Josh Marshall

Josh Marshall is editor and publisher of TalkingPointsMemo.com.

Articles by Josh

If majority US public opinion still clusters around the political center, why have US politics moved so hard to the right? That's the subject we're discussing this week at TPMCafe Book Club as we discuss Off Center: The Republican Revolution and the Erosion of American Democracy by Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson. Also joining us for the discussion will be Mark Schmitt, Ruy Teixeira, and Matt Yglesias.

Fearless Leader Watch.

From Bloomberg via TaxProf ...

President George W. Bush will delay a major push for revamping the tax code because administration officials concluded the changes are too tough to sell to the public and lawmakers, two people familiar with the matter said.

Bush instead will spend next year attempting to lay the political groundwork for fundamental changes in 2007 or 2008, the people said, and leave to Congress the task of tackling incremental tax code simplification in 2006, an election year.

The administration is wary of seeing its push to overhaul the tax system fall prey to the same factors that derailed Bush's attempt to restructure the Social Security system this year to include private investment accounts ...

What is the president's agenda these days exactly?

Government transparency. What a concept.

A key slice out of a piece in tomorrow's Times ...

These candid exchanges are just a few of the glimpses inside Louisiana's highest leadership that emerged late Friday in an extraordinary release of about 100,000 pages of state documents detailing the response to Hurricane Katrina by Ms. Blanco and her staff. The state compiled the documents - including e-mail messages, hand-written notes, correspondence with the White House, and thousands of offers of assistance and desperate pleas for help - at the request of two Congressional committees looking into the state's preparedness and response.

"As we move forward, I believe the public deserves a full accounting of the response at all levels of government to the largest natural disaster in U.S. history," Ms. Blanco said in a statement about the release of the documents.


She said the documents demonstrated "hard-working, sleep-deprived public servants operating under enormous pressure and rapidly changing circumstances." They also show that as Hurricane Katrina approached and inundated New Orleans, Ms. Blanco's top aides realized how quickly it was becoming both a human and a political nightmare.

"This is absolutely the worst-case situation we have long feared," Andy Kopplin, the governor's chief of staff, wrote in an e-mail message to the Blanco administration's top aides the day before the storm hit New Orleans. "Pray for Louisiana citizens as this storm nears."

The correspondence released on Friday apparently received almost no editing, other than the blacking out of certain names and telephone numbers for people not associated with the state government. It includes handwritten notes, audio recordings of conference calls and even a few doodles on legal pads.

Is anything like this even remotely imaginable at the federal level today?

TPM Reader EC makes a good point ...

Dear Josh

Since Reid received $5000 from Abramoff, there seems to be a tendency for som (you know who) to say "both sides are guilty", using that "transgression" to tar all with the same brush. Some on our side, sensing the foolishness of this may be inclined to say "Let's hang them all, if Reid took the money he must be a crook, too."

Reid's motiviations are totally "innocent", however. Representing Nevada, he could not politically support the opening of new casinos and was, indeed, probably required as a condition of reelection to do everything he could to prevent such an result. Abramoff probably had a computer program automatically dispensing contributions to those who opposed the new Indian casino permits, which Reid independantly had great incentive to do.

Stick up for Harry.


Republicans can slink away from the K Street Project they've been bragging about and growing fat off for ten years. We'll delve deeper into it.

It's not as outlandish or as hilarious as many of tales of Duke Cunningham's boffo corruption. But this article from Copley News Service describes what was likely one of the key necessary conditions of the Duke story: congressional 'earmarks', the practice which allows a member of Congress to stipulate that a given executive department fund a particular project or even give the business to a specific firm.

While the practice existed prior to the Republican takeover of Congress, the number of earmarks has more than tripled over the last decade of Republican control. And it's obvious why the ease of inserting earmarks is an open invitation to corruption.

The key is to understand the role earmarks have played in the political economy of the Republican majority. In anything remotely like fiscal policy, the GOP leadership has never been remotely conservative. The aim has been to harness the resources of the state to undergird Republican control -- in this case, by making more and more federal money available as patronage funds that leadership-compliant members of congress can use to reward donors and key constituencies. It's the Medicare Prescription Drug Bill fiasco writ small. And you can't understand the bigger story of what's happening to federal government today without appreciating this point.

Sen. Burns (R-MT) accused of being on the take, pleads he's just a coward.

From The Missoulian ...

U.S. Sen. Conrad Burns, R-Mont., changed his stance on a 2001 bill after receiving a $5,000 donation from a lobbyist's client who opposed the legislation, records show.

The client hired Jack Abramoff as a lobbyist to defeat the kind of bill Burns voted against. Prior to receiving the payment, Burns did not oppose an identical bill that unanimously passed the Senate in 2000, Senate documents show.

Burns, who is up for re-election next year, told the Missoulian State Bureau on Friday that the campaign contribution had nothing to do with his vote, but said it happened so long ago, he couldn't remember why he opposed the 2001 measure. Burns said he may have initially not opposed the legislation's unanimous passage because it was politically more expedient not to stand in the way of a popular bill.

“Any time you put a hold on a bill, you expend political capital,” Burns said.

Actually, it gets better.

The story turns on legislation which would have cracked down on the sweat shop owners Abramoff represented in the Marianas Islands.

In 2000, records show, the U.S. Senate took up a bill that would have broadened federal oversight of immigration and labor rules on the islands. The bill came before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, on which Burns served. The bill passed out of committee, records show.

However, because of the way the vote was recorded, it's impossible to tell how any individual senators, including Burns, voted.

On the floor, the bill faced no resistance, passing by unanimous consent. The Senate did not actually vote on the bill. Rather, senators agreed to pass it unanimously without taking a vote. Any one senator, including Burns, could have opposed the unanimous passage.

Burns said Friday that because there was not an actual vote on the bill, it's impossible to say that he definitely supported the measure.

“Not always can it be assumed that a piece of legislation that passes on unanimous consent can you definitely say, ‘That's a yes vote,' ” said Burns.

Toward the end of the piece there's this great Burns' moment. Asked why he called for the roll call vote that tanked the legislation ...

“I haven't a clue why,” he said. “You're talking four or five years ago.”

Certainly more to come from this joker.

A week ago we mentioned that the FBI was starting to back off their blanket exoneration of the Italian government for any role in the Niger forgeries affair. Now Saturday's LA Times reports that the Bureau has decided to 'reopen' the inquiry into the forged documents.

That sounds like a good idea since there are so many signs that the original investigation was all but non-existent.

I've been behind in getting to my 4th installment of reporting on the Niger story. But I'll be getting to that in the next few days. And that will include what we learned that confirmed the role of officers of Italian intelligence (SISMI) in disseminating the forgeries.

Ahhh, this is good stuff.

Israelis to Bush administration 'transformation of the Middle East' wingnuts: Please chill!

Just out from JTA ...

Israel told the United States it fears the outcome of regime change in Syria.

At a strategic-dialogue meeting this week among senior officials, Israel laid out for the United States three scenarios if Bashar Assad is toppled: chaos, an Islamist regime or another strongman from Assad’s minority Alawite sect. Israel fears all those options, saying Assad provides a measure of stability.

U.S. officials told their Israeli counterparts that toppling Assad could be “transformative” and dismissed concerns about an Islamist regime taking his place. Israel and the United States favor pressure on Syria to force it to stop hosting Palestinian terrorist groups and supporting Hezbollah, a Lebanese terrorist organization.

I guess since we've never overthrown a secular Arab strongman only to have the whole thing blow up in our face, it's just hard to know whether the Israelis' concerns might be well grounded.

I just wanted to let everyone know that a very interesting debate has broken out over at TPMCafe about Wal Mart, or more specifically whether the thicket of progressive campaigns against or about Wal Mart add up. Click here, start from the top and work your way down.