Which U.S. attorneys made the firing lists and when? Well, at least now we know that much.
White House spokesman Tony Fratto plays another round of “How Low Can We Set The Bar” during this morning’s press gaggle.
Pelosi to Bush: Support our troops, don’t oppose their pay raise.
In new letter, Dem leadership blasts White House for the first time for opposing a 3.5% pay hike for the troops.
A savvy House Dem staffer we know gives us a candid and dispiriting overview of the political situation facing Congressional Dems on Iraq — and worries that the Dem leadership will cave.
Former Clinton-era U.S. Attorney ponders bid against GOP Senator Pete Domenici. That and more political news of the day in today’s Election Central Happy Hour Roundup.
It’s something of an open secret on the Hill, but Sen. John McCain’s (R-Ariz.) temper can be so explosive, it tends to alienate friend and foe alike. Consider yesterday’s brouhaha over the new immigration-reform package.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) hasn’t spent much time in the Capitol this year as he seeks the GOP presidential nomination. But one of his rare appearances this week provided a pretty salty exchange with a fellow Republican.
During a meeting Thursday on immigration legislation, McCain and Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) got into a shouting match when Cornyn started voicing concerns about the number of judicial appeals that illegal immigrants could receive, according to multiple sources — both Democrats and Republicans — who heard firsthand accounts of the exchange from lawmakers who were in the room.
Apparently, McCain accused Cornyn of raising petty objections, and Cornyn accused McCain of having dropped in without taking part in the negotiations. “F**k you! I know more about this than anyone else in the room,” McCain reportedly shouted. Paul Kane added that McCain also “used a curse word associated with chickens.”
Oddly enough, these outbursts are not terribly uncommon for McCain. Several years ago, Jake Tapper reported on an incident in which McCain got into a shouting match with Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). Eventually, a seething McCain told his GOP colleague, “You know, senator, I thought your problem was that you don’t listen. But that’s not it at all. Your problem is that you’re a f**king jerk.”
More recently, former Sen. Bob Smith (R-N.H.), who served with McCain on the Senate Armed Services Committee and on Republican policy committees, said, “I have witnessed incidents where he has used profanity at colleagues and exploded at colleagues. He would disagree about something and then explode. It was incidents of irrational behavior. We’ve all had incidents where we have gotten angry, but I’ve never seen anyone act like that.”
Keep in mind, we’re talking about McCain dropping F-bombs on Republicans.
I guess this helps explain why McCain hasn’t exactly racked up the Senate GOP endorsements for his presidential campaign.
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, as usual, is disgusted. This time, he’s blasting the field of 2008 presidential candidates who, Gingrich believes, are “demeaning the presidency” by jumping through pointless hoops.
“We have shrunk our political process to this pathetic dance in which people spend an entire year raising money in order to offer non-answers, so they can memorize what their consultants and focus groups said would work,” Gingrich said.
In a speech to the John Locke Foundation, a conservative think tank, the prospective Republican candidate said he will not consider running until he has created a wave of reform. […]
“This idea of demeaning the presidency by reducing it to being a game show contest … is wrong for America, and I would never participate in it,” he said.
In principle, I don’t entirely disagree. The process can be silly at times, and watching 10 candidates offer sound-bite answers — when they’re not raising their hands to yes/no questions — can start to appear a little demeaning.
But for Newt Gingrich to complain about politicians offering “non-answers,” crafted by “consultants and focus groups,” is rich. Good ol’ Newt practically invented this style of politicking. After all, how did Gingrich and Frank Luntz put together the “Contract with America”? They relied on the advice of “consultants and focus groups,” which told him what would work.
For that matter, wasn’t it Gingrich who circulated a memo called “Language: A Key Mechanism of Control” to incoming GOP freshmen in 1995? The document included a list of words Gingrich wanted House Republicans to memorize because consultants and focus groups said they would work.
It’s a little late for Newt to complain about an atmosphere he helped create.
The Senate Judiciary Committee hearings into the prosecutor purge scandal aren’t over yet — not by a long shot. About two weeks ago we learned that former Kansas City U.S. Attorney Todd Graves, who gave up his post last year, was the ninth prosecutor to have been purged.
Early next month, Graves will get a chance to share his story. (thanks to reader V.S.)
Former U.S. Attorney Todd Graves will tell his story to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Graves said Friday he would testify about his removal from the Western District of Missouri post on June 5, after Congress returns from its Memorial Day recess.
“I’m proud of my record as a prosecutor, and I will not be bashful in telling them what little I know about the current mess at the Department of Justice,” Graves said in a statement.
He’s expected to testify the same day as the man who replaced him, Brad Schlozman, who has returned to the Justice Department in Washington.
Circle the day on the calendar; it’s bound to be a good one.
First question for Graves: On May 8, you released a statement saying it was better to resign and “take a graceful exit than to do something that you should be ashamed of.” Who wanted you to do something shameful? Might it have something to do with dubious voter fraud indictments?
As Eric Kleefeld noted, there’s a real gem towards the end of the latest Fox News poll (.pdf).
“Recently Democratic Leader of the Senate Harry Reid said that the war ‘is lost’ in Iraq. Do you feel this was an acceptable thing or an unacceptable thing for Reid to say while U.S. troops are still in the field fighting?”
Given this wording, the results weren’t close — 29% said the comments were acceptable, 65% said unacceptable.
Of course, the phrasing is obviously about as subtle as a sledgehammer. Like all unreliable polls, the question is intended to produce a specific result (which Hannity and O’Reilly can then use on the air). Indeed, just a few questions prior, poll respondents were asked how they’d describe conditions in Iraq right now. A combined 57% said we’re either losing or have already lost.
It’s worth remembering, from time to time, that this is how Fox News conducts all of its polling. Consider these questions from last month’s national FNC poll:
* Do you think illegal immigrants from Mexico should be given special treatment and allowed to jump in front of immigrants from other countries that want to come to the United States legally, or not?
* Considering that over the past twelve months the stock market is up, employment has increased and the disposable income of U.S. workers has increased, do you think the news media has generally done a good job or bad job providing accurate news about the nation’s economy?
The month before, Fox News’ poll included these fair and balanced questions:
* Do you think a Congressional investigation into the dismissal of the eight federal prosecutors is a good use of taxpayer money?
* Who do you trust more to decide when U.S. troops should leave Iraq — U.S. military commanders or Members of Congress?
* Do you think the Democratic Party should allow a grassroots organization like Moveon.org to take it over or should it resist this type of takeover?
Pretty soon, someone might get the sense that Fox News is trying to skew its polls to advance some kind of political agenda. Shocking, I know.