-record discussion. And he apparently hadn’t heard about the Iran NIE yet.
Yet another Rudy pal and biz associate tied to a public corruption probe? You betcha. And this one’s good.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the name Hank Asher became as familiar as Bernie Kerik’s by the time all is said and done.
At the moment the president and his advisors are trying to explain how the president went on hyping the Iran nuclear weapons program for months after he got the word it had been shut down. So far the explanations have been pretty weak. Missed the on-camera bamboozling from Bush and his national security advisor? See it right now in today’s episode of TPMtv …
You saw from today’s TPMtv episode below that the White House has had a hard time explaining what exactly the President was told about the new intelligence assessments of Iran’s nuclear program and when exactly he was told it.
Deputy Press Secretary Tony Fratto was confronted by reporters on this issue in this morning’s press gaggle aboard Air Force One:
Q Just to clarify one point from the press conference yesterday, the President was — said that he was told by Mr. McConnell, just generally, that there had been some new intelligence and that people were taking another look at it. Did the President at that point ask any follow-up? Did Mr. McConnell offer any comments that, in fact, there might have to be a serious reevaluation of the whole intelligence?
MR. FRATTO: What Director McConnell said is that we’re going to go back and do rigorous analysis of this intelligence, and when we can be certain of it, we’re going to come back and talk to you — and that’s what they did. I’ve seen some criticism of, number one, of the international — I mean, of the intelligence community in the last couple days, which I think is just incredibly misguided. The intelligence community is out there doing very difficult, courageous work to try to get the intelligence right. They’re doing it in some of the most hardened places to try to acquire this intelligence, and they’re doing an astounding job of it, under Director McConnell’s leadership.
And then I’ve seen some criticism of the leadership of the intelligence community for not being more forthcoming, and I think this is also unfounded. It is important, if you’re going to tell the Congress and the American people and the President of the United States an important piece of intelligence information, that it be rigorously analyzed, that you have the highest degree of confidence. And that’s what they went back and did and they took the extra time to do that.
And then I’ve seen criticism that the President should have either changed his rhetoric or asked more. What he asked of his intelligence community was to tell him what was right when you know it’s right, and that’s what they did. In terms of rhetoric, there is no rhetoric to change when the facts on the ground still suggest to any reasonable observer that Iran poses a threat and is a destabilizing force, unless they change their activities.
Q In that conversation did McConnell tell him that our previous intelligence could be all wrong? How — (inaudible) — was he about that?
MR. FRATTO: I don’t have anything on that.
The headlines should read: White House Won’t Deny that President Was Told of Iran Intel Months Ago. Or perhaps something a little pithier. But that’s the gist of it. Will we see that in tomorrow’s papers?
The President switches gears and plows ahead, unrestrained by facts, no matter how inconvenient they may be: