Jonathan Singer

Interview with Congressman Rahm Emanuel

2006-05-17T11:05:00.000-07:00

Through the help of Jesse Lee over at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, I was able to line up an interview with DCCC chair Rahm Emanuel -- the subject of much discussion on this site. During the interview, which you can listen to here (a 14.1 megabyte .mp3) or read below, I raised a number of the issues discussed on this site, including his role in the Duckworth-Cegelis primary, his stance towards the Francine Busby campaign, congressional ethics an d his message to the progressive blogosphere.

Jonathan Singer: As recently as October, the NRCC held an $8.5 million advantage over your committee, the DCCC, a lead that has been all but erased. It’s down to about $1.5 million, as of the last filing deadline. Will you be able to keep this pace up through the election?

[Laughter]

Rahm Emanuel: I was just on the phone today, this afternoon, doing exactly. And it’s my goal, and it’s the goal of all the members, and most importantly it’s the goal of active Democratic supporters around the country to do that.

So we have an aggressive schedule. And I feel good about that. I can’t say what they’re going to do, but I know on all of the pieces we’ve got to do, Jonathan – direct mail, internet, events, members’ support – I feel very strong not only about the schedule we have but the response we’re getting.

Singer: There was an article in The Hill newspaper no doubt you saw on Wednesday, I believe it was, headline – the big headline in The Hill – “Dems prep for transition.” Things are looking good, generic congressional ballot numbers are good, fundraising numbers are good, recruitment is good. Is it a bit hasty for a headline like that?

Emanuel: Yes. Here’s what I always say. Look, on a macro level, this is turning out to be a big election, just like ’74, ’82, ’86, ’94, ’98 were. You got six months to go. Way too early. A lot can happen. Six months is a long time in politics.

Also, besides that’s macro, on the micro, they have – and I keep reminding people – we have a structural problem. The fix is in. We’re trying to pick the lock. Now is the mood of the country more powerful than the structural disadvantage Democrats face? Anybody that tells you they know the answer six months out doesn’t know politics. Did you know this morning that Porter Goss was resigning? No! Okay.

So a lot can happen in politics in six months. Fortunes can change. At this point, standing before you on this conversation on Friday, I’d rather be us than them. I can’t tell you how long that’s going to hold.

Singer: Let’s talk briefly about the Porter Goss situation and what could or couldn’t be surrounding it. We don’t want to connect too many dots before we know anything, really, in fact. But what we do know is that Dusty Foggo, the number three man at the CIA, has admitted to at least attending “poker parties,” I believe he’s called them, at the Watergate Hotel that were arranged by Brent Wilkes and others who have been implicated with Randy “Duke” Cunningham. The Wall Street Journal has brought up the specter of prostitution, perhaps. With this kind of lurid underpinning, how does that play into the election coming up?

Emanuel: It’s not a positive development – you can say that for sure. It doesn’t add to the environment… Look, when you have 60 plus percent, 64 percent, saying the country’s heading off in the wrong direction. This is only going to reinforce the fact that Washington needs a change, a good house cleaning, and a new set of priorities. That all plays to the advantage of the party out of power. But I’m not going to comment on those individuals till we know more, but let me say this: I know it’s unusual for any person to quit an administration on a Friday at 1:30 with no head’s up warning and without a replacement.

Singer: Fair enough. Let’s get to kind of a different angle. For all of your fundraising successes, your recruitment successes, the biggest complaint out of the progressive blogosphere relating to your tenure as DCCC chair has been your willingness to jump into internal primary battles, most notably supporting Tammy Duckworth over a grassroots’ favorite, Christine Cegelis. How would you respond to this criticism?

Emanuel: I think there are places where primaries are good. Illinois, in the 6th, they had a primary. But my view was, I also have a charge, as you know Jonathan, to make every seat competitive – or as many seats as I can competitive. And I know what my Republican counterpart said when Tammy won, which is this is going to be a very competitive seat now.

And so sometimes with being a leader at the DCCC comes criticism. That’s part of the job. That’s fine.

The voters in the end of the day in the 6th district made a decision. They made a decision to have Tammy be the nominee. In my view, it’s now a discussion about Tammy’s set of ideas about what it takes to move this country forward and the extreme ideas and policies that Senator Roskam has been voting on, like against stem cell research. He’s for banning books and movies like “It’s a Wonderful Life,” like “Romeo and Juliet” from schools. He opposed the assault weapons ban. This is a debate about Tammy Duckworth versus Peter Roskam. This is not about what happened in the past.

Singer: Maybe just on a larger scale, not just in that race, do you have any concern that… There has been a lot of rhetoric coming out of the progressive blogosphere. Do you have any concern that might turn into, say, progressive voters staying at home on election day?

Emanuel: If the progressive blogs saying… Look, let’s go back. What happened in 2004, John Kerry got 47 percent. Right?

Singer: In that district.

Emanuel: And Cegelis got what? Do you remember?

Singer: 44 percent.

Emanuel: So she ran below John Kerry in that district. Correct?

Singer: That’s correct, I think.

Emanuel: So okay. I’m into a general election against Peter Roskam. And that’s a suburban district. It’s a district that’s going to be won with independents, because there’s not enough Democrats to win it. Okay?

Singer: Okay. Let’s talk about another tough district, or at least a district that’s tougher than Illinois’ 6th, and that is California’s 50th congressional district where Francine Busby in April, last month I guess it was, scored about 44 percent of the vote, which was on par with what John Kerry received. She’s going up in one month’s time against Brian Bilbray, a former Congressman, to fill Randy “Duke” Cunningham’s seat. Is this a seat that can still be won? Did the moment pass on April 11?

Emanuel: No. It can still be won. You forgot to mention there’s a Libertarian and independent candidate.

Singer: That’s true, and the possibility of Eric Roach running, too.

Emanuel: Well, I doubt it happens given he met with the Vice President today. Well we’ll know in short order.

Singer: So what will you and the DCCC be doing between now and the next—

Emanuel: Well we’re spending. The DCCC can go on the air and you can check the buy. The independent expenditure side is up with an aggressive TV buy.

Singer: Are there other institutional supports that you’re giving to that district?

Emanuel: Yeah. Look, we spent already about a half of a million dollars down there. So I’m committed to be competitive and try to win wherever we can win. Okay?

Singer: Okay. Now another question in terms of strategizing. Do the Democrats need a Contract with America this year? Or an equivalent?

Emanuel: Yeah. They gotta tell people… I do think we’re ready to govern. I think we’re ready to hit the ground running, to put a minimum wage vote up, to direct negotiations for prescription drug prices up, to put the 9/11 Commission recommendations up, to reverse the $12.5 billion cuts in college aid up, to remove the $15 billion in subsidies to ExxonMobil and other oil and gas interests to alternative fuels and hybrids. And we are ready to govern and reverse course and return this government to the American people.

Singer: The New York Times this week had a story – a couple of days ago, I believe it was – that the road to retaking the House could come through the Northeast. A lot of competitive seats there. Can you talk about the focus on kind of a bread-and-butter region for the Democrats that perhaps—

Emanuel: Look, the Northeast and the Midwest are going to be central. It’s also where George Bush’s numbers are worse, where the direction for the right track/wrong track for the country is worse for the Republicans.

In New York you have four seats. In Connecticut you have three. In New Jersey you have one. In New Hampshire you have two. In Western Pennsylvania you have three – Eastern Pennsylvania, rather. And Vermont you have one. Right there is about 14 seats.

Then you go four to Ohio, three to Indiana, one in Illinois, one in Iowa, one in Minnesota, one in Wisconsin. That’s worse regions for George Bush, and those are where the concentration of seats are.

Singer: You’re running a couple of former Congressmen – at least a couple – in Indiana, Baron Hill, and also in Kentucky—

Emanuel: Ken Lucas.

Singer: –Ken Lucas. The track record for former Congressmen has been mixed at best. And these are districts. I think John Kerry got in the 30s in both of them. How confident are you that they will be able to reclaim their seats?

Emanuel: Look, right now Ken Lucas is up 48-38, Baron Hill is up 47-37. Two separate independent polls. That’s not true for anybody else, and you couldn’t be competitive in those seats without those guys. It’s that simple.

Singer: Let’s look towards the Southwest…

Emanuel: Let me say this. George Bush went in and did something for Sodrel against Baron Hill. Do you think he’s doing that that because Sodrel’s a lock? N. He’s doing it because we recruited the best candidate we could get. He’s also committed to do one for Geoff Davis against Ken Lucas. Is he doing that because Geoff Davis is a lock? No. It’s because we’ve got someone who can beat him.

Singer: Let’s talk about the Southwest. You’ve also recruited a couple of good candidates in Arizona, in New Mexico also. You have a couple of strong races, perhaps, in Nevada. Do you see a kind of Southwest tinge, as well, not just the Northeast and the Midwest?

Emanuel: Well it depends on how this Hispanic immigration issue – I mean not the Hispanic but the immigration issue plays out. But yes.

We’ve got one in Colorado, two in Nevada, maybe three in Arizona and one in New Mexico. And so this whole immigration debate is going to be a very important play there.

Singer: Let’s talk California while we’re on the Southwest. Out here, the district where I’m sitting right now, House Rules Committee chairman David Dreier really struggled in 2004. There are also a couple of seats that because of ethics issues – I’m talking Pombo and also Doolittle – could also come into play, in addition, of course, to the 50th district that we mentioned earlier. Are you looking at California at all or do you just think it’s too gerrymandered?

Emanuel: Sure. Well it is gerrymandered. You got to look at individual cases, you got to look at the mood of the country. Right now you’ve got Pombo and the Cunningham seat, and all those others are something I’m observing. And if the environment today holds, I’ll be looking at being more active than we are today.

Singer: We saw in – you can correct me if I’m wrong – but in your district 12 years ago a Congressman with severe ethical issues, legal issues, lost in a district that should have stayed Democrat. Do you foresee kind of in these strongly red districts someone with questions about…

Emanuel: You have the potential. Look, two of them have already been knocked out – DeLay and Cunningham. So it all depends, but individual ethics… Bob Ney has got problems, Don Sherwood—

Singer: Would you rather see Bob Ney, Don Sherwood, you were saying, run for reelection or drop out at this point?

Emanuel: Guess what? Nobody really gives a crap what Rahm wants. And so my view is I’m going to run campaigns in those districts to win. I don’t hope for a lot of things. I try to effect the things I can effect.

Singer: There was talk that there weren’t enough retirements this year, perhaps.

Emanuel: That’s a big issue.

Singer: Do you think that’s true?

Emanuel: 1994, do you remember how many retirements there were?

Singer: There were 28, I think, on the Democratic side.

Emanuel: No. in 1994, there were over 50 retirements. There are 19 now.*

Singer: So are there just not enough seats, do you feel?

Emanuel: I don’t know. Again, I prefer to have it more open, no doubt about it. I think we’re getting close to the end of the season of whether people decide to or not to run, so there’s nothing I can do about it. So I got to make do with the hand I’m dealt. Right?

Singer: That’s correct.

Emanuel: You get one more question otherwise I’m going to miss my family time.

Singer: I’ll make it good, then.

Emanuel: Sorry about that.

Singer: No, no worries. Is there any specific message that you’d like to send out to the progressive blogosphere at this point?

Emanuel: Yeah. This election is very simple. It’s about change versus the status quo, new priorities versus the same old policies, and whether you want a rubber-stamp Republican Congress or you want an independent Congress from the President. That’s what this election is about. Okay?

Singer: Terrific. Well thank you so much for your time.

Emanuel: Thanks, buddy. Congratulations on graduation.

Singer: Thank you very much.

[THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.]

------------------

* - According to Congressional Quarterly, there were 28 Democratic House retirements in 1994 with more than 50 retirements in both chambers between both parties.

Interview with Senator Russell Feingold

2006-05-17T10:49:00.000-07:00

On Thursday and Friday of last week, I was fortunate enough to speak with Wisconsin Senator Russell Feingold, a potential presidential candidate in 2008 -- the first of what we hope to be many MyDD interviews with serious potential candidates for the Democratic nomination over the next two years.

Senator Feingold and I touched on a number of issues during our conversation, which you can listen to here (an 11.6 megabyte .mp3) or read below. The topics included the CIA, censure, Iraq, 2006, 2008 and the Senator's message to the progressive blogosphere.

Jonathan Singer: General Michael Hayden, President Bush’s pick to head the CIA, seemed to be unaware of the term “probable cause” in the Fourth Amendment during an appearance at the National Press Club in January. Is he fit to serve as chief of the CIA?

Russell Feingold: Well, he certainly has certain technical experience qualifications. But yes, if it is in fact true that he does not even understand the role of the Fourth Amendment and probable cause, that sort of ties in with my leading concern about his nomination: that he was a participant in and party to this illegal wiretapping program, which anybody – lawyer or not – should have understood was against the law and required specific authorization from the so-called Foreign Intelligence Surveillance court.

So I wouldn’t base it simply on the basis of the possibility that he didn’t know what probable cause was, but I have got to hear some reasonable explanation why he would go forward with a program that he should have known to be illegal before I could support his nomination.

Singer: Although this is not an issue that should be based upon popular opinion but rather ascertainable facts, polling indicates that between 40 and 46 percent of Americans support your proposal for censure of the President on the grounds of the domestic spying program, his support of that program. So why have so few other Democrats in Congress signed on to your plan?

Feingold: Well it’s a sad day for America and the Democratic Party when our leaders and our top people can’t even stand up to obvious illegality and wrongdoing by this administration.

The administration has done a poor job of running this country and they’ve done, I think, an incompetent job in the fight against terrorism, but they have succeeded in one thing, and they’re very good at one thing, and that is at intimidating many Democrats into not speaking their mind and their beliefs and standing up to this attack on our constitution.

Perhaps the increased revelations of other practices that appear to be coming out will cause people to think again, that censure is a very modest approach and, in fact, if we don’t do something like that, what will anyone, including a Democrat leader, say they did to acknowledge the fact that the President broke the law. At this point, there appears to be no answer other than my modest proposal to censure the President and simply pass a resolution indicating we disapprove of this.

Singer: Moving on to the issue of Iraq, which is also tied into the national security debate, of course, there are a fair deal of Americans who have turned against the war at this point but still are skeptical of pulling out for reasons that if America pulls out people are unsure of what would be left in Iraq in the aftermath. What would you say to assuage, to lessen these concerns given your support of withdrawing American troops from Iraq?

Feingold: Well it’s certainly understandable that people would be edgy about this, especially if they haven’t had a chance to see the situation in Iraq directly as I have on two occasions.

Colin Powell said, “If you break it, you own it.” And I think a lot of Americans understandably feel responsibility to not just leave the Iraqis high and dry, and I agree with that. That’s not what I proposed. What I proposed was to have our military mission redeployed, to not have the 140,000 ground troops there. We could continue helping train the police and army, and we could have special operations forces in the regions, and continue to go after Al Qaeda and Al Zarqawi type operatives.

But the idea of having our ground troops there, I think, has a tendency to inflame the insurgents, put our people at risk, and it allows fanatics to say that the United States is trying to occupy Iraq.

When you’re there, you realize the situation is already almost completely chaotic, both in Baghdad and in many other parts of the country. So the notion that somehow our leaving would lead to a civil war doesn’t recognize the reality on the ground, which is that, in many ways, is what’s going on now, and that, I think, our presence there, do to no fault of our troops, tends to inflame rather than reduce the violence.

Singer: Let me ask you just a couple quick domestic policy questions because we’re a little limited on time this morning. The President and the Republican Party seem to be intent on shifting the debate towards judges right now. Social issues seem to be, at least in their minds, a strong point for them with their base, which they are losing. What do you think of this tactic? Is it good for America? And should the Senate agree to putting on some of the more conservative members on to the courts?

Feingold: It shouldn’t be based on ideology, it should be based on whether people are actually qualified and are people that belong in a lifetime appointment.

But yes, the switch in emphasis is an example of people having gone to the well too many times. They tried that last year and it doesn’t work. Because the American people, of course, care about their judiciary, but what is first on people’s minds is getting the fight on terrorism right and not having us caught in a no-win situation in Iraq. They also want us to spend real time on guaranteeing healthcare for Americans, alternative energy sources and job creation or not losing jobs.

So trying to completely switch the subject away from both the international and domestic issues that people care about most is a sign that they are desperate. And it’s not going to work, because the American people are getting ready to vote in the fall. They want people to lead this country who are not just competent – which they don’t have right now – but people who actually are committed to working on the problems that are of greatest concern to the American people.

So I think change is coming. I think it will be significant – as long as Democrats have the courage to stand up and talk about real solutions and not just try to run out the clock by the end of the year.

Singer: Well today, as you know, there are fewer Democratic Senators than any point since Herbert Hoover was President.

Feingold: I certainly know that.

Singer: Can you talk about some of the steps that you are taking to try to change the makeup of the United States Congress?

Feingold: As you know, I’ve been working extremely hard since I was fortunate enough to be reelected, both in Wisconsin and around the country, to try to elect Democrats – and especially progressive Democrats – so we can have the majority in both Houses and so that we can have a majority that will not make mistakes like the Senate did when it was in Democratic majority of helping to pass the Iraq resolution.

And I’ve done this all over the country. I was just in Austin, Texas for a guy named John Courage. I’ve been to Vail, Colorado on this. I’ve been to suburban Philadelphia, been to Alabama, Tennessee, just recently in Iowa working for several Congressional candidates there who could change the makeup of the House. So I am actively campaigning for people who will act differently, who will be standup Democrats, not just people who will come along and let the White House intimidate them.

Singer: Let’s move on to the topic of 2008. Would you like to see an America with your friend John McCain as President?

Feingold: Well I think America could do a lot worse. Obviously I am a Democrat, hoping a Democrat will be elected in 2008. But I have a very high regard for Senator McCain has been one of the better experiences of my professional life.

Singer: Talking about your potential candidacy, there has been a lot of talk about that. In 2004, at least four of the Democrats running for President had been divorced in the past, yet it was not a topic of discussion. However, during this campaign, people seem to be talking a lot about the fact that you yourself are divorced and that may be a hamper on your potential campaign. Do you think that’s a fair criticism?

Feingold: You know I’m just going to leave that up to people. If they really want to take that into account in who they want to be a President or officeholder, that’s their business. I think it’s completely irrelevant.

I’m certainly proud of my life and my personal life, as well. There have been some setbacks, but I think everybody has had those. And it has not affected doing my job nor do I think it would affect my doing another job. Up to people, though, how they want to treat that. It’s not for me to tell them how to think about something like that.

Singer: Now let’s talk about one of the things that put you on the national stage this year, and obviously that was bringing up the notion of censuring the President. While a great deal of Americans seem to support the measure, it also seems an even larger amount of Americans seem to think it was just a political ploy. Was it? Or do you have deep seated beliefs behind that?

Feingold: Well, obviously it wasn’t a political ploy, and I think most of the people asked in a poll like that don’t know who I am. Anybody who knows who I am knows that this is the kind of thing I have been doing throughout my career when I think something’s wrong, especially with lawbreaking or possible lawbreaking.

I was the only Democrat to vote to hear the evidence in the Clinton impeachment trial. I was one of the first two Democrats to call for an independent counsel when there were concerns about Democrat President Clinton’s campaign finance practices. So I think anybody who really knows me knows that not only was this not political but I would have done this if a Democrat President was making such outrageous assertions about executive power as George Bush is doing.

So I feel very good about where this is moving. Now, with these most recent revelations, I think a number of people are embarrassed that they were so critical of the censure resolution, because it’s obviously a very moderate thing to do. If we don’t at least censure the President, we’re just going to have a big hole on the history page when people say, “All of these members of Congress said the President broke the law with illegal wiretapping but they didn’t even criticize the President for it, they didn’t even pass a resolution about it.” So that’s what I’m trying to do, and I think every day it looks stronger and better to people as an appropriate step to take. So I’m extremely pleased with the way it’s going.

Singer: Final question before I let you go. If there’s one message you’d like to send to the progressive blogosphere, the many readers in the progressive blogosphere, what would that be?

Feingold: That those who are progressives and want the Democrats to stand up strongly for their positions are not only doing the right thing for America but they are also helping to move the Democratic Party in the right direction, politically. So it’s a win-win situation and they should not allow those who are the pundits and consultants in Washington to intimidate them out of their convictions because their convictions are the right convictions.

Singer: Terrific. Well thank you for your time.

Feingold: Thank you. I appreciate all the time.

[THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.]

Interview with former NAACP Chairman Kweisi Mfume

2006-04-28T15:29:00.000-07:00

Yesterday morning, I had the opportunity to speak with Kweisi Mfume, one of two leading candidates for the Democratic Senatorial nomination in the state of Maryland (the other being Congressman Ben Cardin, with whom we spoke in February).

Mfume and I covered a range of topics, including the Iraq War, gas prices, poverty, and why he believes the blogosphere should get involved in the race. You can listen to the interview here (warning: a 26.9 .mp3 file) or read the rush transcript below.

Jonathan Singer: April is shaping up to be the bloodiest month for Americans in Iraq since November and there appears to be no end in sight to the violence. As Senator, what would you do to improve the situation in the country?

Kweisi Mfume: That country?

Singer: Yes, that’s correct.

Mfume: I don’t know if you can improve that situation. I think the slide towards civil war has accelerated at a breakneck pace, that the violence that we’ve seen escalating over the last ten months continues to increase. I just believe it’s an extremely volatile situation that may not have an American solution. The solution may be an Iraqi solution. I just don’t know at this point.

As someone who has been against this war since the first resolution was offered in the House, which kind of gave the President permission to do so or did give him permission to do so, I’ve just been opposed to all of the reasons why we are there. The American public was lied to deliberately, maliciously and unnecessarily about all these reasons that didn’t really exist. And once we got there – as the leaders of our military say, “liberated Baghdad” – and once we were able to apprehend Saddam Hussein, we were all told that in another year the Iraqi forces would be able to take care of themselves. We would provide armament and training, et cetera. Well three years have gone by and today is like it was that first day. There’s just no end in sight.

So I don’t know if the solution there is an American solution. It may be a United Nations solution to what’s going on. That’s why it’s been so regrettable that we have sort of ignored the United Nations in this entire process. That’s why we have the organization and that’s why the organization has credibility. We need international peacekeepers in an international role in Iraq, not just an American role.

Singer: Your former colleague Jack Murtha of Pennsylvania put forward a plan that would set a deadline for the withdrawal of troops. Do you support a deadline for the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq?

Mfume: Absolutely. The deadline was this year, correct?

Singer: Yeah, I believe it was.

Mfume: The end of this year. I support that. I’ve been calling for that for the last two years.

My position is that if we can set a time for the Iraqis to ratify a constitution, if we can set a time certain for their elections, we ought to be able to set a time certain for this nation to start the process of removing troops from Iraq and doing a better job at really fighting terrorism worldwide by having the resources we need to do that.

Singer: Another one of your former colleagues, Charlie Rangel of New York, put forward a plan that would institute a draft to broaden the base upon which the war in Iraq and Afghanistan – and indeed the military as a whole – upon which it’s based. Would you support a plan like that?

Mfume: I don’t know enough about Charlie’s plan except to say that it was welcomed discussion and dialogue that we were not having over an issue that at its very roots spoke to trying to find a way to share a military burden, to spread it across all population groups.

I grew up in the Vietnam era and I know that it was very difficult no matter who you were to get away from the draft no matter how much money you had, unless you were very politically connected or unless you went to Canada.

In this instance what we’ve seen over the last many years since the end of the draft has been an increase in the efforts to recruit poor White, poor Black, poor Latino kids and even Korean kids into the military, recognizing that in many of those instances a lot of those young people really needed work and they really needed skills. So we have this all volunteer army that in many respects does not have as a part of its membership kids from very affluent homes, no matter what their color. That’s just not been the case.

So Charlie’s effort, as I saw it, was first of all to get the discussion going about the lopsided nature of our fighting forces with respect to their own economic circumstances. I don’t know beyond that how he planned to unroll it out because the hearings never got underway substantially enough to explain that.

So I don’t know. When I tell people that I’m not automatically against it, their response has been, “Well, we don’t need a draft.” And my response is, “Yeah, we don’t need war.” But we do need a discussion on this. And it’s got to be a discussion that brings in every segment of our society.

Singer: On a not entirely unrelated topic, gas prices are above $3 a gallon around the country and Exxon today just announced one of the largest quarterly profits in history. What steps should Congress and the White House take to ease the burden of high gas prices?

Mfume: Just a quick question – do you know what dollar amount they announced today?

Singer: I don’t have it off-hand. I think it was around 8 billion, maybe.

Mfume: Yeah, because the number was 10 at the end of the last quarter, which was the all-time record. So this is the second all-time record, and both of those are held by Exxon and both within a six month period, which is almost criminal in some respects.

There are a few things going here, and some of it is too little, too late, and that has been the White House reaction to all of this. Because we knew – those of us who are not even in government – that when Katrina knocked out oil producing capacity in the Gulf and that we were going into the winter months, everything was in place – kind of like a perfect storm – so that by the time we got to the spring again, gas prices would be out of control. Exxon had closed out that quarter with a $10 billion profit, and most people were clamoring for some sort of government intervention into what was going on with these obscene profits. And there was none. So where we are today to some of us was kind of predicted back in the month of September, and unfortunately it has come to pass.

I believe that, if I might just take a moment to talk about several things that are very important here, including government intervention, which as I said now is too little, too late with what the President and the Congress are talking about – not even what they’re doing, because they haven’t even done anything – but with their talking they’re a little late on some of this to provide relief.

Obviously we need an all-out consumer recognition and a consumer push on the notion of conservation because we’ve got to find a way in our own way, I think, to sort of deny the wholesale profits that are taking place by finding a way to cut back on what we’re doing as those who consume oil and gas.

The other thing I strongly believe is that unless we as a society and a nation get very serious about alternative fuel development, we will be held as prisoners in this whole oil and gas process for the rest of our lives. We talked about it. I’m old enough to remember when the first discussion started in 1974 in earnest when we were going through the first oil embargo and here we are now 32 years later and we still haven’t done anything. So there’s a real need now, if not an absolute mandate to rapidly get started on alternative fuel development and make that a national priority, bar none.

The other thing is that there was a real need in my opinion for the government to exercise its ability to influence OPEC, which has not been taking place. And I’m talking about since we’re providing much of the security for the oil-producing countries, in particular, we ought to be getting some sort of a discount rate per barrel on the oil that’s coming out of there that’s being consumed to a large part by this country. We don’t insist on that – I don’t know – and as a result we don’t get it. But at the very least, as the nation that’s providing a great deal of security for those countries, we ought to be at least trying to get that done.

And then on the domestic side, with respect to these companies, I think to some extent that there might even be collusion going on among companies. It’s not an accusation, it’s a thought. But I can’t help to think it because the way prices seem to be fixed and set and how these astronomical, obscene profits continue to take place quarter after quarter. And I think we need government regulation of oil companies in this country, bar none, so that we can get to the bottom of whether or not there’s something a) illegal taking place, in terms of price setting and price fixing, and b) whether or not there’s some sort of way to rein in the uncontrolled ability of these nations to profit on American consumers.

Singer: A few minutes ago you brought up Hurricane Katrina and the response to it. Around the time of the Hurricane or slightly thereafter, President Bush decried the poverty and said that serious action must be taken, yet we haven’t heard him say anything about it in the intervening months and it seems to have dropped off of his radar. Can you just talk a little bit about the response to Hurricane Katrina and what should be done today to improve some of the systematic issues that were brought to Americans’ minds through the story?

Mfume: The response to the Hurricane was a farce. Not only does the average person on the street know that, the entire world knows that. The comments of the world community were comments borne of disbelief at the lack of response by our government as international cameras and international television took those pictures around the world. People in other countries could not believe it. So you know it was difficult for Americans to accept that this response by this government was anything less than inadequate. It was totally insufficient.

The President’s proclamations and the President’s meanderings that took place formally and informally about why this was such a terrible tragedy and why we have to do something about it and no American should live like that were pontifications of the moment because very little has come out of that. We haven’t even corrected FEMA yet, let alone correct the problems that were contributing to the poverty.

We fought a War on Poverty in this country under President Johnson. Many Americans thought we were winning it. By the beginning of the 1970s, one out of five American children were living in poverty. Today in this country one out of five American children get up and go to bed living in poverty. So we’ve not come very far at all. And it is a situation that is not segmented by race; these are poor White kids, poor Black kids, poor Latinos. They live in every city, town, hamlet and barrio across this nation. They didn’t ask for this situation, but they’re growing up with odds against them in the wealthiest nation on the face of the earth.

They’re oh so many contributing factors that if there’s not just the government awareness but a government intervention to try to deal with those factors, we’ve already put in place a movement to produce a generation of teenagers, which these children will soon become, and then adults that will be at an extreme disadvantage, that will not be significantly a part of the work force, that will not contribute as they should as adults, that will require additional and special needs that are medical in nature and educational in nature, and we will have lost, really and not just rhetorically, an entire generation because of a situation manifest in poverty that we could be doing something about.

So I think it’s an abomination that this President would stand up in that moment when people were so vulnerable and looking for leadership and to talk about how this was such an American tragedy, and here we are six, seven months later and most people look at what has come out of that and cannot measure that because it has been so small.

Public schools in too many of these cities and towns and hamlets around the country remain overcrowded and ill-equipped. In some of those schools drugs are more available than textbooks. Too many of these kids are living in dilapidated housing where lead paint and lead dust, because of the construction of the housing, continue to infect them and ultimately their motor skills and their ability to think… and creates other sorts of biological issues within them.

We see violence taking place, occurring in a subculture, where kids, because of their poverty, find themselves a part of the subculture. And it becomes a need and a requirement just to provide everyday. It’s a subculture of drugs and guns. It affects all of us, either directly or indirectly. We don’t hear about any of that at the White House. We don’t hear any concern about that coming out of the United States Senate.

We reap what we sow. I don’t know how many times we have to live through a generation to understand that, but we will either pay for that now or as a society we will pay for it later.

Singer: Michael Steele has made some rather controversial remarks during the course of the campaign thus far. He seemed not to be concerned by the Governor’s appearance at a Whites-only golf club. He also likened stem-cell research to Nazi science. Is he serious enough to be Senator, let alone Lieutenant Governor?

Mfume: I think his candidacy is serious. I know that there are a couple of factors that exist in this state that don’t necessarily get national attention that could be the difference in whether or not he happens to get elected.

He will obviously get the nomination of his party. His electability hinges on a couple things, some of which have nothing to do with his position on those issues and everything to do with the fact that the Democratic Party in the state of Maryland has been extremely slow in terms of providing opportunities for African-Americans and Latinos in this state to run for and to be a part of statewide office.

In fact, I think Maryland was established going back to 1790 or something, and in that time we’ve never had – never – not just a Black or Latino elected to statewide office, we’ve never had one nominated. And the only woman in that entire period of time was Barbara Mikulski. And that’s a shame and an outrage when you consider that 40 percent of the Democratic Party in Maryland are Black voters and a growing amount are Latino voters. In a progressive state that has a two to one Democratic registration it’s almost unheard of. And so people are getting tired of business as usual, and when I say people, I’m talking specifically about the base here of the Democratic Party.

And that anger poured out four years ago when there was a gubernatorial election and when many people were hoping that for the first time the Democratic Party would nominate a Black or Latino person as Lieutenant Governor – not nominate, when the nominee would pick someone that way and the party would rally behind that person. Not only did that not happen, nobody was ever on that short list from either of those racial or ethnic groups. Nobody was talked to in the community. In fact, Black and Latino leaders across the state had to simply wait until the press conference to find out who that person was who had been chosen. And when they found out, it was a guy named Lawson who had come out of the military who hadn’t lived in the state that long who 30 days prior had been a Republican.

So it was a huge slap on the face, and what happened was on election day there was a lot of crossover voting, Black Democrats voting for this Republican ticket that included a Black Lieutenant Governor nominee – not for the first time; this was the third time Republicans had done this – and a lot of other Black and Latino voters stayed home. So Maryland got for the first time in 40 years its first Republican Governor and Lieutenant Governor.

I’m saying I think that a lot of that has manifesting itself around the state today given the fact that the party never embraced my candidacy – first of all they never encouraged it – but they never embraced it afterwards and have done a lot of things to get me out of the race. When I say the party, I don’t mean the formal party – not the director of the Maryland state party, but these are, in my opinion, the old party bosses that still want to control things.

But more than that, Michael Steele – who shows up in Black churches and at events in the larger Black community, unlike some of his predecessors on the Republican side and has an ability to talk and work with minority business people and others – has an appeal not because of his issues but because to some of those persons he represents hope and a breakthrough that quite frankly ought to belong to the Democratic Party. We’ve given up the high road as a party on this whole issue of inclusion and diversity to Republicans, and it’s in many respects style over substance.

I don’t know. I just know that looking at this and trying to answer your question as directly and bluntly as I can, I can only say his positions on issues not withstanding, we need to take his candidacy extremely serious in this state for all of the reasons I’ve enunciated and for others I might not be able to think of right now. Because if we don’t, as we did four years ago, we could get into a situation where again the Democratic Party suffers a great loss in a state that has a two to one Democratic registration, large Black and Latino population, and considers itself “progressive.”

Singer: Just a couple more questions. As a result of a Washington Post article that ran a year ago tomorrow that detailed some accusations of favoritism at the NAACP. Some may have qualms about your candidacy. Are these concerns well founded? What would you like to say to these people?

Mfume: I don’t think that they’re well founded concerns. There was an accusation of favoritism by a former employee who no longer worked at the association who said she heard that in order to get ahead at the association that you had to have some special kind of relationship with me, that I had to like you. That’s about as far from the truth as you can get because it ignores the fact that more women had been promoted under my leadership at the NAACP than any time in its 90-year history. And those women were promoted because of their brains, not their bodies. They were promoted because they deserved it. In many instances, they’ve gone on not only there but elsewhere to continue to shine and outshine many of their male counterparts because they have the skills and the training in their respective areas and the tenacity to hold on to make a real difference.

The other interesting thing about the article was that there was not one person, past or present at the NAACP or having used to be at the NAACP to step forward and corroborate that at all. It was just this one former employee who, to I assume some extent, was disgruntled that she didn’t make enough money and who didn’t file a formal complaint – never filed a grievance – but after her employment sent a letter to the board with that accusation.

I’m not trying to say that people should not look at that. I think they need to look at everything regarding candidates. But I think it’s unfair to give that any more credence than it deserves. It is what it is and what it was. And because it was never corroborated, because it was the accusation of one former employee, we have to keep that in perspective.

And let me tell you why. This is not a situation where, like with Arnold Schwarzenegger, there were all these separate people coming forward in separate towns making accusations that he groped me and fondled me and embarrassed me. That was not the case at all. But there was a real need to try to take a small story and to make it into a large story and to drag it out for a long time because there was a real need by some people to get me out of the race and to discredit my candidacy any way they could. And I assume that most of them thought that a result of that I would get out. But I’m made of a different kind of substance. I realize that when people are trying to smear you with stuff that in many respects doesn’t stick that they will hope and pray that you break.

What’s happened since then is that a lot of people got angry when they realized this for what it was and I think got angry not at any one specific person, because we don’t know how this whole thing was developed, carried out in the press for such a long time when it was, in the minds of some people, a very small story that people were trying to make into a larger one.

But I think people got angry about the fact that here’s somebody that’s done everything that the party has asked him to do in 25 years and even before there was any story, for 46 days I was the only candidate in the race and the party never once said, “We think we could support this individual.” So I think people were probably more concerned about that aspect of it.

But a race is what it is. A second big thing was that after that let’s find an effort to get all the endorsements for the candidate of our choice and the candidate of choice in this instance was Congressman Cardin, who the Democratic Party just opened up the floodgates here. Every endorsement you could possibly get he got. Whether he tried or not he got them. I’m not saying he didn’t deserve them, I’m just saying it’s interesting how the party rallied to do that.

And then the third thing that happened after that was an effort to now let’s get all of the money we can get. My opponent has gotten and raised, to his credit, a great deal of money. The difference between us is that I don’t take special interest money from pharmaceuticals and from oil and gas companies. I just have a set of principles that says if I’m going to run this race, I’m going to try to do this the right way from a populist position and in a principled manner so I’m not bought and sold and I don’t belong to anybody other than the people of this state who go out and vote.

So there are a lot of differences there and long story short, 14 months later I’m still here and I’m still going around the state every day, seven days a week, reaching out to people of all colors of all communities from all backgrounds and walks of life. And given all of that, I’m neck-and-neck in the polls in every poll we’ve seen produced with my chief opponent.

So I think that people here in the state have said, “We’re going to think for ourselves. We’re going to make our own minds up. We want a campaign, not a coronation. And we want an opportunity to have candidates before us so we can question them and understand not only their principles, but also their ideals, their beliefs and their vision for the future.”

Singer: Last question. Is there anything you’d like to say specifically to members of the liberal/progressive blogosphere to get them more involved in your campaign?

Mfume: I’d like them to understand that I’m an unapologetic progressive. I don’t apologize for my views. I’m very proud the fact that I don’t support the PATRIOT Act, that I’m in support of stem-cell research, that I’m a 100 percent pro-union candidate – have been all my life – that this campaign is a pro-privacy campaign to get the government out of illegal wiretaps and out of our medical records and out of our banking records, that I’m the candidate that stands up over and over again that believes that it’s an abomination and a sin for a half million Americans to lose their pensions because a couple of corporations were playing slick games and getting out of a commitment they made to workers all along, and that I’m the candidate that has been opposed to this war all along, who finds it outrageous that poverty lives among us at the rate it does and that 46 million people have no health insurance, which is the population of 24 states.

And I think that in order for Democrats to win, we really have to stand for something and we have to say to people, “These are our core beliefs.” Because otherwise we’re kind of like Republicans light. If I want a beer, I just get a beer, if I want something light, I get a Bud Light. But if I want something different, it’s because I know that there really is a difference. And Democrats, in order to win, have to be different, have to, I think, stand for something, have to be able to talk in plain English to everyday people, and have to be prepared to fight again for the heart and soul of our nation.

Singer: Well, thank you so much for your time and good luck in your campaign.

Mfume: Thank you, Mr. Singer. I appreciate the opportunity, too.

[THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.]

Interview with former Navy Secretary James Webb

2006-03-22T13:52:00.000-08:00

This morning, spoke with former Secretary of the Navy James Webb, a candidate for the Democratic senatorial nomination in the commonwealth of Virginia (we of course would also welcome a conversation with the other leading Democrat in the race, Harris Miller).

Webb and I spoke about a number of topics, including the War in Iraq, the use of civilian contractors, why Webb -- who served under Ronald Reagan -- is running as a Democrat, and why he believes the blogosphere should get involved in the race. You can listen to the interview here (warning: a 19.0 megabyte mp3) or read the rush transcript below.

Jonathan Singer: Is President Bush, and perhaps more importantly the Republican Senate, doing enough to protect America’s national security today?

James Webb: Well I think that from 9/11 forward, they’ve made fundamental mistakes that not only have not increased our security but have caused us to be intensely disliked around the world, unnecessarily.

If you go back to after 9/11, when President Bush stood up and said “in the war against international terrorism, you’re either with us or against us,” I think a lot of people agreed with that, but when they started going after Iraq, it was a totally thing. And I think that they squandered an historic opportunity to really galvanize most of the responsible people around the world so that we could focus on the real problems. By going into Iraq, they created hostility, insulted countries that had been our allies for a long time – unnecessarily insulted them – and created a lot more potential dislike and terrorist incidences than if they’d handled it the other way.

Singer: Now let’s move forward to a hypothetical January 2007. You’ve just been sworn is as George Allen’s replacement in the United States Senate. How does this change the Senate’s outlook towards Iraq?

Webb: Not only myself, but I think what we really need in the Congress is people who are willing to lead affirmatively, to come up with solutions, and to stand up to the executive overreach. Since 9/11, particularly, we’ve seen abuses of Presidential authority that are almost historic in their dimensions. We can take one issue or another issue, but when you connect the boxes on them, one of the strongest conclusions you have to reach is that the Congress is not standing up to the administration, to the Presidential overreach.

And it’s not simply one-party rule; it’s the Congress itself having lost its notion of its own prerogatives. I was a committee counsel in the Congress for four years – 1977 to 1981 – when the Democratic Party was in the White House and controlled the Congress, but at that time, the people who were in the Congress had a real sense of history and of their constitutional prerogatives, and they did not defer to the administration simply because they were in the same party. One of the four themes that I’m running on is the notion that Congress has to reassert itself, and you would see me doing that.

Singer: Let me come at kind of come at this from a different angle. President Bush yesterday insinuated that we, America, will be in Iraq at least through the end of his administration and it will be up to a future President to decide whether to stay in or out. Is that the right place to be, or does the Senate need to put pressure on President Bush to begin extricating the troops from Iraq?

Webb: This is something that I warned about well before we went into Iraq. I think I wrote the first article in a major newspaper warning that this was going to happen. In September of 2002, I wrote a piece, an editorial, in The Washington Post basically saying that the issue was not Weapons of Mass Destruction, the issue was that if we became an occupying force there that our people would become terrorist targets, and the people in the administration who were pushing for the War in Iraq deliberately did not have an exit strategy. I think we’re seeing that even more clearly, just in the last couple of weeks when the administration releases this report that indicates that they want to continue a policy of preventive war, rather than preventive attacks – I’m going to get to that in a minute – and also what he said yesterday about future Presidents, I think he said it in the plural, would be responsible for deciding when we leave Iraq.

This administration has never said specifically that we have no long term aspirations for occupying Iraq, and I think that they have to say that clearly, and I will be calling on them to say that clearly during this campaign.

This is not simply an issue of Presidential power, it’s an issue of the nation’s commitment, so Congress is at least an equal player, in terms of deciding how long we should be there.

Singer: Let me ask you one final military/foreign affairs related question before we move on to some domestic and political issues. At the time you were Navy Secretary, correct me if I’m wrong, the United States military relied significantly less on high-paid contractors, private corporations, to meet its infrastructure needs, both during war and during peace. How has this change affected the military, and is it something you’d like to see continued or the trend reversed?

Webb: That’s a really good question. It’s something that people don’t really focus on. I did a lot of manpower work when I was younger, both before I got to the Pentagon, when I was in the Congress, and then in the Pentagon before I became Secretary of the Navy.

When we say we have 135,000 American military people in Iraq right now, if you take a look at how much of the support, combat service support, private security functions are being done by these so-called “civilians” – they’re quasi-military units – you would probably have to say that in reality we have the equivalent of 200,000 American military people in Iraq.

One of the reasons that this is being done is because there are in-strength limitations on the services. In other words, you can’t go over in the Congress and fund more than a certain number of people in the Army, in the Marine Corps, etc. So these functions that are basically military functions and in many cases are being done by former military people, have to come from outside of the in-strength numbers.

This is not healthy, first of all because the country doesn’t understand the enormity of the commitment, second of all because it’s extremely costly. I’ll give you one example. You can take a recon marine, a marine who’s in a reconnaissance battalion, who probably makes at the most $20,000 a year, and they’ve been able to walk out of that and go over and make $180,000 a year in some cases working for these contractors. Well that’s still being paid by the American taxpayer in the end. And then the third reason that it’s not a good policy is that there really are no legal controls on these people. When these people shoot a civilian in Iraq or conduct themselves in a way where they should be subjected to criminal sanctions or disciplinary action, who does it? I’ve asked people involved if civilian contractors have ever been disciplined, and I’m still looking for an example as to when they have. And that has a negative impact in places where they impact on people that they’re around. It’s a very troubling phenomenon and it’s being driven by artificial budget numbers where we’re not being honest about the extent of our commitment.

Singer: Let’s move to some domestic issues. It seems to me that a great number of progressives like what they’re hearing from you on kind of the international issues and the War in Iraq, but looking specifically at domestic issues, until recently you were a registered Republican and you served in a Republican administration. What would you say to these activists who are also concerned that you will become another Zell Miller, in other words a Republican in Democratic clothing?

Webb: Well I’ve never been a registered Republican.

Singer: Sorry about that.

Webb: I’ve certainly worked with Republicans. I think that serving in the Reagan administration with the issues I was working is something I have no regrets. In fact I’m very proud of having worked with the President who basically brought an end to the Cold War and rehabilitated the dignity of the military, and those were the issues I was working on.

I was essentially a Democrat – I wasn’t active, I’ve never run for office at all – but I was essentially a Democrat until 1976. Having come back from Vietnam and been wounded and seeing the way that the Democratic Party was sort of excluding, in many cases, the people who had served there, and the positions that it had taken on the war and on amnesty for draft evaders and that sort of thing, I was like a lot of people who just felt like they did not want people with our background in the Democratic Party and that the party’s positions on national security at that time were pretty weak, and the Republican Party was strong.

But again, like a lot of people, I was never comfortable with the Republican Party’s positions on social issues, particularly. And when you look at what’s happened since 9/11, the Republican Party has lost its moral authority also on national security issues. So they’re wrong on national security, they have always been too extreme on social issues, they have lost the bubble it terms of fiscal issues – it’s kind of amazing that it was the Democratic Party that was opposing extending the debt last week – and they have engaged in abuses of Presidential authority, so there’s just no room over there for a lot of people who went over there on the national security issues.

If people are wondering what I would be like, if they’re wondering am I really a Democrat, whatever that means, I think I’ve been pretty clear on how I feel on issues. And every bit as important to me, in terms of why I’m doing this, is the notion of social unfairness in this country, and that’s economic unfairness – we need to get back to more representation for the people at the bottom, working people at the bottom – and also on issues of social justice. Those are issues that are very important to me.

Singer: My apologies for calling you a registered Republican.

[Laughter]

Webb: That’s okay. There’s no registration in Virginia either way.

Singer: A couple of issue questions. Where do you stand on a woman’s right to choose? Or perhaps more importantly, you’re in the Senate starting in January 2007 in this hypothetical, and President Bush nominates someone who overtly or even hints at a pledge to overturn Roe v. Wade, do you vote yay or nay on the Senate floor?

Webb: I don’t believe in answering hypotheticals, because they can get very complicated, but I do support Roe v. Wade.

Singer: Okay. [The] President and the Republican Congress passed the Medicare prescription drug bill, which by almost any means or measures has been a failure of implementation and design. If you’re sent to the United States Senate, would you like to see changes made to it, or do you think it really just needs to be better implemented?

Webb: As someone who spent four years as a committee counsel, it would not be smart for me to take a position on a bill I have not read very carefully, but in general, I think we have to move toward the idea that every American deserves to have medical care. And it’s not simply people on the very bottom who are having a problem here, it’s a lot of working people aren’t able to afford medical insurance and this sort of thing. It’s probably the most complicated… We’ve seen a number of studies that have come back with nothing. It’s so complicated that I can’t sit here and give you a formula, but it’s something that I do care a lot about.

Singer: You brought up the federal deficit, the federal debt more specifically. If the Senate brings up tax measures, would you, let’s say, be in favor of cutting taxes, or would you not want to deal with taxes one way or another, or would you in fact be willing to raise taxes, perhaps on the 1 or 2 percent?

Webb: I think the difficulty we have right now is you can’t spend $400 billion on a war and potentially $2 trillion on a war and say that you’re going to keep stimulating the economy with the tax cuts that are now in place.

Where the tax cuts are benefiting a broad range of people, and one example that immediately comes to my mind is the capital gains tax, which benefits a lot of people, when you’re selling your home, etc., I would be inclined to support that. When they benefit a smaller number of people – you know, for instance, the tax cuts that come up for renewal in ’08 – I would want to take a very hard to look at that.

You can’t… someone, as my friend Mark Shields, I think it was, said, this is the first war we’ve ever fought where you haven’t drafted anyone and you haven’t raised taxes, so who’s really paying here. Somehow we’ve got to confront the American people with the expense of this adventure and what we’re doing.

Singer: One final issues question before we get to politics. Are you content with the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy?

Webb: I favor civil unions, but I think, in terms of the military, that that’s a policy that’s working.

Singer: Why you and not Harris Miller for the Democratic nomination for the Senate?

Webb: People are going to have to make up their own minds about that. I know what I’m bringing, I know what I want to do. The reason I’m doing this is because I don’t see leaders. I think that’s one thing I’ve been able to do in my life is think hard and creatively about issues and take stands and fight.

Singer: Is there something you could boil it down to for people who are less familiar with your candidacy and his candidacy?

Webb: I haven’t really paid that much attention to Harris Miller’s candidacy. We’re running two different kinds of campaigns. I’m very specific on four themes we’re running on, and the overarching reason I’m running is we need real leaders. We need positive, affirmative leaders who aren’t afraid to take positions, and I’ve always done that in everything that I’ve done.

Singer: Last question. Is there anything you’d like to say specifically to members of the progressive blogosphere to get them more involved in your campaign?

Webb: I have really been gratified by the encouragement and the support I have gotten from the blogs, from the blogosphere, for the most part. The great worry that I have, if you want to think about this, you’ve probably already heard it, is that Karl Rove has already said that one of the two major strategies that they are going to use this year is to get into the blogs, to work the blogs hard, and the danger on the blogs is that somebody like myself can never defend themselves from false statements. There’s no accountability on the blogs. I think that’s one of the reasons that Karl Rove wants to use them. They can make accusations, charges, etc. that you can’t hold the person accountable and you spend the rest of your life trying to defend yourself.

To this point, I think there’s been – when this has happened – there’s been really good energy from people in the blogs that actually throw the actual facts back out, and I’ll never be able to do that.

The only thing I can say is I’m trying to do this from the bottom up. I’m trying to run a campaign where I will have intellectual independence, to be able to keep intellectual independence if I’m elected. Everybody else has a lobbyist in Washington, how about the average person?

Singer: Terrific. Well good luck in your campaign and thanks for joining me this morning.

Webb: Thank you.

Interview with House Speaker Tom Foley

2006-02-28T17:15:00.000-08:00

On Tuesday afternoon, I had the honor of speaking with the last Democratic Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, Thomas Foley of Washington, who served in the position from 1989 to 1995. Before ascending to the post following the resignation of then-Speaker Jim Wright of Texas, Foley served in the Democratic leadership in the House beginning in 1981 and was first elected to the chamber from the Spokane area in 1964.

Foley and I covered a range of issues during our conversation, including how 2006 compares to 1994, Democratic chances of retaking the House this fall, the lack of bipartisan comity on the Hill and the state of the Democratic Party. You can listen to the interview here (warning: an 20.1 megabyte mp3) or read the rush transcript below.

Jonathan Singer: You served in the leadership of the House during some fairly unprecedented times, including the resignation of the Speaker of the House, the indictment of the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, and of course the House banking scandal as well. How does the situation today compare?

Tom Foley: Well, I think, first of all, referring to the House banking scandal, as it’s often called, this was, as a recent commentator said, a scandal without a crime. What happened is that Members of Congress were allowed by the bank officials to overdraw their accounts and their imbalances or negative balances were covered by the positive balances of other Members, so there was nothing more than happens today when anyone opens up a commercial bank account, almost always one of the things that’s offered is coverage for overdrafts.

In the House case, for many years there was a small charge made for that, as there is today when people set up a commercial checking account. And then when there was the case in the 1970s, interest rates went very high, without notifying anyone in the leadership, the Sergeant at Arms, who ran the bank, simply dropped making those charges. And the General Accounting Office – now the General Accountability Office – criticized it, told me about it, I told the Republican leader about it, and we instructed the bank officials to correct it. They didn’t do that, against orders, and six months later the matter became public and became a rather large and celebrated case, which didn’t involve anything in the way of criminal activity and very little else, except a kind of minor perk that Members of Congress received to overdraft their accounts. But in any case, it led to the bank’s closure and the replacement of the Sergeant at Arms.

Singer: When you compare it to, say, the indictment of the House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, the indictment of Randy “Duke” Cunningham, and Jack Abramoff, etc., how does the situation back then compare to today?

Foley: Well I think, as far as the bank matter is concerned, there is no comparison at all. No one was charged with any offense, there was no government money lost, there was no abuse of any particular Congressional activity, no legislation was effected. So it became a kind of a celebrated political issue, but it wasn’t really a scandal in the sense of criminal activity, abuse of office, loss of government funds, or any kind of special advantage that any outside group received for any support or otherwise.

There has to be a distinction, of course, between the Tom DeLay matter, which is still in process – Congressman DeLay has resigned his Majority Leadership position, but the case is still pending – and the case of Randy “Duke” Cunningham. He has pled guilty to serious offenses involving $2.4 million of bribes and favors received. So that matter has been resolved, in the sense that his guilt has been admitted.

The Abramoff matter involves obviously his pleading guilty to offenses and Michael Scanlon, his associate, doing so, and the possibility that Members of Congress and members of the staff of Congress might be indicted. All of those that have been publicly discussed are Republican Members, but the matter is still pending.

Singer: Political ramification-wise, the latest poll from CBS News puts the American public’s approval of Congress below what it was in early 1994. Do you foresee the possibility that 2006 will yield similar results as 1994, or 1964, ’74 or ’82, for that matter?

Foley: It’s possible. One doesn’t know. I think one of the differences between 1994 and the present is that in the ensuing years, state legislatures have redistricted the Congress, and, for the most part, there has been a heavy tendency towards protecting incumbency districts. In other words, Members of Congress in both parties have had their districts changed in the favor. In a sense, that makes their reelection more likely.

Unfortunately for the Democrats, there are more so-called “red” districts as a result than there are “blue” districts. In addition to being the minority party, the Democrats have structurally fewer seats than the Republicans of these very, very strong incumbent-supporting districts. It is said that fewer than 10 percent – more like 7 or 8 percent – of the House seats every election cycle are in serious question. Open seats, so to speak, where there is a chance of the incumbent being defeated. In almost all other districts, Republican and Democrat, the likelihood of the incumbent being reelected is very strong.

But again, from the standpoint of the Democrats, there are more of the so-called strong Republican seats than strong Democratic seats. And so I think in the opinion of many political observers, it will take a tsunami, political tsunami of a kind to overturn that Republican advantage, in addition to the majority structural Republican advantage.

We’ll see. That tsunami might develop, maybe as a result of a combination of factors, including the unfolding Abramoff matter. It is possible that the low opinion of the public for Congress will affect both parties, but more specifically the majority party, the Republican Party, as the circumstances of 1994 affected the Democrats.

Singer: During the period of Democratic control of Congress and the White House, there was a degree of oversight. You did this when Clinton was President and you were Speaker. The Truman Committee during World War II also stands out as a good example. Do you believe the Republican Congress has been thoroughly enough investigating and conducting oversight during this Bush presidency?

Foley: I think even Republican Members have said that in many cases they think the Republican majority has failed to carry on a very vigorous oversight function. And I think this is one of the key responsibilities of the Congress – both Houses of the Congress – whatever the administration is, whether it’s of the same party as the Congress or the branch of Congress involved or not.

There has been a steady and consistent complaint – not just from Democrats, but from Republicans, as well – that the Congress has been fairly lax in undertaking serious review of administration activities. A recent exception to that has been the investigation of the administration’s response to the Katrina disaster in the Gulf states and in New Orleans, and the undertaking recently of Senator Specter in the Senate to look at the so-called special intelligence program involving the National Security Agency’s review of data involving allegedly telecommunications from outside the United States to Americans that might theoretically involve terrorists.

Singer: Correct me if I’m wrong, but during your tenure as Speaker, relations with House GOP leader Bob Michel were at least somewhat congenial. Today it seems that bipartisan relations on Capitol Hill are almost non-existent. How did things deteriorate to this point, and can the situation be salvaged?

Foley: That’s a very interesting question. I think it’s certainly true that when I was Speaker and Bob Michel was Republican leader, the relations were excellent. We met three or four times a week, Bob and I did, half the time in my office, half the time in his. Our staffs met daily. There was full consultation on the schedule. There was an opportunity for discussion of problems or issues that arose in real time, so that when there were things that were troubling the Republicans or our side, we could frankly discuss them with the leadership on the other side of the aisle.

And I think almost everybody involved at that time – Republicans or Democrats – will attest to the fact that civility has declined, cooperation has diminished, tensions have risen and irritability has grown apace. So that in the opinion of most Members who have served relatively long terms of service and cover both of these periods, there’s not question in the minds of almost all of them that, regardless of what the estimate is of what has brought this condition into existence, that it is the worst time in modern Congressional history.

Singer: Do you think it could go back at all?

Foley: Well, I hope it can improve. A couple of things that have happened recently: two Members of the Congress, one Democrat and one Republican, have organized a group inside the House called Center Aisle, which both Bob Michel and I have endorsed. One of these Members, a Democrat – the other a Republican – found that they could get along when they were in the gymnasium, the House gym, but when they got to the floor, the tensions rose and the bitterness between the two parties was sort of the overriding reality. So they’re trying to get Democrats and Republicans and others to come together in efforts to find ways to restore civility, to restore the ability to disagree and to debate and to dispute issues without making relations personal and the atmosphere poisonous.

I think the other thing that could happen and will be important to watch is if there is a change of leadership, if the Democrats do come back into majority in the House or in the Senate or in both, it will be important for the Democrats, I think, to take a course of establishing respect for rules and regular order that do not simply follow in the pattern of recent years, sort of eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth running of the House or the Senate, repeating the offenses that Democrats feel they have suffered under Republican majority back again on Republicans when they become, if they do become a minority.

I think the obligation of whoever is in the majority is not to diminish the right of the majority to rule – that’s part of the system, particularly in the House – but to rule with due respect for the rights of the minority, giving them an opportunity to participate in debate, giving fairer opportunity to examine the legislation when it’s reported from the committee, giving notice of changes that the majority intends to enact by rule or to provide for full participation in conference committees.

There is a kind of urban myth abroad that the Republicans are only doing today, in running the House, what the Democrats did to the minority Republicans in the period of the 40 years that ended in 1994. Well, I wouldn’t say that the Democratic majority had never sinned or never overreached, because I think occasionally we did. I don’t think there’s any comparison, again, between that time and the present time, when, again, by almost any index, the Republican majority has been extremely muscular and aggressive, not only in passing the programs that they undertake to pass, but to do so with a minimum participation and opportunity for the Democratic minority to take part in the deliberations.

Singer: I’d just like to ask you to address a couple specific things that Republicans have done in recent Congresses, one being holding a longer than a three hour vote on the Medicare prescription drug plan. I know that you as Speaker kind of came back from that policy; Speaker Wright had extended some votes, but you tried to do less of that. And also the recent budget reconciliation bill in which the House passed a different version than the Senate knowingly and sent it to the President anyway. I wonder if you could just address those two.

Foley: I think in the first one, there was an instance during the time that Jim Wright was Speaker and I was Majority Leader where one Member of Congress from Texas had promised Jim Wright, as Speaker, that he would vote for a budget bill, and then he left the chamber. Jim Chapman was his name. The Speaker put me in the chair, asked me to take the chair and he went to find Mr. Chapman. And we kept the vote open for I would say 20 minutes beyond what would be the normal time. One should know that there is no, or was not then, any maximum time that a House vote could last. It could not last less than – less than – 15 minutes, but it was typical that it would last maybe 20 or 25 minutes, when straggler Members would come from both parties to vote on the floor. But after all the latecomers had arrived, the vote was announced.

In this case, the case that I am talking about, we kept the vote open for 15 or 20 minutes after the last Member had been coming to the floor, and I think that was a mistake, frankly. It was within the rules, but it was against the regular order. And when Mr. Chapman changed his vote and the bill passed by one vote, the Republican side was enormously angry and upset, and Dick Cheney, the then-Republican Whip, came across the floor and told me this was the worst abuse of power he had ever seen in the House.

Now compared to that, Speaker Hastert kept the vote open on the prescription drug bill for over three hours, while the Secretary of HHS was brought to the floor to help persuade Members to vote for it, and a number of other things took place that finally led to the passage. But compared to 20 minutes, three hours was a vast extension of that, and it’s a bad practice in any event. Even though it can be sometimes argued that it’s within the technical meaning of the rules, particularly if a special rule is passed to accommodate it, it’s still against the traditions of the House, it leads to a feeling of helplessness on the part of the minority, it leads to a feeling of abuse of power by the majority, and commentators from every spectrum of political viewpoint have criticized it.

I think what has happened is that a series of these things has led to a feeling of great anger and frustration on the part of the minority, and it’s one of the things that I think has to change if we’re going to have a restoration of civility and acceptance and harmony in the House.

Singer: How about Speaker Hastert signing off on a bill that he knew was not the same as the Senate bill?

Foley: Well I don’t know the specifics of that, but I think there has generally been a sense that while it’s I think understandable and acceptable for the majority party in the House to work the will of the majority, if you do so at the expense of traditions of regular order, of traditional views of the rules, traditional rules of comity, exercising the muscular or even overpowering force of the majority and diminishing the rights and participation of the minority, it leads to enormous tensions and bad feelings and anger. And I think it’s one of the unfortunate circumstances that exists today.

I don’t criticize former Speaker because I’m a former Speaker and I know the problems that the Speaker has, somewhat like the President, having to be the Speaker of the whole House and at the same time the leader of his own party. But I don’t think there’s any question that people who have watched the House over many, many years would say today that relations between the two parties are at the lowest ebb in their memory.

A new book is about to be published, I think a very good one, which is called The Broken Branch, and it’s a book authored by Tom Mann and Norm Ornstein, who are the two most celebrated and objective scholars of the Congress. And in that book they examine all of these questions and suggest a way that we might step back from this continuing deterioration of both Congressional relations internally and public esteem for the Congress.

Singer: Could I ask you just one last question?

Foley: Sure.

Singer: Are you content with the direction of the Democratic Party today?

Foley: Well, I think the Democratic Party is obviously is… Will Rogers said famously it’s not all together the most organized party in the world. We’re now a party in opposition in the House and the Senate. But I think the party has opportunities, both in Congressional elections this fall and the coming Presidential elections, to regain principal responsibility for the conduct of the American government. And I think that’s a very exciting opportunity.

Obviously we have choices to make, in terms of 2008, in terms of the ticket. The party came very, very close in the last election. Although the popular vote was substantial for the President, a shift of 100,000 votes in Ohio would have changed the outcome.

So I think we still have two vital parties. I proud to be a Democrat. I believe the Democratic vision for the country is the one that offers the greatest hope for Americans in all conditions and I think the greatest hope for American leadership abroad. But we have an obligation to, I think, try to express more clearly and more effectively to the American people our different views on where the country should go and how the national future should be sod. So I’m going to stay as involved as I can in that effort.

Singer: Well, I just want to sincerely thank you for your time. It really has been a great honor speaking with you today.

Foley: It’s been a pleasure, Jonathan.

[THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.]

Interview with MT-Sen Candidate Jon Tester

2006-02-27T00:17:00.000-08:00

On Friday morning, I had the opportunity to converse with Montana Senate President Jon Tester over the telephone about his Senate campaign this year. Tester'a main competition for the Democratic nomination to challenge GOP Sen. Conrad Burns is state Auditor John Morrison, with whom we are also trying to set up an interview.

Tester and I covered a range of interviews during our conversation, including ethics, energy, agriculture, Iraq, port security, and why the progressive blogosphere should get involved in the campaign. You can listen to the interview here (warning: an 18.3 megabyte mp3) or read the rush transcript below.

Jonathan Singer: National Journal’s annual vote ranking just came out today showing Conrad Burns near the middle of the Republican pack with a conservative score of 73 out of 100. Would you say he’s too conservative for Montana?

Jon Tester: What I would say is he’s lost touch with Montana. I think he, by some of his actions, he’s really kind of fell in love with Washington, DC, and I think that he’s lost touch with Montana values. And I say that because of a number of different things that he has either not done or failed to take a leadership role in.

Singer: It goes without saying that Senator Burns’ ties to Jack Abramoff will play a large role in this year’s election, but to what extent will you make it central in your campaign?

Tester: I think any time you’re dealing with issues of ethics and honesty, that’s a big issue in the state of Montana. It’s an issue that most people just take for granted, that the people they elect to office are honest and ethical and represent everybody’s needs – or at least try to represent everybody’s needs.

So the ethics question is something that is going to play a role in this election because of what’s happened back in Washington, DC, and the pay-to-play and culture of corruption back there. But what I’m going to do with it is talk about me, and talk about honesty, integrity, being an ethical person, being an ethical business person, legislator. And I’ve said from the beginning on this stuff with Abramoff that somebody who’s been bought and paid for by a lobbyist shouldn’t be back there, regardless of party. They should be replaced.

Singer: Do you think this scandal is more about lobbying or actual Republican corruption?

Tester: Well, you know what they say: there wouldn’t any crooked lobbyists if there weren’t crooked Senators and Congressmen taking the money. I think it has to do with the culture of corruption back there in Washington, DC right now. You’ve always heard rumors and whimpers of corruption, but it’s never, ever been this loud. It scares me because that’s not how a Democracy is supposed to work. You’re supposed to listen and make the best decision for everybody, not just for a select few who have enough money to buy influence.

Singer: There have been a lot of complaints about the Medicare prescription drug – the Part D plan – particularly how it was passed, but also the poor implementation so far. You’ve got a lot of seniors up in Montana. How have they been responding to–

Tester: I think they’re very frustrated with the complex nature of the plan. We have encouraged Senator Burns and other folks in our delegation to extend the sign up period. I think Senator Baucus has agreed to push to get that extension done. I don’t think Senator Burns has. I think what the extension does allow for is more time for seniors to make decisions about their healthcare. I think that’s only fair. And I think the decision to extend the sign up deadline should happen right now so that those seniors aren’t stressed out with the program, because it’s very complex.

That being said – and you probably already know this, Jonathan – we passed a bill that will help seniors and disabled folks pay the premiums on that Medicare Part D. But still, in all, that program is in effect. And we’ll take some of the tobacco tax monies that were put on by a vote of the people and we’ll dedicate I think about $10 million to pay the premiums of that Medicare Part D in Montana. But I still think that they need to extend the sign up deadline, because it gives our seniors more time to look at this very complex plan.

Singer: You bring up Senator Baucus. Senator Baucus is towards the middle political spectrum, and to my recollection – if it’s correct – played a role in the passage of the Medicare bill as the ranking member in the committee. Do you share his philosophy of legislating, trying to tend to the middle, or will you stick closer to your progressive roots should you be elected?

Tester: My philosophy is represent what’s best for the people, and if what’s best for the people is in the middle, to the right or to the left, that’s fine. Do what’s best for the people, listen to the people, get the best information you can, make the decision you can make based on the information you get.

Ultimately, when I’m in Washington, DC, I am going to be listening to Montanans. I was born and raised here, my folks made their living here, my grandparents homesteaded here, Montana’s in my blood – literally. I don’t necessarily look at issues from middle, left, right, I look at issues what’s best for the people of the state of Montana, and that’s how I’ll cast my votes.

Singer: You are not only a legislator, you are also a farmer.

Tester: That’s right.

Singer: I know that a significant portion of the federal budget is reserved specifically for farm subsidies. As a Senator, would you be in favor, in an effort to decrease the federal deficit, to cut some of these subsidies?

Tester: You put my in a difficult quandary with that question because I know how the marketplace is being manipulated by multinational corporations. Basically, you’ve got very few companies that control 80 percent or better of the world’s food supply. Much of those farm subsidies are a direct result of lack of competition in the marketplace.

Where I would approach this from first is try to encourage – though enforcement of anti-trust or through facilitation of small business in the agricultural processing area so that there’s more marketplace available – but try to encourage more competition in the marketplace. I think when you do that, then you get closer to cost of production for the farmer, and there’s less need for those farm subsidies.

Singer: Montana has been at the forefront of the effort to increase America’s energy production. What steps would you take in Washington to get us closer, as Americans, to energy independence?

Tester: Well Jonathan, that’s a good question, and it is something that really does provide some opportunity for Montana.

My focus initially would be on renewables. I think there is a tremendous opportunity for wind generation in this state, and that’s been borne out by what we did last session with some wind energy incentives that moved us from 50th to 15th in the nation in wind energy production just since the session adjourned last April. There’s room for more energy development in wind here in this state – and around the country, I might add – but particularly in Montana. We’ve got a lot of wind in the Eastern part.

There’s also a tremendous amount of opportunity for biofuels. Basically taking the oil seed plants, squeezing them, getting that oil, which burns like diesel. In fact, that’s why diesel engines were first built, to run on peanut oil. We raise safflower, sunflower, canola, rape… a number of oil seeds up here in Montana that could be easily pressed for oil. You get the oil, plus you get the benefit of a pretty decent quality cattle feed out of it to fatten cattle. So you really kill two birds with one stone.

Ethanol is another one that I think we have some opportunity in this state with some of our low-grade wheats and barleys that aren’t up to snuff for milling, because we do have pretty high quality wheats in this state, but every once in a while we get sprout problems or low protein problems, and that grain is particularly suited to ethanol.

So I think that would be a great start and a great way to get weaned off of that Middle Eastern bottle, but I also think another thing that needs to be done is we need to dedicate some research dollars for renewables, to make them more efficient, but also to petroleum fuels we are using so we can figure out a way to cut down on the amount of CO2 that’s going into the atmosphere. I think that that issue is a very important issue that we need to address sooner rather than later because of the global warming aspects, and I think science has proven out that this isn’t a myth, it’s for real.

Singer: To what extent do you think coal should play in this energy race? I know that your governor has been talking publicly about turning coal into clean, or at least somewhat clean, gasoline or diesel for cars, and you have a lot of coal in Montana. Would you be pushing that as well, you think?

Tester: I think there’s some opportunity for coal development in the state, but there are some things that have to be addressed along with that: sulfur, lead, mercury and CO2, and that’s why I think we need to do our best. If those things are handled in a way that doesn’t take future generations down, I think we need to move forward.

I’ve listened to the governor a lot. I’ve talked to him about the coal gasification stuff. He may well be on to something here. The CO2 issue is an issue that bothers me, but if there’s a way to sequester that CO2 or reduce the amount of CO2 that’s produced from the coal, I think that may be the way to go, another avenue.

Singer: A couple more issue questions before we go to politics. Port security. I know that Montana is a landlocked state, however it does share a border, an international border, with Canada. To what extent is the President’s plan to sell American ports to the United Arab Emirates, in effect, playing in your state?

Tester: Well we have a lot of those containers that are unloaded at those ports go through Montana over the rail lines, in fact a tremendous amount of them. It’s a continual flow along Highway 2 of containers going East and West, to and from those ports. It’s critically important that we have the kind of security that will help resolve any threat that those containers coming in the country might have. So for that standpoint, it is a big concern, even though we are a landlocked state.

But I think the question here is why aren’t we using American companies to run these ports? We’ve got so many good things that go for this country. Why are we outsourcing this? We don’t need to outsource this. These are jobs for Americans in American cities servicing American ports. It makes no sense to me to outsource this job, whether it’s to the Middle East or anywhere.

Singer: Speaking of the Middle East, America seems to be stuck in Iraq, or something to that effect, for quite some time. Congressman John Murtha put forward a plan. Where do you stand on his plan or other similar plans to help get America out of Iraq?

Tester: I think it’s important to know that I think that President Bush was too quick to declare victory in Iraq. I think that’s rather obvious. But the President does need to develop an exit strategy. An open-ended commitment for occupation of Iraq is really bad. I think it’s bad for our troops, it’s bad for us economically, from a fiscal responsibility standpoint I think it’s bad.

My stand on this issue since the fall has been President Bush needs to develop a plan using the intelligence that he has and get the troops out as quickly as possible. I think that the whole area is less stable now than it was when we went in, and that distresses me. I think that we need to be starting to use diplomacy first instead of force. The war in Afghanistan is a little different story, because I do support that war and the war on terror, but I really think we went into Iraq under false pretences and we need to do our best to get out as quickly as possible.

Singer: Let’s just turn to the campaign, to the primary, specifically, for a moment. Why you? Why not John Morrison, who is also running for the Democratic nomination?

Tester: There’s a lot of primaries around the country – you know that Jonathan – where the public is given a choice to make a decision. Basically, what people have to look at in the primaries is who’s best suited to beat the person in the general and the second thing is what kind of Democrat do they want to send to Washington, DC, once the general is over that that person has supposedly won.

I think that if you look at myself as a farmer from North Central Montana, third generation, my wife’s forth generation, a guy that’s been on the farm with my wife for the last – well, since 1978 – 27 years, been married 28 years, we have a couple kids, they’re both in Montana. I mean we’re tied to the state. You combine that with the fact that I’ve been in the Montana Senate since I was elected in ’98, been in leadership in the ’01 session as Democratic Whip, ’03 session as Democratic floor leader, and ’05 session as Senate President. I think that kind of leadership shows that I can get things done. And I think that profile of the farmer, the small businessperson in Montana is something that gives me an advantage in the election over John Morrison. I think that’s what the people really have to decide on is who’s got the best chance of beating Conrad Burns come November and what kind of Democrat do they want to send to Washington, DC after that general election.

Singer: Just one final question. A lot of people in the blogosphere are watching this race, and I’m sure that they don’t need much more prodding to get involved, but what would you like to say specifically to members of the progressive blogosphere to bring them into your campaign?

Tester: You know a lot of these elections are decided in the primary. And it’s important that the folks out there in the blogosphere know that I need their support.

One of my very strong tendencies is I’m not afraid to stand up and go against the flow, I’m not afraid to stand up and say what’s right, and I’m certainly somebody who’s going to represent the average Joe that’s on the street.

I am – and I don’t classify this as being a knock – I’m an average guy. I’ve got two kids, a wife. My parents helped teach me the business I’m in. And I’m not rich. I don’t have a ton of money. I know what it’s like to balance the checkbook. I know what it’s like to struggle to pay bills at the end of the month. I’ve done all those things, and I continue to do all of those things even right now as we speak. Finances have always been something that we have struggled with, like most American families have, to buy a home, buy a new car or just pay the insurance bill.

So I’m going to take those kind of qualities to Washington, DC, and I think a lot of people in the blogosphere are in the same boat. They’re regular people. They’re not rich. They work for the dollars they get, and they work hard for them. If they want someone back in Washington, DC who’s going to represent everybody, and not fall into this pay-to-play mentality, just represent the upper crust, then I’m their guy.

The thing about these doggone elections are they’re based way too much on money. Conrad Burns has already said in the general he’s going to raise $10 million. So we’ve got to compete with that. And like I said, I wasn’t born into a lot of money, I don’t know a lot of rich people, but we sure have gotten a lot of support from a lot of folks that have given $10, $15, $25, $50, and $100, and I would just encourage the folks out there that don’t like the direction the country’s going to take a look around and determine how they want to spend their money – politically wise, is what I mean – and hopefully they’ll decide to support Jon Tester.

Singer: Terrific. Thanks so much for joining me, particularly in light of your cold right now.

Tester: Yeah, it’s a miserable damn thing, but I guess when I’ll get done with it I’ll have more immunity for the next one.

Singer: Well, feel better and good luck with your campaign.

Tester: Hey, Jonathan, very good visiting with you. Thank you very much, too. I certainly appreciate your time, too.

[THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.]

Interview with MN-Sen Candidate Amy Klobuchar

2006-02-22T22:30:00.000-08:00

On Wednesday afternoon, I had the chance to speak over the telephone with Hennepin County District Attorny Amy Klobuchar, the presumptive Democratic Senate nominee in the great state of Minnesota.

Klobuchar and I covered a range of interviews during our conversation, including the situation in Iraq, GOP corruption, US port security and the United Arab Emirates, local Minnesota issues, and why the progressive blogosphere should get involved in the campaign.. You can listen to the interview here (warning: a 15.1 megabyte mp3) or read the rush transcript below.

Jonathan Singer: I don’t know if you saw, but the news out of Iraq today does not inspire much optimism, with the AP raising the specter of an outright civil war in the country. Is there anything America can do to help remedy the situation?

Amy Klobuchar: I opposed this war in the first place. The administration went into this war without a plan and without the help of other countries to the extent that we have seen in other wars. We sort of had a go it alone philosophy. Sadly, it just keeps going on and on and on. You just pray for our troops and that we will see success there.

But the bottom line is, I think we – as the events of today bear out – that we need a significant change of course so that we can send a message to the people of Iraq that we’re not going to be staying there indefinitely, that we do bring some of our troops home, and that we transition to them, because, so far, sadly, as much as our troops are doing everything they can and as brave as they can, when we went into this war in false pretences – which I think Colin Powell called a blot on his career – and the administration has been spending so much of their time sort of spinning the war and explaining it and getting involved in legal entanglements. This is not the direction we should be going.

The other thing that bothers me about this is that it took us away from other pressing crises, in terms of Iran, North Korea and some of these other countries and potential high risks, in terms of weapons of mass destruction, where we should have been putting our resources.

We’ve now spent over $300 billion, over 2,000 Americans have been killed, countless Iraqis. We have to hold the people accountable that brought us to the place that we are.

Singer: Where do you stand on something like the Murtha Amendment, or other similar plans to help extricate itself from Iraq?

Klobuchar: I would like to see a drawdown of the troops this year, a significant drawdown of the troops. I don’t believe that at this point we can set a specific date to get each and every troop out of Iraq, as much some people would like to see that. I understand the sentiment, and I don’t think we should be attacking people who are at least in good faith trying to come up with good solutions. My hope is that we could bring in peacekeeping forces, whether it is the UN or NATO, and I believe that to make that work would have to be a part of that. You know we went into that country and dismantled their police force, their army, and to just get out overnight would not be responsible. So I would like to see a transition to an international peacekeeping force that I believe we would most likely be a part of.

Singer: To the best of my knowledge, your Republican opponent, Rep. Mark Kennedy, has not been directly implicated in the corruption scandal surrounding Jack Abramoff. Will you still be talking about the GOP corruption in general during the campaign?

Klobuchar: I will.

In my role as a prosecutor, you draw the line every day. We see white collar cases come into our office. It usually starts with someone maybe stealing a little money from the petty cash, and then they end up taking millions of dollars from the workers’ 401k accounts. And I believe it’s our job to draw the line and say there’s a difference between what’s right and what’s wrong.

Well, in 2006, it’s going to be the job of the American people, the voters. Because what’s happened here is really the responsibility of everyone in leadership in Washington, DC, because this started with them bringing… I always say, “You dance with the one that brung ya,” that that’s what’s going on out there. They would give tax loopholes to their friends and give companies the ability to send jobs overseas that brought them into office, and then the next thing you know, they’re taking PAC contributions and funneling them into other PACs, trying to hide them, and the next thing you know they’re lying before a grand jury. That’s what this culture of corruption is.

And if you asked how does my opponent, Congressman Kennedy… what does he have to do with it? I’ll just look at the prescription drug bill. This was a bill pushed by the Republican leadership. Congressman Kennedy did support this bill. And it basically insulated the prescription drug companies from competition.

A study just came out two weeks ago that showed the Veterans Affairs, that agency – they negotiate prices with the drug companies – their prices are about 50 percent lower than they are for Medicare Part D. 50 percent lower. That’s about $90 billion a year. So what’s the cost of the culture of corruption? Of people giving breaks to the oil companies and giving giveaways and Christmas presents to the drug companies and the insurance companies? The cost is $90 billion a year. There you go. Quantifiable.

You go down the line, and I believe we need to start putting the people in front of these drug companies and in front of these oil companies and coming up with solutions for people. In my job in local government, you don’t have the luxury of just putting your head in the sand, and doing favors for your friends and throwing out partisan bombshells all of the time, you actually got to make decisions and get things done. And that’s the spirit that I want to bring to Washington, DC.

Singer: Let’s talk about a different billion figure. I don’t know it exactly, I think it’s something like $6.8 billion is the amount that a government-owned company in the United Arab Emirates bought control over some American ports. There has been some talk among Republicans opposing this – most of the opposition comes from Democrats – but we see leading Republicans like John Warner, who is the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee in the Senate, really coming out in favor of it. Where do you stand? Do you think that we should be handing over essentially control of American ports to the UAE?

Klobuchar: No I don’t, and I was quite shocked when I saw this. We are living in a world where we are constantly concerned about terror and homeland security, and here we are going to be turning our ports over – and presumably the security part of our ports – to these foreign countries. I couldn’t believe it.

We have ports here in Minnesota. I know not everyone would expect that, but we do in Duluth, Lake Superior, and down the river, and I checked into that today, and our ports are all owned by home-grown companies in the United States and in Minnesota, and that’s the way it should be.

Singer: Are there any other specific issues or items of legislation you’ll try and bring to Washington, should Minnesotans send you there?

Klobuchar: I come from a place, Minnesota, where we value things like hard work and fair play and responsibility. I learned hard work from my grandpa. He worked 1,500 feet underground in the mines in Ely, Minnesota. He saved money in a coffee can to send my dad to college. I grew up in a middle class neighborhood, knew I’d always have to work hard to get where I wanted to go.

What I see going on in Washington is just a deterioration of that American dream, a middle class crunch, where people in our state – they’ve got jobs, a lot of them – but they keep saying, “What’s going on? It’s harder and harder for me to get by, it’s harder for me to buy a house, it’s harder for me to send my kids to college.” Well, the numbers are their. Tuition at the University of Minnesota up 81 percent, healthcare costs up 3 ½ times the average wage. We are basically losing our middle class with these wrongheaded policies where we are having the wrong priorities, we are giving tax cuts to the wealthiest, giving loopholes to the big corporate special interests, and it’s becoming harder and harder for people to get by.

So if you asked what I want to work on, I want to work on, one, balancing this budget – they’ve taken a $300 billion Clinton budget surplus and turned it into a $300 billion Bush budget deficit – by going back to the pay-as-you-go rules that we had during the Clinton administration, looking at cutting down on this discretionary spending so we can put the money where it counts, on our big challenges of healthcare reform and energy independence. I would like to see more money to help kids afford college and change the priorities away from the wealthiest and the healthiest for healthcare. I would like to see true energy independence. We are sitting here in Minnesota on what we consider the Saudi Arabia of energy with the wind sweeping through the prairies. Down in Southwestern Minnesota, we have many, many wind turbines, to the point that they’ve now set up a bed and breakfast there, so people can go down and spend a weekend touring the wind turbines, so if you’re interested in that, you can come down to Minnesota for a weekend.

But we’re very excited and optimistic about the energy future here, the good it’ll do for the environment, the reduction in dependency on foreign oil. But to get there, it’s not just talk – it’s actually setting standards. I want to see a 20 percent renewable energy standard for electricity. I want to see higher standards for renewable fuel. I want to see them change the federal fleet of cars, which has just been sitting there without fuel-efficient cars for years and years and years. We need to lead by example.

Singer: You brought up your roots outside of the Twin Cities. I know that you have a strong political base of support within the Democratic-friendly Twin Cities, but how might you extend this to places like the Iron Range and other places that, at least in recent years, have been less friendly to Democrats?

Klobuchar: I represent a quarter of the state of Minnesota right now, and it’s an area – Hennepin County – that is two-thirds suburban, and then an urban area. It is one of the areas where you look at where Kerry picked up a number of supporters, people in the suburbs who wanted to see more of a focus on education and transportation. So that’s an important piece of this.

But the fact [is] that my roots are on the Iron Range up in Northern Minnesota. I have many friends there, Congressman Oberstar’s support. And what I’ve found is that people there, or down in Southern Minnesota – Mankato, where my husband and his five brothers are from – they’re basically saying a lot of the same things. And I think this election, which is so critical on these issues of what’s right and what’s wrong, unite people across geographic lines.

The issue of CAFTA, the Central America Free Trade Agreement, really hurt 30,000 farmers and their families and workers in the Red River valley in the Northwestern part of our state. So that’s something where Congressman Kennedy was the deciding vote for CAFTA, when they could have put in some amendments and changes that would have helped that industry in our state and chose not to do that. Again, a go it alone philosophy. Didn’t listen to Congressman Collin Peterson or some of our North Dakota friends, and they just kept it as it is.

Those are issues that people are going to care about in our state, whether they’re farmers or workers. So as I look at a state as a whole, I see some unique issues in different parts of it, but I also see that overriding concern that we need change in Washington, we need someone who’s going to work on solutions for people for a change, someone who’s not going to spend the whole time in a 24 hour TV shout-fest about what’s right and what’s left and instead talk about what’s right and what’s wrong, because when you talk to people in Minnesota about what’s right and what’s wrong, people listen. They know it’s right to make Social Security a guarantee and it’s wrong to make it a gamble. They know it’s right to invest in our kids and education and it’s wrong to give oversized tax cuts to the wealthiest among us. They know it’s right to invest in our troops and herald our veterans and they know it’s wrong to go to war without a plan. And when you talk to them this way, they listen.

They are so fed up with what I call the lies and the legends. I always tell the story of a diner in my neighborhood. It’s called Betty’s Bikes and Buns. They’ve got this business card that says, “Betty’s Bikes and Buns: Where Lies Become Legends.” Well the people in our state are beginning to see the lies beneath the legends of the leadership in Washington, DC. They told us there were weapons of mass destruction; there weren’t. They told us they’d leave no child behind; they left behind millions. They told us they’d unite this country, and they’ve divided us as ever before. They told us that we’d be ready for any national disaster, and you just ask that mom stranded on the roof in New Orleans for three days with her three kids if that was true and she’ll tell you the truth.

They’ve had it with lies and legends, and they want to see some leadership – real leadership – on issues like affordable healthcare and energy independence and tax fairness and economic and international security.

Singer: I just want to ask you one more question. What would you like to say specifically to the members of the liberal blogosphere to get them involved in the campaign? There’s no longer a primary. It seems like Minnesota is a “blue” state. Why should they expend time, money and effort to help you win?

Klobuchar: I’m running against one of the most conservative Members of Congress. He has had in for him now Frist, Card, he’s had Hastert, he’s had Cheney, he’s had George W. Bush in for a fundraiser on Air Force One, and now he’s actually going out to Washington to have an event with Karl Rove. The only celebrities we’ve had are the Gear Daddy’s Band of Austin, Minnesota who’s most famous song is “I Want to Ride the Zamboni.”

So we need help from the blogosphere. We need help from progressives across this country to stand up and help me with this race. I’ve done everything that I can. We’ve built a huge grassroots network. We’re in the process of adding more and more volunteers every day. Jeff Blodgett, who was Paul Wellstone’s campaign manager, has been helping me extensively. I’ve raised money from my kitchen table, from the Internet – I always joke that I’ve even raised $15,000 from ex-boyfriends, and as my husband notes, that’s not an expanding base.

This is going to be a truly grassroots effort. And we’re going to need everyone on board across the country. I know it’s hard to pronounce my last name – it’s Klo [rhymes with glow] – bu [buh] – char [more like shar]. But we need people to get beyond that and help us in Minnesota with spreading the word about what I stand for, which is, in the true Minnesota tradition, this belief that one Senator from Minnesota can make a difference. That we can send someone to Washington who’s going to change the culture and who’s going to put people in front of the big oil companies and the big drug companies and actually get something done. That’s what I’ve been about in my career. When I took on the big insurance companies when they kicked my out of the hospital when my daughter was born – she was really sick – in 24 hours. And I went to the legislature and got one of the first laws passed in the country for a 48-hour hospital stay for new moms and their babies.

I’ve taken on these tough fights and I’ve won them. But I know very well with the people that I’m up against, who are going to fight with every fiber of their being to hang on to their special interest tax breaks and loopholes, that I can’t do this alone. I’m going to need people at my side. I’m going to need people with laptops on my side. I’m going to need them watching my back on the blogs, and so that’s what I ask you to do for me.

Singer: Well terrific. Good luck and thank you so much for your time.

Klobuchar: OK. It was great being on, Jonathan. I hope we didn’t have to cut it too short here. And I was sorry I was a little late.

Singer: No, that’s perfect. Thank you again.

[THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.]

Interview with Rep. Ben Cardin (D-MD)

2006-02-09T08:12:00.000-08:00

This morning, I spoke with Democratic Congressman Ben Cardin (D-MD), one of of two leading contenders for the Democratic senatorial nomination in the Maryland (the other being former Congressman Kweisi Mfume, who we have also invited to speak with MyDD).

Cardin and I spoke about a number of topics, including ethics reform, healthcare, the Murtha resolution, and domestic wiretapping. You can listen to the interview here (warning: a 14.3 megabyte mp3) or read the rush transcript below.

Jonathan Singer: In President Bush’s most recent budget, it appears that he has indeed stuck in his plan to partially privatize Social Security. Do you think that the Democrats – you in Congress – will be able to stop it?

Ben Cardin: First, I’m not surprised by what the President has done. He is committed to privatizing Social Security. He’s made that clear. This is an area he wants to make progress, and he will not deter. He’s going to continue to use every effort to start down the path of privatizing Social Security.

The budget that he has submitted starts to spend taxpayer money – actually goes into debt – in order to start the privatization by setting up these private accounts. I personally do not believe that the Congress will approve it. I think that the President took his case to the American people last year and they resoundingly said no. Whether they were older people or younger people, they understood that you don’t strengthen Social Security by taking money out of it.

So I believe that we will be successful, the Democrats, in blocking the efforts in 2006, but that’s not the end of it. We still have to stay very strong in our opposition.

Singer: Your competitor on the Republican side of the aisle, Michael Steele, is extremely close to the Bush administration. I know they have raised money for him and cajoled him into the race. To what extent will you try to label him just a stooge for the administration?

Cardin: President Bush said when he came to Maryland to campaign for Lieutenant Governor Steele that he was campaigning for people who agree with his agenda. So I think it’s very clear that if Michael Steele were elected to the United States Senate, there would be another vote for George Bush’s policies to privatize Social Security; there would be another vote for George Bush’s reckless fiscal policies that have accumulated a lot of debt and are sending jobs overseas; there would be another vote for the oil interests – despite what the President says, the energy policy in this country is non-existent; there would be another vote for President Bush’s foreign policy. So yes, we will very much be making the issue that Marylanders want a voice in the United States Senate that will stand up to these Bush policies.

Singer: Jack Abramoff. Kind of central thing in this 109th Congress. Although Michael Steele might not be directly connected to him, to what extent will you be bringing up the general scandal that is surrounding the Republican Party these days?

Cardin: I think it is very important that Marylanders send to the United States Senate a person who has a record of principled leadership. I’ll be talking about my own record, the fact that I have served on the ethics committee, I was principally responsible for the investigation of Newt Gingrich, that I was involved in developing the ethics rules for the Maryland General Assembly, and that I do think you want someone in the United States Senate who understands that we need to change the basic attitude in Washington between lobbyist and lawmaker.

Singer: Now let’s look at something specific to your state of Maryland. Your state legislature enacted a plan that would mandate that large companies, like Wall Mart, provide at least some healthcare benefits, either directly to workers or through contributions to the state program. Should Congress look at a similar plan?

Cardin: Congress should pass a program that provides for universal health insurance coverage.

It is not acceptable for us to have 45 to 47 million Americans without health insurance. It’s not fair for those who have health insurance to pay for those who do not have health insurance. That was the frustration in Maryland, where you had companies that were not only paying for their own employees but literally paying for their competitors’ employees because of the extra cost for the uninsured.

So the Congress should pass legislation that guarantees that every person in this country has health insurance, and it’s in every one of our interests that that be done.

Singer: I’d actually like to go back to ethics for a second.

Cardin: Sure.

Singer: There’s something in The Hill newspaper this morning you may not have seen already. Congressman David Dreier [R-CA] originally in 1997 pushed a plan that would use private citizens as independent investigators for the House ethics committee. Now that Barack Obama is in favor of such a plan, Dreier is no longer. Do you think that there needs to be some outside oversight to both the House and the Senate ethics, or do you think that’s a plan that no longer worthy of discussion.

Cardin: I think we need to open up the ethics process internally. Under the constitution, the legislature must judge its own members, the Congress must judge its own members. But I do think we should allow more outside help in the way that we review ethics complaints.

For example, I chaired the ethics commission that brought in the rules that we operate in Congress, and one of our major recommendations was not accepted: to allow outside groups to bring a complaint.

So I do think that it’s important for us to open up the process. Whether it’s the Obama recommendation or whether to allow outside groups to initiate complaints, I think it’s important that we make the system more available for the public to initiate complaints.

Singer: Now let’s shift over to some more international issues. Your colleague John Murtha put forward a plan to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq by the end of the year, placing them in Kuwait so that they would be nearby in case of emergency. What do you think of this plan?

Cardin: Clearly, we need a plan to get our troops home from Iraq, quickly and safely, and this administration has not come forward with a workable plan for removal of our troops.

Clearly, the policies that this administration has pursued have not been effective, and we need to energize the international community to assume a greater responsibility in Iraq, and we’re not going to be able to do that until we have a game plan that involves our troops being removed.

Singer: There has been some investigation into President Bush’s, the administration’s domestic wiretapping program. [Rep.] Heather Wilson [R-NM] now is at least talking about investigations in the House. How far does this need to go for Congress to be apprised of the program?

Cardin: I personally believe the President has violated law with the NSA intercepts by not seeking court supervision. I think that Congress has a principal responsibility in its oversight function to do an independent investigation of this issue and let the facts lead where they may. But it’s got to be thorough, it’s got to be independent, and it has to be able to go wherever it needs to in order to make sure that the laws of this country are adhered to.

Singer: During World War II, Harry Truman led a committee that investigated war profiteering, finding billions of dollars in profiteering, indeed. Congress seems to be in a different mindset these days, with your disgraced colleague [former-Rep.] Randy “Duke” Cunningham [R-CA] in fact putting in war profiteering into legislation. Can the trend be reversed? Can there be another Harry Truman that emerges?

Cardin: Once again, a principal responsibility of Congress is oversight: to make sure that there are not abuses in the Executive branch, to make sure that there are not abuses in the private sector, that, when we are at war, we want to make sure that sacrifices are fairly shared, that there are not profits made from either war or natural disaster – what happened in Hurricane Katrina is another example of an area that needs to be reviewed.

Yes. I think that first it starts with Congressional investigations that are independent that look at the profits were made during this war in Iraq and our war against terror, and look at the profits that were made during Katrina and report back to Congress and the American people so that the appropriate laws are adhered to, but also that if there are new laws that are needed, Congress has an opportunity to act.

But I must point out this Congress under Republican leadership is not doing it and won’t do it. There’s no interest in this Congress, which is extremely disappointing. We’ve been pointing this out, and I think the Republican leadership needs to be held accountable.

Singer: You have, I would imagine, taken trips in the past – educational trips – whether they are government-funded or privately-funded, as have most members of Congress. Is it possible to separate truly educational trips from the types of trips, say going and playing golf at St. Andrews in Scotland?

Cardin: It first starts with individual judgment. A Member should not go on a trip paid for by third parties unless that trip will further that Congressman’s responsibilities in Congress. So therefore these educational seminars that we participate in by non-profit groups that give us a chance to focus on important issues with our colleagues on both sides of the aisle are important opportunities, because we get to meet with some of the brightest minds in the world and we have a chance to try to talk out issues and come up with workable solutions. But when you have special interests that are paying for trips that are more social than they are business, the individual legislator shouldn’t participate in that. But I’m afraid that we need to change the rules to make it clear that we won’t tolerate that.

So yes, it is possible to draw a line, but unfortunately that line will have to be a lot tighter now as a result of the abuses, and it’s very possible that some worthwhile trips will have to be sacrificed in order to make it clear that we can’t tolerate special interests taking Members of Congress to these social trips rather than business trips.

Singer: Just one final question… I don’t think the progressive blogosphere has paid as much attention to Maryland as other Senate races. What would you like to say to the members of the progressive blogosphere to get them more involved in the campaign?

Cardin: Don’t take Maryland for granted. Maryland, I think most people believe, is a good blue state, but remember we have a Republican Governor, and that this election, the Republicans nationally are going to pour a lot of interest in trying to win this seat. And clearly, the Republican nominee will be a rubber stamp for George Bush.

The Democrats need to be unified, need to be focused on this seat, so at the end of the day, Maryland is on the Democratic side of the Senate and adds to the momentum nationally of changing the direction of the United States Senate.

Look at the issues here in Maryland. We’re going to have a candidate running on the Republican side who’s going to try to reinvent himself, and we have to make sure that people understand what’s at stake in the Maryland Senate race. So therefore I would just urge people to stay tuned and get involved. We need your help.

Singer: And could you speak specifically to the primary as well, because it is a contested primary.

Cardin: The primary is seven weeks before the general. And if we all sit back and don’t do anything and say we’ll wait until the Democrats figure out their primary before we get involved in Maryland, there’s a much better chance that Michael Steele will be the next United States Senator.

The Republicans are working right now. They know who their nominee is and they’re getting involved well before the primary.

Democrats, and those who believe in progressive causes, need to be united earlier. We need to be smarter in the way we run campaigns.

In the state of Maryland, we’ve organized our campaign –I’m only talking about my campaign, because there’s a lot of friends that I know that are running in the primary, and they’re good people – but we’ve organized a campaign that will not only win the primary but will win the general.

We have campaign organizations in every part of Maryland, we have support in every part of Maryland. We not only do extremely well in the base areas, we also do well in the purple areas of Maryland, and we’ll do more competitively in the red areas. We also have raised money, we have put together the campaign team, and I think any objective observer who looks at the primary in Maryland knows that I am the strongest candidate and I stand by my record of accomplishment.

And I do think it’s important to take a side early in the Maryland election and not wait until the primaries are over, because if we do, then we give the Republicans a much better chance of winning the seat.

Singer: Terrific. Thank you so much for your time and good luck with your campaign.

Cardin: Thank you.

[THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.]

My Interview with Rep. Ted Strickland (D-OH)

2006-01-17T22:05:00.000-08:00

On Saturday afternoon, I had the chance to speak over the telephone with Congressman Ted Strickland (D-OH), one of of two leading contenders for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination in the Buckeye state (the other being former Congressman Eric Fingerhut, the party's 2004 senatorial nominee in the state and a current member of the state Senate).

Strickland and I spoke about a range of topics, including his decision to leave the House; the conduct of the 2004 presidential election in Ohio; ethics and lobbying; Medicare; Medicaid; and why the blogosphere should become involved in the race. You can listen to the interview here (warning: a 28.7 megabyte large wav file) or read the rush transcript below.

Jonathan Singer: Despite the fact that you represent one of the most competitive districts in the country, it’s fairly clear that were you to run for reelection to the House, you would win reelection quite handily. So why run for governor now?

Ted Strickland: Leaving the House was a difficult decision for me because I am terribly troubled at national policies being pursued by the Bush administration, and I obviously would like to remain in the House so that at least I could be part of the loyal opposition.

Having said that, the governor’s office in Ohio is terribly important to the future of our state, which is made up over eleven million people, and perhaps to the future of the country, because I believe if the Democrats win the governor’s race in ’06 it makes it much more likely that we will win the presidency in ’08. So I’m running for governor because I feel like I have an obligation to do so.

I think for reasons that are, perhaps, not related to any of my personal qualities or skills or abilities but for reasons related to geography and history and experience and political positioning, I’m the person in Ohio who is most likely to be able to win the governor’s race as a Democrat, and I think that means that I’ve got a responsibility to make the effort.

Singer: Getting a little more in depth into your decision-making process, the Democrats seem to have a shot at retaking the House next year, but the party’s task is made somewhat more difficult by the problems retaining your seat. How much did that play into your decision-making process?

Strickland: I think that we’ll be able to hold this seat. It’s not something that’s assured, certainly, but – I don’t mean to sound arrogant here – but I think the people in my current congressional district have a lot of confidence in me, Republicans and Democrats alike. And I think two things make it more likely that we’ll be able to hold this seat. First of all, I think I can have an influence on who people choose to vote for just by my strong support and endorsement. And secondly, I think if I’m the Democratic nominee for governor, it is likely that Democratic constituencies, supporters or voters, are likely to turn out in that district in very large numbers in support of me, and I think that makes it much more likely that they will retain the Democrat in the House.

[Cell phone interference]

I realize the effort that it’s going to take to hold onto that seat, but I think we will hold that seat.

Singer: Let’s talk a little bit about the 2004 election and election issues in general. There’s a lot of outrage within the blogosphere and the progressive world in general about the way that the 2004 presidential election was run in your state. Some even believe that the election was, in one way or another, taken from the Democrats. What do you think?

Strickland: I think there were purposeful efforts to suppress the vote in different ways. Whether or not they were illegal activities associated with the election, I think it’s hard to know for sure. I think certainly, especially Mr. Blackwell our Secretary of State and the likely Republican nominee for governor, I think he certainly as Secretary of State took actions and made decisions that resulted in a suppressed vote, and I think that very well could have had a significant effect on the final outcome.

Singer: I know you’re not running for Secretary of State, the position that officially has domain over such electoral issues, but what would you do as governor to improve Ohio’s elections?

Strickland: One of the things I’m doing is trying to make sure that in ’06 we not only elect a governor, and I hope that I’m that person, but that we also elect a Secretary of State that has respect for this most precious of our rights as citizens, and that’s to cast a ballot with confidence that it will be accurately counted.

We have a superb candidate for Secretary of State as a Democrat, a woman, former judge whose name is Jennifer Brunner. And as I run for governor, I’m going to do everything I can to make sure that we elect a Secretary of State and an Auditor and a Treasurer and an Attorney General – that we have a slate of candidates that are credible. I think it’s very important that if I’m the nominee for governor that I not only think of my own win but I understand that, as the head of the ticket, that I have a responsibility to try to make sure that the Secretary of State and these other offices are held by credible Democrats.

Singer: I’m calling you from Oregon right now, and here we conduct our elections entirely by mail. Four of your Democratic colleagues have been elected that way in the House. We tend to have some of the highest voter turnout rates in the country. Would you consider pushing for such a system for Ohio?

Strickland: I think we should consider that and every other way to increase voter turnout. I’ve voiced support for at least looking at the possibility of having the voting hours extended, having votes over a two day period of time. I think mail-in voting certainly has worked well in your state and elsewhere. So I think whatever we can do to expand the participation of people while at the same time upholding the integrity of the process we ought to do.

Singer: Let’s move on to the topic of lobbying and ethics. In the past few months, the gritty details of the dealings of Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff have become public, implicating many Republican members of Congress, including one of your fellow Ohio Representatives, Bob Ney. Has this culture of corruption overtaken Washington, or are these just a few bad apples?

Strickland: I think there is a culture of corruption here in Ohio, as well as in Washington, DC, and I think it is due, in part, to the arrogance that comes with extended periods of one-party rule, where there are no real checks and balances, where there is not the opportunity to hold investigative hearings into potential wrongdoing. I think part of it is the result of one-party domination of government for such a long period of time.

But I also think you can’t legislate character. You can be really smart and really politically savvy and be really crooked at the same time. I just think what we’ve seen happen with the Abramoff case – and, quite frankly, it looks now as if Mr. Jefferson, who’s the Democrat from New Orleans, has behaved in a terrible manner. I don’t know if you’ve read that story recently.

So political corruption is something that we ought to find intolerable and we ought to hold political figures to a higher standard of behavior due to the fact that they’re in public office.

It is my hope that what’s happening with the current investigation, and the investigations that are underway in Columbus, Ohio, will result in those who are guilty being exposed and being held accountable. Having worked in a maximum security prison for over ten years, I’ve always been disturbed with the fact that we have different standards of justice and punishment for so-called “white collar” criminals versus those who may engage in other kinds of criminal behavior.

The bottom line is if some of the accusations that we are reading about in the media are true, the people involved, if they’re found guilty, should go to jail. I think that’s an appropriate way of dealing with people who have been given high positions of public trust and then violate that trust in order to enrich themselves.

Singer: Your state, as you referenced, has been home to some of the biggest lobbying problems and corruption issues. Your Republican Governor pled no contest to four misdemeanor counts related to dealings with lobbyists. A very insider Republican, a Bush “pioneer,” in fact, Tim Noe enriched himself, it seems, through public investments and perhaps even laundered money to the Bush campaign. What would you do as governor to clean up Columbus?

Strickland: As I said, you can’t legislate character. I would act honestly and ethically if I were the governor of Ohio, and I will choose people to serve in my administration who see public service as a sacred trust rather than a way to advance themselves or to enrich themselves. I have said over and over that I will be looking for people who have a Peace Corps spirit. I think there are people who are very competent and very skillful and very bright and capable who are anxious to serve for the public good rather than self enrichment. Those are the kind of people that I would identify and place in positions of responsibility.

And then I will hold people accountable, including myself. I’ve been in the Congress for twelve years. I’m really proud of how I’ve served in that Congress. I’ve chosen voluntarily, for example, to pay for all of my healthcare rather than accept subsidized healthcare, which I’m entitled to receive as a Congressman, simply because I represent a lot of people who don’t have access to any healthcare. I have felt that when you’re elected for a term of office that you know what the salary is, so I have returned mid-term pay raises. I have voluntarily taken from my own personal resources and given back over $49,000, nearly $50,000, of resources that I could have personally kept, legitimately and legally kept. But I’ve done those things because I’ve tried to demonstrate to my constituents that I don’t ever want to allow myself to forget what life may be for many of them. As their Representative, I have tried to always remain sensitive to the problems that they are facing in their daily lives, and as governor, I would to make sure that the people of Ohio saw me and came to experience me as someone who did not hold himself in any superior way or place above them, and that while governor is an important position, I would not allow myself to get carried away with myself.

I just think it comes down to the character and the motivation of the person in office, and I have really worked hard not to come close to that ethical line but to stay back from it, because I’ve seen too many of my colleagues get as close to crossing the ethical line as possible without actually stepping over it, and I never want to govern in that kind of way.

Singer: You referenced healthcare issues. Maryland has just enacted legislation –

Strickland: Wall Mart.

Singer: – specifically aimed at Wall Mart, but I suppose for any company with more than 10,000 employees (in the state).

Strickland: It affects only Wall Mart, but it could affect other companies if they fit the criteria that’s in the law.

Singer: Would you consider such a law as governor?

Strickland: I just read about what Maryland has done within the last day or so. I haven’t had a chance to really look at the specifics of the law, but I can tell you I’m intrigued by it.

I have, in the past, supported legislation that would require companies who have employees that are receiving public assistance to be publicly identified as such companies, and that would, in most cases, involve at least Wall Mart and maybe others.

But I think there is a problem when highly profitable companies are paying their employees so little with such few benefits that they’re forced to be recipients of public benefits like Medicaid. So I’m intrigued by what’s been done in Maryland. I don’t want to commit myself specifically what they’ve done without understanding and looking at the specifics of the legislation, but I’m very interested in that. I find it very intriguing. It sounds like something that I would really be interested in pursuing, but I don’t want to say that until I know specifically what’s in the legislation.

Singer: What’s the balance between healthcare and jobs? Some say that forcing a company to provide healthcare would be a disincentive to move into a state, but others would say that putting public resources towards better healthcare in the state would draw in more companies. What’s the correct balance?

Strickland: I think we need a national system that includes everyone, that makes provisions for everyone to have access to quality and affordable healthcare. I say that just to emphasize that I think the ultimate solution to this problem that you’ve identified must be a federal solution.

In the meantime, however – and I think we will ultimately get there because we’re going to be forced to get there because our domestic industries really are being forced into non-competitive situations. In Ohio, the Delphi Corporation recently went into bankruptcy. They’ve been pretty clear that one of their major problems is that their Canadian competitors can undercut them because they don’t have the same horrendous healthcare costs that would face the Delphi Corporation in this country. I think there is a growing awareness that this is a problem that is seriously hurting our economy.

In regard to what can be done at the state level, I think several things can be done, but none of them are sufficient to really solve the problem. I think the state can use its purchasing power to try to bring down the cost of prescription medications, for example, I think the state can use its bargaining power in different ways to reduce costs, and the state can choose to allocate its Medicaid dollars and to match those federal dollars in a more robust manner. But in my judgment, nothing that is possible at the state level will fully speak to the healthcare dilemma that is faced by so many citizens and the business community. I think it ultimately has to be a comprehensive federal program

Singer: One of the real problems that the states are finding with the prescription drug benefit provided through Medicare is that seniors are either not getting the type of coverage that they’ve been promised or they’re being forced to pay more than necessary for the coverage they’re receiving. Is there much that can be done on the state level to fix that, or is this something that you would need to do in the next (few months while you are still in Congress)?

Strickland: I think the so-called “Medicare Reform Bill” that provided for the prescription benefit is a disaster. I think it’s a bill that was written primarily by the pharmaceutical industry. I think it is, for many citizens, worse than no benefit at all. I am appalled at what is being forced upon our seniors.

I was in the committee that that bill went through – the Health subcommittee of the Commerce Committee. I sat through literally hours, probably 40 hours or more of complex discussion and debate on that bill and still find it almost impossible to describe to a senior what plan would be most helpful to them, what plan would cost them the least, what plan may in fact end up costing them more than they are already paying.

So it’s a disastrous piece of legislation. It was the first step towards ultimately privatizing Medicare, as many people on the right would like to see done. As far as I’m concerned, that legislation should be repealed and we should start all over by making prescriptions a part of a traditional Medicare system where seniors could simply pay a reasonable monthly premium and an affordable deductible and have access to medications through the traditional Medicare program.

Unfortunately, Billy Tauzin, who was the chair of our committee, helped force that bill through, left the committee soon thereafter, took on a job that has been reported to pay him about $2 million per year working for the pharmaceutical industry. Tom Scully, who was in charge of the Medicare program at the Department of Health and Human Services, at the same time that bill was passing, Tom Scully was negotiating for a new job. So he left and went to work for the pharmaceutical interests.

So that bill is a pathetic piece of legislation. It was a sellout to the pharmaceutical industries. And I think some very unethical behavior was entered into by Mr. Tauzin and Mr. Tom Scully, and the welfare senior citizen in this country was sold out.

I mean there were provisions in that legislation that you probably know about that specifically prohibit the reimportation of safe drugs from Canada and that specifically prohibits our government from negotiating discounts with the pharmaceutical industry, discounts for our senior population.

So it’s a terrible piece of legislation. It’s just almost unbelievable.

Singer: It would almost be funny if it weren’t so scary that such a bill could pass.

For all of the problems currently facing Medicare, Medicaid seems to be causing even more problems for states, largely because of funding cuts on the federal level. Do you have any thoughts on how to ensure that the most needy in Ohio are able to get healthcare?

Strickland: It’s a huge problem because we just cut billions of dollars out of Medicaid over the next five years while we gave tax cuts to the richest people in this country.

What happened in the budget reconciliation bill that was passed a few weeks ago is immoral; it is, in my judgment, sinful. It’s going to make it increasingly difficult for states to meet the needs of the most vulnerable citizens, in terms of healthcare: children, disabled people, senior citizens. And it’s going to make it tough for governors to meet these most basic needs for the most vulnerable population.

So it’s going to require terrible choices. It will require that some people who are in desperate need of healthcare and are poor and who cannot afford it go without. That is immoral in my judgment.

Over the next several months while I’m still in the House of Representatives, I’m going to be continuing to raise the alarm about what’s happening with Medicaid, and it is my hope that there can be some reversal. I don’t know that it’s possible because the Republican leadership and President George W. Bush not only have a problem with their heads, they have a problem with their hearts. When it comes to poor people and sick people and vulnerable people, they are heard-hearted and they don’t seem to give a damn.

So I think those of us who care about those who are in desperate need of these services must do is continue to expose what’s happening and call attention to what’s being done and then try to still the conscience of our country so that they demand some reversals of these decisions.

Singer: I know you have to run here. There are some other issues that I would have liked to cover: jobs and education… things like that. But let’s just wrap up. Is there anything you’d like to say specifically to members of the blogosphere to get them more involved in your campaign?

Strickland: I’d just like to say to them that much is at stake.

The future of Ohio is important, and our state is suffering under corrupt Republican leadership. But I really believe that if we can win the governor’s race in Ohio in ’06 that we could put in place the kind of political infrastructure that will prevent another electoral disaster in Ohio, and it will make it much more likely that we’ll be able to elect a Democrat to be the next president of this country.

I’m concerned if we don’t start really changing the leadership in our nation soon that we’re going to lose this country as we know it, and that, both domestically and in terms of our foreign policy, that we’re going to experience a disintegration of our standing in the world and of our quality of life here in the good old USA.

Ohio seems to be at the eye of the storm, politically, right now. It’s where the larger political struggle that’s going on across the country may be decided. When they think of the race for Ohio’s next governor, I would like for them to think of the race within the context of what’s happening to the larger country and how best to try to bring some sanity to our political leadership at the national level.

Singer: Well good luck and have a wonderful Martin Luther King Day weekend.

Strickland: I have enjoyed talking to you. I hope we can talk again some time.

Singer: Likewise. I really enjoyed it.

[THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.]

My Interview with Former RI Att. Gen. Sheldon Whitehouse

2005-12-18T23:34:00.000-08:00

For the past several months, former Rhode Island Attorney General Sheldon Whitehouse has been waging a campaign for the Democratic senatorial nomination in the state. Others seeking the office include the incumbent, Republican Lincoln Chafee; Steve Laffey, the conservative Republican mayor of Cranston; and the Secretary of State, Democrat Matt Brown (with whom we spoke last week).

On Friday afternoon, Whitehouse and I spoke over the telephone about a range of topics related to his campaign. I can't seem to upload the interview at this moment, so I hope the rush transcript will suffice.

Jonathan Singer: Many political pundits would say that Lincoln Chafee, just like his father, works with Democrats nearly as often as he does with his own party. Even in a state as blue as Rhode Island, how do you run against someone trying to position himself as an independent?

Sheldon Whitehouse: I think the best way to do it is to let the people of Rhode Island know what the facts are, and they include that Linc Chafee votes with his leadership and with the White House about 80 percent of the time; that he has been a critical vote for them on things like the Republican Medicaid bill that is causing great consternation right now in Rhode Island among seniors having to cope with the confusion that surrounds the new Part D benefit; and that when all is said and done, once he has decided to organize the United States Senate under this right wing Republican leadership, all of his other votes – even if they appear defensible on the surface – are in fact window dressing because this leadership is what is setting the table in the Senate.

I don’t know how he’s going to vote on Judge Alito. If he votes against him, then the people of Rhode Island should look at the circumstance that because of Chafee’s contribution to the Republican majority, there is somebody as right wing as him as a candidate, and he’s responsible for that choice even if he takes a fig leaf vote against him.

Singer: There are issues, as you said, upon which he votes strongly with his party, and those include today’s vote on the PATRIOT Act, which he voted in favor of cloture on the bill. How would you have voted?

Whitehouse: That was very discouraging. For anyone representing the people of Rhode Island, which is a state that takes its civil liberties very seriously and has a very independent tradition, to vote the way he did I think is very, very unfortunate. The PATRIOT Act is riddled with excessive provisions, and the Senate appears to have made a concerted effort to deal with some of those, but instead of the bill that the Senate Judiciary Committee worked on, they’ve tried to railroad this other bill through. I think it’s very excessive in dealing with the difficult question of balance between liberty and security that America constantly has to face.

Singer: Where do you stand on the Murtha resolution, speaking of national defense and issues like that?

Whitehouse: I’ve been in favor of rapid and responsible withdrawal from Iraq throughout this campaign. My personal belief is that we are causing as much or more, in terms security problems by our presence there, than we are gaining through the courageous and dangerous work of so many American soldiers, and that, while we have to be responsible about extracting ourselves, the sooner we are out of Iraq, the better for everyone.

Singer: Your primary opponent Matt Brown says that you’ve shifted your position on that issue. Is that a fair assessment of the history of your stances on Iraq?

Whitehouse: I don’t think so. I have defined what I mean by “rapid,” but my position has always been that there should be a rapid and responsible withdrawal of our troops. What I’ve said is that when I mean “rapid,” I don’t mean tomorrow and I don’t mean three years from now either. I mean that by the end of ’06, I would expect to see most, if not all, of our troops redeployed. And I think that’s been a consistent position. It’s a little bit of a surprise that he would find that to be a substantial change in position considering that he came into the race actively supporting the stay-the-course proposition of the Bush administration himself.

Singer: Getting back to issues of Senator Chafee and his Republican Party. Jack Abramoff, Randy “Duke” Cunningham – a number of corruption/ethics issues swirling around the Republican Party. Earlier this month, Josh Marshall reported that a staffer in Chafee’s office had come up in a number of emails relating to usage of Abramoff’s skybox in the stadium in Washington. How hard are you going to hit this issue of ethics against Republicans, generally, and Chafee, specifically?

Whitehouse: I’ve been a United States Attorney. I’ve been an Attorney General. I’ve lead significant public corruption investigations. And I take the breach of faith that public corruption represents extremely seriously.

A friend of mine who was an extremely highly-placed figure in the Clinton Department of Justice is encouraging me in my race and supporting me. And among the reasons he said to a gathering recently is that we need to have people who have that kind of law enforcement experience down here because when the day comes that the Senate again enjoys Democratic control and the Senate investigative function is no longer being squelched by the Republican monopoly on power, to use the quote, “it is a target-rich environment for Senate investigation.” I very much believe that to be true. I think that the abuse of power and the extreme levels of the Abramoff scandal, at the slightly less extreme but perhaps even more damaging levels of putting incompetent people like “Heckuva Job Brownie” into significant leadership positions at FEMA, and further into the corruption, for instance, at the EPA of its mission to protect the environment by stuffing polluting industry lobbyists into key decision-making positions. I don’t know that we’ve seen anything like it in America before.

Singer: Specifically on the issue of lobbying, your primary opponent Mr. Brown has pointed to his successes as Secretary of State in trying to rein in and reform lobbying in the state. Where do you stack up specifically on that issue?

Whitehouse: I’m not in a position to comment on what my opponent has or hasn’t done as Secretary of State. As I’ve said, I have a very lengthy record of public corruption investigations and I think a strong reputation for integrity in government.

Let me just give you a seconds of background on me to just to give you kind of an appreciation of where I’m coming from. I grew up the son of a Foreign Service officer who was in turn the son of a Foreign Service officer. As a little boy, I can remember being thrown over the wall from our house into the Saudi compound next door because there was rioting going on outside and my mother was scared for the safety of myself and my little brother. My father was at the Embassy trying to cope with things, so that was the decision she made to protect us.

Experiences like that kind of bond you to the government career that your family has embarked on and I am, as a general matter, extraordinarily proud of the American government. I think the American system of government is ultimately the path to peace and prosperity for our world, and that we, in the United States, have consequently a nearly sacred obligation to conduct ourselves in that system of government with the highest level of integrity so that it can in fact be an example that other countries are proud of and follow. That’s kind of my core belief. So anyone who trespasses on that, to me, is damaging something that is very significant, and very special, and I think that kind of conduct is intolerable, and that’s one of the reasons I’m running for this office.

Singer: Are there any local issues – something like a bridge or an Air Force base – that you’re going to specifically point to during your campaign?

Whitehouse: In terms of what?

Singer: I don’t know. Getting more funding for road projects, or improving schools – Rhode Island issues, or local issues.

Whitehouse: I think the most significant issues that we are facing here in Rhode Island are putting together a prescription drug benefit for seniors that does not confuse and frighten them. I can tell you from my travels among seniors and through the senior centers of Rhode Island that they are very confused and often quite frightened by that confusion.

And then making sure that the federal government comes through on the promise that George Bush broke to fund No Child Left Behind so that our public schools don’t have to strip out there arts programs, their music programs, their gifted programs, their honors programs, their science labs – anything that is not essential to the purpose of teaching to the test, as NCLB demands.

Singer: One final question. What would you like to say specifically to members of the liberal blogosphere to get them more involved in the campaign?

Whitehouse: I think the members of the liberal blogosphere have a great opportunity in this Rhode Island case. I think Bob Casey has done a great job in Pennsylvania and looks in a very strong position against Rick Santorum. That’s a seat we can and should take back. It’s my belief that Rhode Island is the second most likely win.

I invite anybody reading or listening to this to go to WhitehouseForSenate.com and participate in our website, which has a running blog. We would be really privileged, and the campaign would be assisted, by people of good faith sharing their views and helping us win this race, because as a lot of people around the country have said, it’s hard to imagine a way to win the Senate back without winning this seat in Rhode Island.

Singer: Terrific. Well thank you so much for your time and good luck.

Whitehouse: Thank you so much for your time. I appreciate this opportunity.

[THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.]

My Interview with RI Sec. of State Matt Brown

2005-12-12T23:23:00.000-08:00

For the past several months, Rhode Island Secretary of State Matt Brown has been waging a campaign for the Democratic senatorial nomination in the state. Others seeking the office include the incumbent, Republican Lincoln Chafee; Steve Laffey, the conservative Republican mayor of Cranston; and the former state Attorney General, Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse (with whom we are arranging an imminent interview).

On Monday morning, Brown and I spoke over the telephone about a range of topics related to his campaign. You can listen to the call here (warning: a 13.5 megabyte mp3), or read the rush transcript.

Jonathan Singer: As Secretary of State, you have instituted some tough regulations on lobbyists. Given the scandals surrounding Jack Abramoff, Randy “Duke” Cunningham and others in the Republican Party, to what extent will lobbying reform play in your campaign?

Matt Brown: It’s an important part of our campaign and, more importantly, it’s an important part of what I want to do after we win the election. I’ll tell you a little bit about the experience we had here and how it will translate to Washington.

When I came into office, a scandal came to light. The chairman of the Health Senate Committee was getting paid hundreds of thousands of dollars by the big healthcare companies to block healthcare reform from even coming to a vote. And meanwhile, Rhode Islanders, like people across the country, were paying skyrocketing rate increases every year for their healthcare. People were losing healthcare coverage.

I saw that the problem was that it was possible for these kind of payments to be made by lobbyists to elected officials because the lobbyists weren’t disclosing the expenditures they were making, and that if they were forced to disclose those expenditures, of course they wouldn’t get away with these kind of payoffs to elected officials for favors.

So we did two things. One is we closed the loopholes in the lobbying law and required that lobbyists disclose all of their expenditures, not just sum up the expenditures that had been previously itemized in the law. It required them to disclose all their expenditures.

We put those reports up online so the public could see them for the first time without having to come sift through files. But equally important to strengthening the law, we got much tougher than my predecessor had been on enforcing the law. We wrote them letters, we called them – the lobbyists, that is – to demand that they actually comply and fill out these forms that disclose this information. When they didn’t, I personally called them and also went on to the floor of the House and the Senate and tracked these lobbyists down and told them they had to disclose this information.

We got most people to do it, just through perseverance and effort. But there were still some that did not disclose after that, so we, for the first time, posted the names of these delinquent lobbyists who failed to file their information on our website, so the public could see who was not complying with the regulations. And, of course, the press wrote about it, and now we have full disclosure in this state. Hopefully, that will prevent the kind of corruption that we had in the state in the past.

And we see, as I’m running now for Senate, the same kinds of problems that we had here in Rhode Island taking place in Washington, where lobbyists are not disclosing expenditures they’re making, they’re not disclosing which bills they’re even working on, they’re not disclosing their interactions with elected officials. Because of that, they’re getting away with wielding undue influence over our elected officials, and I want to bring a stop to that.

Singer: Specific to the campaign, while there have been allegations against a number of members of the Republican Party in Congress – certainly Randy “Duke” Cunningham comes to mind. Lincoln Chafee hasn’t been explicitly tied to lobbying problems. Do you think you’ll still hammer away at his connection to the Republican Party, or will this be more of a general issue?

Brown: The problem with lobbying in Washington is that the system is broken, and it’s broken for two reasons. One is that there’s very little enforcement – nearly no enforcement – of the current requirements for lobbyists to disclose their activities. And secondly, the regulations as they stand aren’t strong enough.

So it’s a similar problem to what we had in Rhode Island when I came into office, and it requires a similar fix. We need to strengthen the laws and require more disclosure by lobbyists, full disclosure. One of the things that I called for in my proposal is that the lobbyists file disclosure reports monthly. Now they only file them twice a year. You file only twice a year, you could have already influenced legislation, gotten it passed, before the public even has a chance to hold you accountable for your activities and interactions with elected officials. So we require monthly disclosure to provide much more oversight of the lobbyists activities.

We call for real enforcement. Right now, it’s the fox guarding the henhouse. You have entities that work for the Senate and the House overseeing the regulation lobbying activities with Senators and Congresspeople. So we call for granting the Justice Department the authority to enforce the lobbying regulations, as they do currently with foreign lobbyists. The Justice Department has the teeth and the muscle to actually hold these lobbyists accountable for their wrongdoing.

The third thing we do is extend the window, from one year to two years, in which elected officials and senior staff can waltz through that revolving door and become high-paying lobbyists. And the reason, of course, is that we want to prevent what we see now in Washington, which is members of Congress making decisions not for the good of the public but in the hope that when they get out of office they may be rewarded with a high-paid lobbying job.

[Cross-chatter over microphone level]

Singer: In your role as Secretary of State, you’ve worked hard to ensure that everyone votes and that every vote is counted. As Senator, what will you do to continue this?

Brown: We need to strengthen the Help America Vote Act and we need to make sure the federal government does what it was supposed to do over a year ago as a part of the Help America Vote Act, which is to set national standards for the improvement and conduct of elections in this country.

The Help America Vote Act was a response to the disasters of the Florida election. What happened with the Florida elections that it exposed, not just a problem in Florida, but a problem in states and counties and towns across the country, which is that our elections were deeply flawed, our election systems were deeply flawed. Machines not working, registrations not being counted properly, votes not being counted properly, people not being told the right place to vote – all kinds of problems in the model democracy for the world.

So the Help America Vote Act was passed to provide some funds to help solve those problems, but also to set standards for the kind of voting machines we need to have, the way to count ballots, all sorts of areas that require clear standards. The people in Washington failed to set those standards.

Here in my state, I went ahead and set very high standards for us here in Rhode Island and implemented the Act, and actually have created one of the first state-of-the-art central voter registry systems in the country, which is really the cornerstone of the strong and accurate election system – to have an accurate, computerized, updated, fraud-proof voter list. And I ran a program called R.I. Vote to increase voter turnout, including making it easier for men and women serving abroad to register to vote.

So we went ahead here and did a lot of things to improve the conduct of elections, but there are places around the country, I know, where those improvements have not been made. And it’s really a failure of the leadership in Washington to set the standards of elections.

[Cross-chatter over time remaining]

Singer: Let’s move directly to the primary campaign, some specific questions there. Your opponent, Sheldon Whitehouse, has been endorsed by the state’s two Democratic Congressmen and has more cash-on-hand than you, almost by a 2:1 margin. Can you win the Democratic nomination?

Brown: Absolutely. I’ve got a great family, I have a new baby. I wouldn’t be doing this unless I believed that we were going to win this race. There are a lot of other things in life that I enjoy doing. I’m not going to run a campaign unless I am confident that we’re going to win it.

And we’re going to win it similar to how we won my race last time. I challenged the entire political establishment in my state against a corrupt local political machine. They threw everything they had at us. And I beat the incumbent in a primary with 58 percent of the vote and won the general election with 68 percent of the vote. Now that, as you know, was the same primary in which my current primary opponent ran for governor with the full backing of the establishment and lost the primary with 38 percent of the vote.

What wins these elections in the end is earning the confidence of the voters. We have over 1,000 people signed on to my campaign committee, people from all across this state of all different backgrounds. And the reason why people are getting involved in my race and the reason we’re going to win this is that people know that the crowd that we’ve had in office for all these years hasn’t gotten the job done. That’s why people can’t find a decent school for their kids, they can’t afford their healthcare, they can’t afford to heat their homes.

So they know that we need a very different kind of leadership. They know the fact that I spent most of my adult life working directly in communities, in neighborhoods with people is a good, an important kind of experience to bring to the United States Senate, because I understand what’s going on in people’s lives.

They know the fact that, as Secretary of State, I have fought some of the most powerful interest groups – not just in the state, but in the country, including the Bush administration, to make it possible for Rhode Islanders to buy their prescription drugs from Canada; including the lobbyists; including the healthcare companies, to get an Insurance Commissioner in our state and oversee the rising healthcare costs.

And they know that this is the kind of leadership that we need in Washington, leadership that does not wait for permission from the establishment or from the interest groups to do things, but leadership that does what is right no matter how tough the pressure. And they know from my record that’s what I’ll do, and that’s why we’re going to win this race.

Singer: Do we have time for one more quick question?

[Cross-chatter over time remaining]

Brown: What’s your last question?

Singer: I just wanted to know if you had anything specific to the blogosphere about the campaign.

Brown: I’d say get involved, pay attention to it. It’s not early anymore. This is a major race. This has been identified as one of best chances we have in the country to win a Senate seat back.

Don’t wait. This really begins now. Really, the beginning of the year is when this campaign gets into high gear. This is a seat we should win, we need to win – this is a 4:1 Democrat state – and we need people all around the country to get involved, speak out, help us, come out here, feet on the street.

I know that there’s a lot of talent and a lot of energy, a lot of commitment and conviction out there in the blogosphere, and we want all of it involved in our race.

Singer: Terrific. Well thank you so much and good luck.

Brown: OK. Take care.

[THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.]

My Inteview with Congressman Sherrod Brown

2005-12-05T21:33:00.000-08:00

This weekend, Congressman Sherrod Brown officially launched his bid for the Democratic senatorial nomination in the state of Ohio. As a part of this push, Brown wanted to not only to address Ohio voters but also speak with the liberal blogosphere. On Monday afternoon, Brown and I spoke over the telephone about a number of issues related both to the general election and the primary. You can listen to the call here (warning: a 15.5 megabyte mp3), or read the rush transcript.

Jonathan Singer: In your first congressional campaign in 1992, you took a 200-mile bicycle tour of your district to trumpet your campaign. What’s the likelihood of seeing something like that again this year, maybe statewide?

Sherrod Brown: We will, I’m sure, do creative things to get our message out. Part of the issue here is I have a full-time job in Washington during the week and will have less time to travel the roads of this state on a bicycle or walking, or something like that. I think that we’re going to be creative enough through use of the blogs, through radio and the fact that I’m going to speak out decisively and strongly on issues that I think we are going to get the media attention that we need to get our message out.

Singer: In order to get that message out, you’re going to need to get some sort of parity, or at least somewhere close to parity, on the fundraising side. I know that during that 1992 campaign, you were outspent by roughly a 1.8:1 margin, but still pulled off victory. Right now, Mike DeWine has about a 1.8:1 cash-on-hand advantage. Do you think you will be able to pull off the same success despite the dollar lead of his?

Brown: Yeah. First of all, if we have enough money, it doesn’t matter how much he spends, because we need enough to get our message out. That’s our goal. I don’t need to outspend him. I know that the drug industry will spend two or three million dollars against me, separate from what Mike DeWine spends. I expect the oil industry, probably insurance companies, to spend another million or so each. They will come into this state spending millions of dollars under a different name. They aren’t going to say, “The drug companies just beat up Sherrod Brown in an ad,” they’re going to say, “Paid for by ‘Citizens for Better Medicare’” or some group like that. That’s the way they’ll hide, that’s the way they’ll mask their coming in and running these sleazy attack ads because I stand up to the drug company on the Medicare bill, and the insurance industry, and stood up to the oil interests on the energy bill.

But I’m not concerned about it – I’d rather they didn’t, of course – but I’m not so concerned about it as long as we have enough money to get our message out. My message is going to be strong enough that I think it’s going to cut through a lot of the noise of typical political ads. We’re going to be creative, we’re going to be bold. We’re going to say, “Who’s side are you on? Do you want a Senator who’s on the side of the drug industry and the side of the insurance companies, that does the oil companies’ bidding, that does whatever President Bush wants? Or do you want a Senator that’s going to represent your interests rather than those of the drug companies and the President of the United States, regardless of party?”

Singer: I’ll get back to the prescription drug bill in a minute, but Mike DeWine raised roughly a million dollars for his son’s special election campaign, and there were wide reports of his twisting arms of lobbyists and the business community to raise money for his son. So he was really able to pull that money out of there. Are you going to hammer away at that kind of deep connection to lobbyists?

Brown: I don’t know. I’ve heard complaints from people who said that Mike DeWine put the arm on them for his son. But rather than talk about his fundraising, I’d much rather talk about Mike DeWine being an obedient servant, if you will, to the President of the United States. When the President said we’re going to attack Iraq, Mike DeWine essentially said, “Whatever you say, boss.” When George Bush said, “I want to privatize Social Security,” Mike DeWine said, “I’m already there, Mr. President. I’ve already introduced a bill.” When George Bush told Mike DeWine and the Senate that he wanted to push through an outsourcing agreement with Central America to cut costs for large corporations, Mike DeWine was one of his chief cheerleaders.

Those are the issues I’m going to talk about, more than Mike DeWine twisting arms for his son’s campaign. I think there are connections between those oil interests and drug companies and… I’m not saying Mike DeWine votes that way because he gets drug company money, but I do say that the drug companies write big checks to Mike DeWine and say, “Well done, faithful servant.”

Singer: How much do you think you’ll bring in the conviction of Governor Taft and investigations into Bob Ney and Deborah Pryce into this election?

Brown: I think the public wants to clean house in Ohio. They’ve had enough of the culture of corruption. But they’ve also had enough of the failures of the Bush-Taft-DeWine team on education, higher education, primary and secondary education; the failures of the Bush-Taft-DeWine team on healthcare, the cost of prescription drugs, the cost of energy; and enough of the Bush-Taft-DeWine team on job loss. We’ve lost 200,000 manufacturing jobs alone in my state during Mike DeWine’s second term, during George Bush’s two terms. I think the voters have had enough of that.

We’re going to talk about issues. We’re going to talk about what they’ve done wrong. We’re also going to talk very prescriptively, very boldly about what we should do instead, on trade agreements, on the cost of prescription drugs, on healthcare, on education.

Singer: You brought up a lot of national issues. You also brought up the local issue of jobs. What other local issues will you be bringing to the table in this election cycle?

Brown: Local issues we’ll talk about… I guess I haven’t thought through the local issues as much. We’ll talk in terms of education…

Let me answer it this way, Jonathan. In Ohio, or any other state, what the federal government does on issues like Medicaid, education, economic development – especially manufacturing – has so much impact on state government and what states are doing, too. We need a cooperation that George Bush and Bob Taft aren’t very good at, a cooperation on Medicaid, on revitalizing manufacturing, on education.

The state government increases tuition for higher ed. way beyond what they should. At the same time the federal government in Mike DeWine and George Bush cut student loans and grants. So education is not affordable for middle class kids in Ohio in Ohio’s state universities, and the loans and grants are inaccessible because of federal inaction or because of federal decisions.

That cooperation is so important, and Bob Taft and Mike DeWine – even though they’re part of the same leadership team. They seem to do nothing to help one another.

Singer: Just a few more issues before we briefly move on to the primary itself. You brought up the Medicare prescription drug bill. I think it was The New York Times that had an article in the last couple of days talking about a backlash, especially in “purple” areas of the country: seniors not knowing what they need to do, or being left out, or the prices really not coming down in the new program. You voted no, Mike DeWine voted yes. Is there any way to fix it? And what would you do if you were elected to Washington to fix it?

Brown: The first thing that George Bush and Mike DeWine have to do is end their addiction to drug company money. Once you do that, then you can put on the table all of the issues that we need to address to bring down the cost of prescription drugs.

There is a prohibition in the Medicare drug bill on allowing the government to negotiate drug prices on the behalf of 30 million or 40 million Medicare beneficiaries. That’s the most important change to make. But the drug industry is not going to let their acolytes – those elected officials they’ve helped so much – make any major changes that might in some ways make a dent in drug company profits.

Singer: Looking at the tax cut bill, the House version hasn’t come to the floor, so you haven’t had a chance to vote on that version yet. But Mike DeWine voted yes to the Senate’s version. George Voinovich and two other Republicans voted no for a number of reasons, including increases to the deficit. With the growing deficit, would you be voting yes or no on this upcoming House vote? Or what would you be doing different on taxes?

Brown: I’ll vote no on that. When we have a budget deficit like this, when we’re spending a billion and a half dollars a week in Iraq, when the President is cutting programs that affect working families, middle class families, that affect the poor, we have no business giving tax cuts to the wealthiest one percent of the country, and that’s what this bill does.

Singer: Where do you stand on the Murtha resolution? Not the fake Murtha resolution that came up, but the real Murtha plan, that he laid out?

Brown: I have sponsored legislation – I’m not sure when we introduced it, three months ago, maybe; most of us who sponsored this legislation had voted against the original war resolution – that would say that the President must submit to Congress and the American people by December 31st a winning exit strategy, and that troop withdrawal must begin October 1st – but an orderly, safe troop withdrawal must begin by October 1st of 2006.

That’s the direction I think we should go. It’s pretty clear to me when I hear Condoleezza Rice say that she believes we’re going to be in Iraq ten more years, that we need to act and begin to get our troops out, partly because it’s so divisive for our country, partly because we have seen that this war is costing a billion and a half dollars a week, and partly because, as we saw in the recent 9/11 report, this war is breeding more terrorism and making us more unsafe as a nation.

Singer: Let’s look at the primary, just briefly. This is the place where the blogosphere is very impassioned on one side or the other. Here’s the difficult question: Why did it take so long to make the decision to jump in the race?

Brown: I was not working on any politician’s timetable when I made the decision to run. The first six months of the year, I devoted my entire professional life to the defeat of the Central American Free Trade Agreement. We lost by one vote – two votes, technically, one vote in reality (if one vote had switched it would have been defeated). It passed in the middle of the night only after the President cut all kinds of deals and made all kinds of promises to members, all kinds of pork, whatever they did.

Then during the next couple of months, I told Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer I could not say yes on their timetable. I needed more time. I had some family issues, which I’m not going to discuss, with my daughters and my wife, and just where we were in our personal lives at that time. And I was not able to make that decision, and told Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer I couldn’t by their timetable in August. If that meant they needed an answer, then the answer was no at that time.

By October, my one daughter had gotten married, my other two daughters were either back in school or back in work, and my wife’s work situation was such that we could go forward and make this race. And I plan to win.

Singer: One of the big issues that separates your competitor Paul Hackett from Mike DeWine is the issue of gun control, and a lot people think that that’s an issue that he might be able to siphon off some Republican votes, because Mike DeWine is more supportive of gun control laws. How do you stack up on that front? Do you think you’ll be able to capitalize on the discontent on the right like Paul Hackett might be able to?

Brown: I think that my position on hunting and fishing, and my advocacy for conservation and access to lands, and clean water issues and environmental, but especially conservation issues… What I’ve worked on in my time in the Health and Environment Subcommittee, and my work on issues of conservation and the environmentally, generally, make my candidacy attractive to grandfathers who want to take their grandkids fishing.

I grew up working on a farm. I don’t hunt myself, or fish myself. I’ve gone fishing from time to time, but I’m not a regular fisherman by a long shot. That’s the kind of family values that are important: that grandparents can take their grandsons and granddaughters canoeing and fishing. I like whitewater rafting. I’ve done things like that. As I said, I don’t hunt or fish. But I think I can talk passionately as a Senate candidate about what the outdoors means to people, and I want to encourage people to do that.

Singer: And if there’s just one more thing that you’d like to tell the host of members of the blogosphere who are very strongly in support of Paul Hackett? What would you want to tell them to bring them into the fold, whether it’s during the primary or the (general election)?

Brown: I was an early opponent of the Iraq War. I’ve had one consistent position on the Iraq War. I’m not critical Paul as a person by a long shot, but Paul has taken at least three different positions on the Iraq War.

But most importantly, I’ve been a standup progressive elected official with a proven record of fighting corruption in this country and of fighting for economic and social justice. I’ve proven that I will stand up no matter what criticism I get, on the war, on trade issues. I’ll stand up to the drug companies, stand up to the oil industry. There’s no doubt that I’ll do that in the Senate. I proved that as Secretary of State.

When I was Secretary of State in the 1980s, people in Ohio knew that their vote counted, they know that the elections would be fair, and they knew that they had a Secretary of State that wanted them to vote, to go out and register to vote, to encourage people to vote, not a Secretary of State about whom nobody has any confidence. That shows the kind of public official I’ve been

Singer: Well, terrific. Thank you so much for your time, and good luck.

Brown: Thanks, Jonathan. Thanks for what you’re doing.

Singer: You’re welcome. Have a great day.

[THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.]

Site News

2005-11-17T08:31:00.000-08:00

This week, I accepted an offer to become the chief weekend blogger at MyDD.com, a leading political weblog that consistently receives 30,000 or more pageviews every day, or about 20,000 daily readers. Starting tomorrow, I will be writing for MyDD every Friday, Saturday and Sunday, providing analysis primarily on campaigns and elections.

Naturally, this will decrease the amount of time that I will have to devote to Basie!. But this is not the only new item in my life.

In addition to the increased workload that is expected of student towards the end of every semester and the added responsibilities required of seniors, I am preparing to take the LSAT in order to apply for law school, an endeavor that both asks for, and deserves, more of my focus. As a result, for the time being, I am going to have to drastically curtail my activities on this blog.

Basie! has been going strong now for more than a year and a half, a period that has seen over 3,200 posts, including interviews with four major party presidential candidates, two Congressmen, two Governors, ten Senators, and many more politicians and journalists. During this time, Basie! has received nearly 115,000 page views, and has been mentioned in some of the most influential political websites, including National Journal's The Hotline and Daily Kos.

I could not have achieved any of this without the support of you, the reader. I am both thankful and humbled by the response you have given to this site over the past several months.

I hope that you would consider revisiting this site if and when I resume my stewardship in earnest -- perhaps as early as a month from now. In addition, I hope you will consider making the move with me to MyDD tomorrow.

Once again, thank you for your continued support of Basie!

Who Leaked to Woodward?

2005-11-16T22:01:00.000-08:00

Yesterday, The Washington Post's duo of Jim VandeHei and Carol D. Leonnig set off somewhat of a firestorm with a front page article reporting that The Post's Assistant Managing Editor Bob Woodward had testified in the Plame investigation that he had been the recipient of the leak -- but not from Scooter Libby. The New York Times' Todd S. Purdum does some further reporting on the story and comes up with the following:

The disclosure that a current or former Bush administration official told Bob Woodward of The Washington Post more than two years ago that the wife of a prominent administration critic worked for the C.I.A. threatened Wednesday to prolong a politically damaging leak investigation that the White House had hoped would soon be contained.

[...]

Mr. Woodward said he provided sworn testimony to Mr. Fitzgerald on Monday, only after his original source went to the prosecutor to disclose their two-year-old conversation. But because Mr. Woodward said that source had still not authorized him to disclose his or her name, he set off a frantic new round of guessing about who that source might be and a wave of public denials by spokesmen for possible suspects.

A senior administration official said that neither President Bush himself, nor his chief of staff, Andrew H. Card Jr., nor his counselor, Dan Bartlett, was Mr. Woodward's source. So did spokesmen for former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell; the former director of central intelligence, George J. Tenet; and his deputy, John E. McLaughlin.

A lawyer for Karl Rove, the deputy White House chief of staff who has acknowledged conversations with reporters about the case and remains under investigation, said Mr. Rove was not Mr. Woodward's source.

Mr. Cheney did not join the parade of denials. A spokeswoman said he would have no comment on a continuing investigation. Several other officials could not be reached for comment.

Editor & Publisher reads the Purdum story as follows.

In an article for Thursday's New York Times, reporter Todd Purdum, through the process of elimination, leaves Vice President Cheney still standing as a high ranking Bush administration official who has not denied being Bob Woodward's newly revealed key source in the Plame/CIA leak case.

This would certainly add some credence to the theory that Libby's alleged perjury and obstruction of justice were attempts to inhibit the special prosecutor from reaching Cheney with the probe.

Menendez Increases Push for Senate Appointment

2005-11-16T17:55:00.000-08:00

With Democratic Sen. Jon Corzine's victory in the New Jersey gubernatorial election last week, the Governor-elect is faced with a major decision: who to pick as his replacement in the Senate. As Chris Cillizza reports over at The Washington Post's political blog The Fix, one possible appointee is already ramping up his campaign.

It's no secret that New Jersey Rep. Bob Menendez (D) wants to serve out the remaining year of Gov-elect Jon Corzine's term in the Senate. Menendez's public courtship of Corzine took a step forward Wednesday afternoon when a national Hispanic organization issued letters to two party leaders urging Menendez's appointment to the Senate.

The National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials sent nearly identical letters to Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) and Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Chairman Charles Schumer (N.Y.) making the case for Menendez. "As Senate Democratic leader, we urge your leadership and influence in ensuring the appointment" of Menendez, wrote NALEO executive director Arturo Vargas in the missive to Reid.

Vargas added a warning if Menendez is passed over for the opening. "We are also committed to holding Democrat and Republican Party leaders accountable when they fail to recognize the growing Latino political clout and relegated qualified candidates to the back of the line," he wrote.

The letter is the latest in what is expected to be a series of public endorsements of Menendez to create the impression that his appointment is inevitable. It also shows that should Corzine pass over Menendez, he (as well as the party nationally) could face a backlash among Latinos -- the nation's fastest-growing voting bloc.

If Menendez gets Corzine's nod, he's still likely to face a primary challenge next June and a tough GOP candidate in the fall.

To some campaign watchers, New Jersey is now the Democrats' most endangered seat. The presumptive Republican candidate in next year's election, Tom Kean, is the son of an extremely popular former Republican Governor and appears to be free of the ethical problems that have plagued members of both parties in the state. Within the Democratic Party, there are quite a few pols interested in making the step up to the Senate.

Menendez, no doubt, would be a strong candidate for the Democrats. He has over $4 million on hand and, perhaps more importantly, would indicate to Hispanic voters across the country that the Democratic Party is very interested in their support. However, Menendez does have ties to a political machine, which could be a major drawback. Whether the first two attributes trump the third is one of the major questions that Corzine will have to weigh in the next few weeks.

For more on the race, check out this previous post entitled "Corzine Considers African American Woman as Replacement."

Oil Execs Asked to Clarify Discredited Testimony

2005-11-16T17:41:00.000-08:00

With gasolene prices still near historic highs, oil companies and their executives are not particularly popular among voters, and today's news from The Washington Post's Dana Milbank and Justin Blum doesn't make either of the two look any better.

A White House document shows that executives from big oil companies met with Vice President Cheney's energy task force in 2001 -- something long suspected by environmentalists but denied as recently as last week by industry officials testifying before Congress.

The document, obtained this week by The Washington Post, shows that officials from Exxon Mobil Corp., Conoco (before its merger with Phillips), Shell Oil Co. and BP America Inc. met in the White House complex with the Cheney aides who were developing a national energy policy, parts of which became law and parts of which are still being debated.

In a joint hearing last week of the Senate Energy and Commerce committees, the chief executives of Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron Corp. and ConocoPhillips said their firms did not participate in the 2001 task force. The president of Shell Oil said his company did not participate "to my knowledge," and the chief of BP America Inc. said he did not know.

[...]

The executives were not under oath when they testified, so they are not vulnerable to charges of perjury; committee Democrats had protested the decision by Commerce Chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) not to swear in the executives. But a person can be fined or imprisoned for up to five years for making "any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or representation" to Congress.

As H. Josef Hebert reports for the AP, some members of Congress are unhappy about being mislead.

The chief executives of five major oil companies were asked Wednesday to clarify their recent Senate testimony about the companies' involvement in Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force four years ago.

Sens. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., and Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., made the request in letters to the executives after a published report said officials from four of the companies visited the White House complex in early 2001 to discuss energy issues with task force staff members.

[...]

Domenici, chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said he sent a letter to the oil company executives seeking clarifications that would resolve any "apparent inconsistencies" in their testimony. He was joined in the letter by Bingaman, the energy panel's ranking Democrat.

[...]

Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., and five other Democrats asked Domenici to recall the executives and require them this time to testify under oath.

It's not hard to imagine today's news becoming the center of an ad campaign next year.

Bill Clinton: Invading Iraq was "Big Mistake"

2005-11-16T15:10:00.000-08:00

Former President Bill Clinton had some strong words to say about American involvement in Iraq during a speech delivered today in the Middle East. The Associated Press has the story.

Former President Clinton told Arab students Wednesday the United States made a "big mistake" when it invaded Iraq, stoking the partisan debate back home over the war.

Clinton cited the lack of planning for what would happen after Saddam Hussein was overthrown.

"Saddam is gone. It's a good thing, but I don't agree with what was done," Clinton told students at a forum at the American University of Dubai.

"It was a big mistake. The American government made several errors ... one of which is how easy it would be to get rid of Saddam and how hard it would be to unite the country."

While this statement is certainly meaningful in and of itself, it should not be viewed outside of the context of Hillary Clinton's (assumed) bid for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination.

For many Democrats, Hillary Clinton's longstanding vocal support for the Iraq War has been the greatest determinant of their opposition to her candidacy. On Tuesday, however, Senator Clinton broke with Iraq hawks from both parties by voting in favor of Carl Levin's amendment, which Republicans said would have mandated a timetable for withdrawal. One day later, her husband calls the Iraq War a "big mistake."

While these actions by the Clintons might not be enough to quell the concerns of the significant portion of the Democratic Party -- and indeed the nation -- that has serious misgivings about the War in Iraq, they seem to indicate a noticeable, however slight, shift in Senator Clinton's stance towards the war. And I would not be surprised to seem more of this in the coming weeks and months.

Bush's Approval Continues Fall in Many States

2005-11-16T11:31:00.000-08:00

SurveyUSA has released its November polling (accidentally perhaps -- you must click each state's tracking graph to see the new numbers), and once again, the situation looks grim for the President. A majority of voters in only three states -- Utah, Idaho and Wyoming -- approve of the President, with Bush scoring exactly a 50 percent approval rating in Mississippi. Voters in Nebraska and Oklahoma are divided on the President, a plurality of Alabamans disapprove of President Bush and exactly 50 percent of Alaskans disapprove of the President. In every other stat -- 42 in all -- a majority of voters disapprove of the President.

Residents of Utah and Idaho are currently the most supportive of the President with 59 percent of voters in each state voicing approval (note that Bush's approval is not above 60 percent in any state). Rhode Islanders are the least supportive of President Bush, giving him a mere 26 percent approval (with New Yorkers' 27 percent not far behind).

President Bush's approval rating has ticked up in a handful of "blue" states on the coasts, including Massachusetts, Maine, Washington, Oregon and California (though none of these increases are statistically significant). However, the President has lost substantial support in some of the "reddest" states, including 6 percent more disapproving in Alabama, 5 percent more disapproving in both North Dakota and Montana, and 7 percent more in Kentucky.

We'll have more data on the poll as it comes out...

Campaign 2006

2005-11-16T09:16:00.000-08:00

Florida

Yesterday we noted recent polling from Quinnipiac University showing the leading Democratic gubernatorial candidate, Rep. Jim Davis, ahead of the two leading Republican candidates for governor in head-to-head matchups. In response to these numbers, Hotline on Call's Marc Ambinder writes, "the Q-poll has a shaky track record in FL, but the numbers are a confidence booster, and Republicans aren't disputing them." Now, a second poll -- from Rasmussen Reports -- finds almost exactly the same results.

Florida Governor Jeb Bush has a 60% Job Approval Rating but term limits prevent him from seeking another term. The race to be Florida's next Governor is a toss-up at this time.

Democrat Jim Davis is tied with Republican Tom Gallagher in a hypothetical match-up for Election 2006. Both Davis and Gallagher earn 40% of the vote.

When Davis is matched against Charley Crist, he leads the Republican 41% to 38%. In January, Rasmussen Reports will begin polling on the Republican Primary between Crist and Gallagher.

At the beginning of the year, this was a race that few political analysts expected to be competitive. Although Florida is still a battleground state on the Presidential level, it currently has only one statewide elected Democrat (Senator Bill Nelson). So it looks like the Democrats shouldn't write off Florida quite yet -- because if ever the party needed a big win in the South, now is that time.

Indiana

In 2004, Rep. Baron Hill (D-IN) was one of only a handful of House members to be defeated in a reelection bid. Hill, who is running to reclaim his seat in next year's election against the man who beat him last year, is briefly profiled today by the Associated Press.

Former Rep. Baron Hill said he will run to reclaim his seat after narrowly losing last year to Republican Mike Sodrel.

The Democrat was the first incumbent in Indiana to lose a congressional race in a decade. Sodrel, who owned and operated trucking companies, won the 9th District by fewer than 1,500 votes and plans to run for a second term.

[...]

Hill, 51, served three terms in Congress. Sodrel had also attempted to defeat him in a close race in 2002, losing by only 5 percent of the vote.

If Sodrel could only defeat Hill by 1,500 votes when George W. Bush carried the district with 59 percent of the vote, how will he do next year when a) he doesn't have the up-ticket help, and b) the President is increasingly unpopular, even in "red" states like Indiana?

Moderate GOP Rep. Calls for New Leadership Elections

2005-11-16T08:48:00.000-08:00

Moderate have been causing the Republican Party quite a bit of trouble in the past few weeks, particularly since the November 8 elections in which the Democrats won in both "blue" states and "red" states.

In the Senate, Olympia Snowe (R-ME) forced Finance Chair Chuck Grassley (R-IA) to drastically scale back tax cuts, and in the House, a group of moderate Republicans forced the party leadership to strip a provision that would have allowed oil companies to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve.

Now, as the Manchester Union Leader reports, a leading moderate Republican Congressman is calling for new leadership elections in the House.

Five-term Republican Rep. Charles Bass said this week his party’s leaders in the House of Representatives are more concerned about their own pet projects than the GOP’s "fundamental principles."

Bass, co-chair of a group of about 35 moderate House Republicans called the "Tuesday Group," is calling for new elections in leadership next year "so we have a fresh slate of officers outside of the speaker for the next session of the Congress."

[...]

"I’m not starting a movement. I’m not leading a revolution," Bass said. "I’m just stating an opinion."

Although Bass might say that he's neither "starting a movement" nor "leading a revolution," his actions speak otherwise. The Republican Party has been able to govern with a relatively small majority in both Houses because partisan unity has trumped the priorities of individual members. But when GOP Congressmen begin to undercut the party leadership, both through legislative acts (like ANWR) or caucus activities (like calling for new leadership elections), party unity is greatly threatened. And then, all of the sudden, it becomes much more difficult to govern.

Quote of the Day

2005-11-15T22:25:00.000-08:00

"The Bush administration must understand that each American has a right to question our policies in Iraq and should not be demonized for disagreeing with them."

-- Republican Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, strongly criticizing President Bush's recent broadside on those who have questioned the American policy in Iraq

Link.

Specter Cuts Pork, Diverts Funds to Liberal Programs

2005-11-15T19:23:00.000-08:00

A number of Senators are unhappy with Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA), and this time it's not conservative Republicans disappointed in his actions as Judiciary Chairman. Alexander Bolton has the story for The Hill.

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), has angered colleagues facing reelection in 2006 by cutting $1 billion in pet projects from his subcommittee’s spending bill to pay for programs popular with Democrats and centrist Republicans.

Historically, the labor, health and human services, and education bill is one of the most project-loaded of the annual spending bills, say congressional observers who track what they denounce as pork-barrel spending.

A senior GOP aide said yesterday that members of the appropriations committee who are facing election next year are balking at Specter’s plan to cut their projects. Specter is chairman of the Senate Appropriations Labor, Health, and Human Services (HHS) and Education Subcommittee.

[...]

Rep. Ralph Regula (R-Ohio), chairman of the House Labor, Health and Human Services Appropriations Subcommittee, who, like Specter, is a centrist Republican, agreed to the $1 billion in project cuts after it became clear that Senate negotiators would not support the bill otherwise, said a House GOP aide familiar with the negotiations. Regula is a member of the Main Street Republican Partnership, a coalition of Senate and House Republican centrists.

[...]

The savings will be used to pay for the fight against the global spread of AIDS; to increase funding for LIHEAP, the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program; and to fund new construction of health-preparedness facilities at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), said a House GOP aide familiar with the legislation.

In April 2004, Specter lamented moderate Republicans' loss of power in recent years for a profile by The New Yorker's Philip Gourevitch.

“When I came to the Senate, we had a lot of members of the Wednesday Club”—a weekly gathering of Republican moderates. “You had Lowell Weicker, you had Bob Stafford, you had Bob Packwood, you had Mark Hatfield, you had [John] Chafee, you had John Danforth, you had Jim Jeffords, you had John Heinz. Now there are only a few of us. And it’s important. When Joe Biden needs a co-sponsor, he comes to Arlen Specter. That kind of balance is really important for the country. It’s more than the soul of the Republican Party; it’s to have some balance within the Party and within the two-party system.”

George McGovern expressed similar feelings about a slightly earlier period in the Senate during his interview for this site earlier this week.

I’d love to see the return of the kind of moderate, constructive Republicans who were in office when I was part of the Congress. I’m thinking of people like Jack Javits of New York; I’m thinking about George Aiken, the old moderate Republican from Vermont; I’m thinking about Senator Cooper of Kentucky. There was a whole range of them that I thought provided a constructive and helpful contribution in politics.

Even if many would have preferred a Democratic Senator to represent Pennsylvania during last year's campaign, when Specter was seeking a fourth term, it's beneficial to the country to have moderates like Specter in both parties. And like both Specter and McGovern implied, it's too bad there aren't many near the center of the aisle any more who can bring the two parties together on key issues.

Former GOP Chair of CPB Violated Federal Law

2005-11-15T14:47:00.000-08:00

The New York Times' Stephen Labaton has the story:

Investigators at the Corporation for Public Broadcasting concluded today that its former chairman repeatedly broke federal law and its own regulations in a campaign to combat what he saw as liberal bias.

The scathing report by the corporation's inspector general described a dysfunctional organization that violated the Public Broadcasting Act, which created the corporation and was written to insulate programming decisions from politics.

The corporation received $400 million this year from Congress to finance an array of programs on public television and radio, although its future financing has come under heavy criticism, particularly from conservative lawmakers. Its board is selected by the president and confirmed by the Senate.

The corporation's former chairman, Kenneth Y. Tomlinson, who was ousted from the board two weeks ago when it was presented in a closed session with the details of the report, has said he sought to enforce a provision of the Public Broadcasting Act meant to ensure objectivity and balance in programming. But the report said that in the process, Mr. Tomlinson repeatedly crossed statutory boundaries that set up the corporation as a "heat shield" to protect public radio and television from political interference.

As with many of the difficult stories the White House has had to handle in recent weeks, news of Tomlinson's allegedly illicit activities is not necessarily a problem in and of itself. But given the fact that two Bush administration officials have been indicted recently, as have former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and GOP superlobbyist Jack Abramoff, this story further corroborates claims by administration critics that there is a dearth of ethics in the White House.

GOP Still Struggling to Pass Tax Cuts

2005-11-15T12:59:00.000-08:00

It's a rare day in Washington when the Republican Party is having a difficult time passing tax cuts, but as Mary Dalrymple reports for the AP, Congressional Republicans are still unsuccessful in overcoming the dissent from within their own party.

Republicans labored to advance their tax cut agenda on Tuesday, with Senate tax writers unable to muster enough GOP support to extend tax cuts for capital gains and dividends beyond their 2008 expiration.

The House's top tax writer pushed to keep the 15 percent maximum rate on investment income alive for two more years, but dropped virtually every other extension of expiring tax breaks from a drafted bill.

[...]

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, abandoned plans to keep the tax breaks on capital gains and dividends in place for one extra year. Grassley was stymied by resistance from Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine, a moderate Republican who wouldn't support the extension.

Without her vote, Grassley could not muster enough GOP support to pass his bill.

The new version of Grassley's bill cuts taxes, goes after tax shelters and tightens tax breaks for charitable deductions. Overall, it would cost the U.S. Treasury $59.6 billion over five years.

The budget reconciliation bill, which still does not have the votes to pass in the House, would make cuts less than the proposed tax cuts, meaning that the Republicans will once again add to the deficit. Given that the recent comments by the comptroller general of the United States on the crippling effect the federal debt will have on the government in the future, compounded by today's news that the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation is more than $22 billion in the hole this year, I'm not entirely certain how prudent intentionally adding to the deficit is.

Arizona Considers Joining Oregon with Vote by Mail

2005-11-15T12:27:00.000-08:00

Today, Oregon is the only state to conduct all of its elections wholly through vote-by-mail. The results of this system, in terms of higher voters participation, are striking. During the 2004 election, more than 86 percent of those registered to vote in Oregon sent in ballots to the state (compared to 64 percent nationally.

Now, as Jahna Berry reports for The Arizona Republic, the Grand Canyon State is considering a move to join Oregon with a vote-by-mail system.

A wealthy Bullhead City radio station executive is bankrolling an initiative that could pave the way for Arizonans to vote almost entirely by mail, a change that could transform state political campaigns and elections.

Businessman Rick Murphy said he's pursuing the initiative because he was disturbed by paltry voter turnout when he unsuccessfully ran for Rep. Trent Franks' congressional seat in the 2004 Republican primary.

On Monday, some state political leaders were intrigued by the proposal, which could make the voter identification rules in Proposition 200 moot. The state's top election official said she vehemently opposes the measure.

"I feel very strongly that we have elections on Election Day and that people cast ballots at precincts," Secretary of State Jan Brewer said, noting that people can already vote by mail if they ask for an absentee ballot.

While many state residents vote with absentee ballots, the proposed initiative goes much further. If it passes, elections officials would automatically send all voters a ballot and a return envelope with prepaid postage. Only a few polling places would remain open on Election Day for traditional voting and to allow voters to drop off last-minute mail-in ballots.

It's natural that those who would like to see a continuation of the status quo would be opposed to a radical change like this, but any move that helps energize the electorate and allows more Americans to participate in politics is a good thing. Vote-by-mail has been a real success in Oregon, and I hope Arizonans give the proposition real consideration if and when it comes to a vote.

Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson Still Way up in Florida

2005-11-15T08:28:00.000-08:00

Senator Bill Nelson is the last remaining Democrat to be elected statewide in Florida, leaving many Republicans to believe that he would be an easy target as he faces reelection next year. But the latest polling from the race conducted by Quinnipiac University indicates the Republicans will have a much more difficult time knocking off Nelson than they previously imagined.

Democratic incumbent Sen. Bill Nelson begins his reelection year with a 55 - 31 percent lead over U.S. Rep. Katherine Harris, the only announced Republican challenger in the 2006 Florida U.S. Senate race, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.

This compares to a 57 - 33 percent Nelson lead in an August 31 poll by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN uh-pe-ack) University.

Democrats back Sen. Nelson 83 - 7 percent, while Republicans back Rep. Harris 63 -22 percent and independent voters go with Nelson 59 - 25 percent.

[...]

"Even though Florida voters are not enthusiastic about sending Bill Nelson back to the Senate, he will do fine as long as Katherine Harris is his opponent. Congressman Mark Foley would be almost as strong a Republican candidate for the Senate seat even though he is relatively unknown statewide compared to Harris," said Clay F. Richards, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.

Florida Republicans say 46 - 29 percent that they would prefer Rep. Harris over U.S. Rep. Mark Foley as their Senate candidate. Nelson leads Foley 55 - 27 percent.

With numbers like these for Harris and Foley, it's no wonder that the Speaker of the state House, Alan Bense, is reconsidering his decision to sit out the race.

The poll also finds -- surprisingly -- that Democratic Rep. Jim Davis is leading both of his major Republican competitors (albeit slightly) in the race to succeed Jeb Bush as Governor.

Poll Signals Possible Rift in Democratic Party of Oregon

2005-11-15T08:21:00.000-08:00

Beginning in the end of September, chatter began in Oregon about the possibility that former Democratic Governor John Kitzhaber would challenge his designated successor, current Democratic Governor Ted Kulongoski, in a party primary in May. As The Oregonian's Harry Esteve reports, polling on the possible contest has finally been released.

Oregon Democrats would just as soon have former Gov. John Kitzhaber back in office as re-elect incumbent Gov. Ted Kulongoski, according to a new statewide poll released Monday.

The poll, by Riley Research Associates of Portland, shows Kitzhaber and Kulongoski in a virtual tie for the Democratic nomination, with 29 percent and 27 percent, respectively. Of the rest, the two closest were state Sen. Vicki Walker of Eugene and Lane County Commissioner Pete Sorenson, with 3 percent apiece.

On the Republican side, former party chairman Kevin Mannix of Salem holds a large lead over his two main challengers, Portland lawyer Ron Saxton and state Sen. Jason Atkinson of Central Point. Mannix had the support of 29 percent of respondents; Saxton and Atkinson had 6 percent each.

Although some say that Kitzhaber would make a better Democratic Governor than Kulongoski, it's clear that an intraparty primary the likes of this could provide the Republicans with their first shot at winning back the Governor's mansion since 1986.

Senate GOP Challenges Administration on Iraq

2005-11-14T21:24:00.000-08:00

The New York Times' Carl Hulse does some fine reporting and digs up the following story for tomorrow's paper.

In a sign of increasing unease among Congressional Republicans over the war in Iraq, the Senate is to consider on Tuesday a Republican proposal that calls for Iraqi forces to take the lead next year in securing the nation and for the Bush administration to lay out its strategy for ending the war.

[...]

The proposal on the Iraq war, from Senator Bill Frist, the majority leader, and Senator John W. Warner, Republican of Virginia, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, would require the administration to provide extensive new quarterly reports to Congress on subjects like progress in bringing in other countries to help stabilize Iraq. The other appeals related to Iraq are nonbinding and express the position of the Senate.

The plan stops short of a competing Democratic proposal that moves toward establishing dates for a phased withdrawal of troops from Iraq. But it is built upon the Democratic approach and makes it clear that senators of both parties are increasingly eager for Iraqis to take control of their country in coming months and open the door to removing American troops.

[...]

Democrats said the plan represented a shift in Republican sentiment on Iraq and was an acknowledgment of growing public unrest with the course of the war and the administration's frequent call for patience. "I think it signals the fact that the American people are demanding change, and the Republicans see that that's something that they have to follow," said Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader.

The article does not make clear whether this is a serious attempt to rein in the Bush administration or merely an attempt to undercut Democratic calls for metrics of success in Iraq, but given the somewhat warm reception Senate Dems gave to the Frist-Warner legislation, this might be something that both parties will be able to coalesce around.

Another Republican Turns Down Shot to Challenge Byrd

2005-11-14T19:57:00.000-08:00

Democratic Senator Robert Byrd, who will turn 88 next week, faces a reelection campaign next fall in West Virginia, which has grown increasingly more Republican in recent years. Despite Byrd's advanced years and his long dormant campaign skills (he has not been forced onto the hustings for decades), the Republican Party has thus far been largely unsuccessful in its attempt to find a suitable challenger for the race.

One month ago, Rep. Shelly Moore Capito (R-WV) -- the daughter of a former three-term Governor -- opted not to run, much to the chagrin of the White House, National Republican Senatorial Committee and WV GOP. And now, as Joselyn King reports for The Wheeling Intelligencer (via Political Wire), yet another possible Republican challenger has dropped out of contention.

Former West Virginia University basketball coach Gale Catlett announced Friday he won't be a candidate for U.S. Senate in 2006 as some speculated.

"Coach Catlett is a valued member of the Republican Party, and we are grateful for his loyal and active participation, state Republican Party Chairman Robin Capehart said in a prepared statement. "A Catlett campaign for U.S. Senate - or in the 1st Congressional district next year - would be exciting, but the GOP will put forth a winning team when the filing deadline closes in January.

Capehart termed both U.S. Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., and U.S. Rep. Alan Mollohan, D-W.Va., "vulnerable for re-election" in 2006.

The next question for the West Virginia Republican Party is just who will step up next year to run for U.S. Senate and the 1st District Congressional seat. Capehart couldn't be reached for additional comment Friday.

In other news pertaining to the campaign to control the Senate in the 110th Congress, the latest polling out of Missouri from Rasmussen Reports shows first term Republican Senator Jim Talent trailing his Democratic opponent, former state Treasurer Claire McCaskill, by two points.

Yet Another New Low for Bush's Approval

2005-11-14T16:01:00.000-08:00

The latest polling is now available from the Gallup Organization, and it doesn't bode particularly for the President. In fact, George W. Bush has once again dipped to a new record low approval for the poll -- 37 percent -- and as CNN.com notes, the rest of the data from the poll isn't much better for the White House or the Republican Party.

In the poll, 56 percent of registered voters said they would be likely to vote against a local candidate supported by Bush, while 34 percent said the opposite.

Only 9 percent said their first choice in next year's elections would be a Republican who supports Bush on almost every major issue.

Forty-six percent said the country would be better off if Congress were controlled by Democrats, while 34 percent backed a GOP majority.

USA Today's Susan Page has more on the effects of these numbers.

G. Terry Madonna, a political scientist and director of the non-partisan Keystone Poll in Pennsylvania, says he already sees Republican officeholders in the state react to Bush's drop in popularity. "More and more Republicans will begin to separate themselves from the president and establish independent positions," he predicts.

Last week, Republican moderates in the House rebelled against a White House-backed spending bill, and GOP leaders had to withdraw a Bush tax package in Senate.

If Bush and the Republican leadership in Congress couldn't whip up support for tax cuts and budget cuts last week, I'm not sure how they will be able to get the votes now or any time soon. With numbers like these -- only 34 percent of the public saying they would support a candidate backed by Bush -- moderates will be running from, rather than to, the party line. So whatever nominal control the Republicans had over the Congress, increasingly in the House of Representatives, could be gone long before the 2006 elections.*

Campaign 2006: Democratic Senators

2005-11-14T11:06:00.000-08:00

Washington

In 2000, Democrat Maria Cantwell narrowly edged out incumbent Republican Senator Slade Gorton by a little over 2,000 votes, so many Republicans believe Cantwell can be easily defeated. But new polling from Rasmussen Reports seems to raise questions as to just how easy it will be for Republicans to knock her off.

A Rasmussen Reports Election Poll found Cantwell attracting 52% of the vote at this early stage of the campaign. Republican challenger, Mike McGavick, has 37% of the vote. McGavick is the CEO of the Safeco corporation.

Cantwell is viewed favorably by 57% of Washington voters and unfavorably by 37%. Name recognition for McGavick is lower--35% favorable and 34% unfavorable.

In a state where George W. Bush's approval rating stands at 32 percent, it's going to be awfully difficult to defeat an incumbent Democrat with numbers like Cantwell.

New York

During her first Senate run in 2000, Hillary Clinton won comfortably with about 55 percent of the vote. And now, as Marc Humbert reports for the AP, Clinton is looking even more comfortable this time around.

A week after the 2005 elections, a new statewide poll showed Democrats in strong shape headed into the 2006 elections.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and state Attorney General Eliot Spitzer hold huge leads over potential rivals in their respective races for Senate and governor, according to the poll released Monday by Siena College's Research Institute.

[...]

The poll found that Clinton led Westchester County District Attorney Jeanine Pirro by 59 percent to 31 percent in a hypothetical matchup. Several other Republicans are eyeing the GOP Senate nomination.

In the governor's race, Spitzer led billionaire businessman B. Thomas Golisano by 58 percent to 26 percent, and former Massachusetts Gov. William Weld by 64 percent to 16 percent. Republican Gov. George Pataki is not seeking a fourth term.

Given these numbers and the Clinton family's recent trip to Israel -- which should play well with the state's large Jewish minority -- it's hard to envision any Republican (Rudy Giuliani included) slowing Hillary Clinton any time soon. And with momentum from 2006 and tons of cash still on hand, Clinton could prove quite difficult to defeat for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination as well.

Miss the Sunday Shows?

2005-11-14T10:22:00.000-08:00

Check out this free compilation of the top clips of the week provided by The Hotline.

Interview with George McGovern

2005-11-14T01:27:00.000-08:00

On Saturday morning, I had the real honor of speaking with the 1972 Democratic Presidential nominee, Sen. George McGovern (D-SD). McGovern, who is now putting the finishing touches on his new library at Dakota Wesleyan University, was a hero during World War II before becoming a professor at the University in 1950. McGovern was elected to the House in 1956, serving two terms before narrowly losing a Senate race in 1960. After serving as President Kennedy's director of the Food for Peace Program, McGovern was subsequently elected to the United States Senate in 1962, where he served three terms.

Jonathan Singer: You’re speaking from South Dakota. There’s been a lot of talk following the 2000 and especially 2004 election of “red” states and “blue” states, and people usually think of South Dakota as a “red” state. But two of its three Congressional members are Democrats, and previously all three were. North Dakota is represented by all three Democrats. What do you make of this talk of “red” states and “blue” states? Does it even exist, really?

George McGovern: I have trouble remembering from one day to the next what “blue” and “red” mean. They used to call us Democrats “reds” because they thought we were too liberal, too pink. I’m glad the Republicans have assumed that label now.

But in any event, I think it’s a kind of superficial way to look at politics. People, more and more, tend to vote on something in addition to partisan considerations. During my years in politics here in South Dakota, I was constantly stopped by people in the street who would say, “I’m a Republican, but I’m for you George.” And this state kept me in office for almost a quarter of a century. So I don’t think of it as either “red” or “blue.” And I think that’s true with most states.

Singer: In the last campaign, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist came to South Dakota to campaign against the Democratic Leader, Tom Daschle. What do you make of that?

McGovern: I think it greatly diminished Bill Frist in the eyes of many people, not only Democrats. But I think people have understood over the years that the two leaders in the United States Senate have to get along. They have to have to get along. They have to have an amicable relationship, even though they may disagree sharply on the issues. And by tradition, it’s always been the case that one leader did not go into the other’s home state and campaign against him, as Bill Frist did here in South Dakota. I thought it was in very bad taste and against the building of a workable, congenial relationship in the Senate.

Singer: You, of course, ran in 1972 at a time of a lot of scandal for the administration. Currently, even in the last few weeks, we’ve seen two White House officials – the chief of staff to the Vice President, Scooter Libby, and the top procurement official, David Safavian – both indicted, in addition to a number of looming investigations. How does the situation compare to when you ran?

McGovern: It’s a really shabby operation that we’re witnessing now. It might not be as critical to the nation’s well-being and security as some of these earlier scandals, such as the Watergate period, where you actively had the President himself involved in one violation of federal law after another. Unfortunately, it was hard to get people to focus on that until after the election of ’72. I think that was an unusually serious situation in the life of the country.

But this is pretty bad, what’s going on today. The man who is frequently referred to as “the President’s brain,” Karl Rove, appears to have been involved in that revelation of the CIA agent that led to the indictment of Scooter Libby, the Vice President’s top person. I don’t think he’s out of the woods yet. I think that investigator is still looking at his operations. So it’s a pretty bad situation. And then to have the leader of the House, Tom DeLay, faced with indictments for what appears to be felonious conduct and Bill Frist, the Republican leader in the Senate, [alleged to be] guilty of insider trading – the same kind of thing that sent Martha Stewart to jail* – I think all those things are beginning to accumulate to the point where it helps explain why the President’s approval rating has gone down sharply over the last year or so.

Singer: Looking forward to 2006, the Democratic Party seems to have in the ballpark of a half dozen Iraq War veterans who are at least considering runs in congressional districts around the country, and many more veterans of other wars. You were a great hero during World War II, although you were a little loath to wear it on your sleeve in 1972. But what do you think this current trend means for the party and for the nation?

McGovern: I’d like to see some of these Iraq veterans – Americans who have been directly exposed to Iraq – I’d like to see them running for office. I happen to know from talking to many of them and their families over the last few years that there’s a growing disillusionment with the war. We never should have gone into Iraq, and some of the people who understand that most clearly are the veterans who are now fighting over there. I would welcome some of them coming home and telling people on the home front what they think of this war and what they think about other issues. I hope that they will run for office.

It looks like this great football star, Pat Tillman from the Arizona Cardinals, who gave up his football career and volunteered to go to the Middle East as a soldier… it’s now quite clear that he was killed by friendly fire. It’s also clear now – and we have his mother as a witness to this – that he became greatly disillusioned with the war when he saw what was going on over there and saw what the situation was, and was, as a matter of fact, reading quite widely, about the problems of the war.

Singer: Very interesting. Speaking of the Democratic Party, going back to that, leading into the 1972 campaign following the kind of debacle at the 1968 at the convention, you led a commission that fundamentally changed the nominating process and kind of gave us the system we have today. Now there’s quite a bit of talk of mixing up the system again. Iowa and New Hampshire are both small states and they’re both overwhelmingly white states – not necessarily representative of the entire polity. So there’s talk of adding caucuses between Iowa and New Hampshire, to break up the power of the Granite State. What do you make of these proposals?

McGovern: I don’t think there’s anything fundamentally wrong with the Iowa-New Hampshire situation. They’re two states widely separated geographically. They represent a rather broad spread of ethnic and political and economic interests in the country. And by tradition, candidates have known that if they’re going to well, they’re going to have to go out and meet people on a one-on-one basis in those smaller states. So I’d be reluctant to recommend a change there.

The reforms that we put through in 1969 and 1970 that I had something to do with… I had agreed with the late Senator Humphrey, who was then the titular head of our party, to head up this commission and to carry out the reforms that we were instructed to do by the 1968 convention. One of the major things that we did was to make sure that women and young people and black people and brown people and others had a fair shot at becoming delegates to name the presidential nominee. I think that’s a good rule, and apparently the party does, because it’s kept it in place for 35 years, and the Republicans have now adopted most of those reforms that we Democrats led the way on in the late 60s and early 70s.

Singer: I would remiss if I didn’t take this opportunity to ask you a little bit about the youth participation in politics. One of my professors – his name is John Seery – is writing a book called “Jesus for President” calling for an abolishment of the age restrictions for service, because although the voting age was lowered from 21 to 18 before the 1972 election, people between the ages of 18 and 25 cannot hold any federal office. What do you think of an idea like that?

McGovern: It’s worth thinking about. I’m certainly glad that they’re now able to vote. I’m glad that less than 100 years ago we gave women the right to vote in this country. That was a big step forward.

Whether or not people below the age of 25 are ready to go to Congress, though, I think is another question. I’m not sure that I would favor that right now. We do learn, we do mature, we do become wiser with a few years, and I think that the system as it is now is pretty good.

Singer: Getting back to your career, your freshman class in the Senate, which included Abe Ribicoff, Dan Inouye, Birch Bayh, Gaylord Nelson and others –

McGovern: Ted Kennedy.

Singer: Ted Kennedy – helped pass some of the really great pieces of progressive legislation, from Civil Rights and the Voting Rights Act to Medicare and Medicaid, Clean Water and Clean Air, and I’m sure I’m leaving out dozens, if not hundreds, of pieces of legislation. You really had the momentum back then. Is there any way to reclaim that momentum for the country?

McGovern: I wish I knew. I would lay it out. I’ve written a book called The Essential America that came out a year or so ago in which I point out that practically every forward step in the life of the country that is now generally accepted by both of our major parties began as a liberal initiative, at first over conservative opposition. Then with the passage of time, the conservatives swung around in support of it. I’m thinking about important programs like Social Security, Medicare, rural electrification, Civil Rights, guaranteed bank deposits, the whole range of things. Let me put it to you this way: I can’t think of a single major forward step in the life of this country that didn’t begin as a liberal initiative originally opposed by conservatives. So obviously I think what I think we need is a return to a stronger liberal government in the United States.

I don’t know what’s happened, frankly, to conservatives, on the other hand. They used to be for things a balanced budget and they used to oppose deficit spending. They used to be cautious about sending young Americans to war. All of those things seem to have fallen by the wayside. Under the current administration, we’re running the biggest deficits and the biggest national debt that I can recall. So I think the liberals need to be a little more courageous, a little more assertive, and I think these neoconservatives that now seem to control the Republican Party should be willing to take a look at some of the old-fashioned conservatives that were more careful about how our money was spent and more careful about where we send American forces abroad.

Singer: Just watching the Congress since Tuesday’s elections in Virginia, California, New Jersey and other places, it looks like some of the few remaining moderates within the party are beginning to assert at least some power, blocking the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve (the drilling there), blocking the GOP budget in the House, blocking tax cuts in the Senate. Do you think this is maybe the beginning of a trend?

McGovern: I hope so. I’d love to see the return of the kind of moderate, constructive Republicans who were in office when I was part of the Congress. I’m thinking of people like Jack Javits of New York; I’m thinking about George Aiken, the old moderate Republican from Vermont; I’m thinking about Senator Cooper of Kentucky. There was a whole range of them that I thought provided a constructive and helpful contribution in politics. I’m going to have to leave you in a minute here. Are we getting near the end?

Singer: I think that’s probably a great place to stop with a positive vision of the future.

McGovern: Well good luck to you.

Singer: Well thank you so much, and have a great day.

McGovern: You too.

[THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.]

Capturing the Situation in Iraq in Film

2005-11-13T15:30:00.000-08:00

In this week's New York Times Sunday magazine, A.O. Scott takes a look at Hollywood's political activism, looking at the new slate of movies from George Clooney, including "Good Night, And Good Luck." Towards the end of the piece, Scott discusses one of Clooney's better, though overlooked, movies -- Three Kings.

That movie, released in the fall of 1999, looks back at the first gulf war and forward as well. A bit of a disappointment at the box office, it has had a vibrant afterlife, especially as the geopolitical situation has given it the air of prophecy. The movie is a fast-moving, funny and appallingly violent meditation on, among other things, the contradictory nature of American power. It betrays some of the liberal ambivalence of the Clinton era - an eagerness to believe that America could be the exemplar and enforcer of democratic and humane ideals checked by a habitual suspicion of ulterior motives. Gates, who sets out with a ragged band of misfit soldiers to steal Kuwaiti bullion he hears is stashed in a bunker, embodies both arrogance and decency. The arc of his character takes him from self-serving nihilism to heroic fellow-feeling, a progression that enables the movie's uplifting, somewhat implausible ending. Archie Gates is an updating of the Humphrey Bogart wartime hero: a cynic called to a higher purpose who turns his low cunning into virtue. Gates also recalls the insider-outsider, alienated heroes of the 70's, a man at odds with the institution in which he finds himself embedded but who turns out, half-unwittingly, to be the truest defender of its principles.

After reading this article, I went back to watch the film for the first time since it hit the theaters. Scott is entirely correct about the movie's "vibrant afterlife;" Three Kings effectively captures Iraqi feelings towards the United States in the immediate aftermath of the first Gulf War, and moreover offers nuance of the situation that is often lacking from contemporary coverage of the current war. If you have the time, check out the film. It's well worth the two hours and few dollars.

Another Possible Motive for Libby

2005-11-13T12:22:00.000-08:00

Last month we noted a possible motive behind Scooter Libby's alleged obstruction of justice and perjury: he thought he could mislead prosecutors without retribution because reporters would never go back on their pledges of confidentiality. Now, The Washington Post's Carol D. Leonnig and Jim VandeHei note another possible motive behind Libby's alleged activities.

In the opening days of the CIA leak investigation in early October 2003, FBI agents working the case already had in their possession a wealth of valuable evidence. There were White House phone and visitor logs, which clearly documented the administration's contacts with reporters.

Libby, according to Fitzgerald's indictment, gave a false story to agents and, later, to a grand jury, even though he knew investigators had his notes, and presumably knew that several of his White House colleagues had already provided testimony and documentary evidence that would undercut his own story. And his interviews with the FBI in October and two appearances before the grand jury in March 2004 came at a time when there were increasingly clear signs that some of the reporters with whom Libby discussed Plame could soon be freed to testify -- and provide starkly different and damning accounts to the prosecutor.

To critics, the timing suggests an attempt to obscure Cheney's role, and possibly his legal culpability. The vice president is shown by the indictment to be aware of and interested in Plame and her CIA status long before her cover was blown. Even some White House aides privately wonder whether Libby was seeking to protect Cheney from political embarrassment. One of them noted with resignation, "Obviously, the indictment speaks for itself."

In addition, Cheney also advised Libby on a media strategy to counter Plame's husband, former ambassador Wilson, according to a person familiar with the case.

In related news, National Journal's Murray Waas, who has provided some of the best coverage of the Plame investigation, today writes that Libby might be the key the investigation of Karl Rove. So if Libby is still interested in a plea and is willing to turn on his fellow compatriots, it looks like he could have quite a bit of leverage with special prosecutor Fitzgerald.

The Sunday Shows

2005-11-13T02:52:00.000-08:00

Given the fact that I'm up now, I'm a bit skeptical that I will be up in time for the Sunday morning public affairs programming. But for those who will be up...

CBS' "Face the Nation" -- Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Virginia Gov. Mark Warner (D).

NBC's "Meet the Press" -- Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman and Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean; and King Abdullah II of Jordan.

ABC's "This Week" -- Queen Rania of Jordan, Sens. Elizabeth Dole (R-NC) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY); Reps. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) and Tom Reynolds (R-NY); Jack Klugman, actor.

"Fox News Sunday" -- Sens. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) and Pat Roberts (R-KS); New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson (D) and Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (R).

CNN's "Late Edition" -- Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf; Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI) and Roberts; Huckabee; Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack (D); Stephen J. Hadley, national security adviser; Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Ahmad Chalabi; Lawrence B. Wilkerson, former State Department chief of staff.

"This Week" appears to be the place to be for discussion of campaign 2006, but for those interested in international and foreign policy issues, both "Meet the Press" and "Late Edition" appear to the the right choice.

George McGovern Interview

2005-11-12T13:16:00.000-08:00

Earlier this morning, I had the distinct pleasure and honor to speak with the 1972 Democratic Presidential nominee, former South Dakota Senator George McGovern. Our conversation reached a number of areas, from Iraq to ethics, bipartisanship to 2006. Look out for the interview early Monday morning.

Newsweek: Bush, Republicans Take a Hit

2005-11-12T13:14:00.000-08:00

Over the past two days, Newsweek surveyed Americans on their opinions on a wide range of people and topics. Marcus Mabry reports on the results under the headline "Autumn of Discontent."

In the wake of the bombings in Jordan by suspected followers of Iraq’s Al Qaeda chief Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the indictment of top White House aide I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby and the withdrawal of Harriet Miers’s nomination to the Supreme Court, President George W. Bush is sinking deeper and deeper into political trouble, according to the latest NEWSWEEK poll. Only 36 percent of Americans approve of the job he is doing as president, and an astounding 68 percent of Americans are dissatisfied with the direction of the country—the highest in Bush’s presidency. But that’s not the worst of it for the 43rd president of the United States, a leader who rode comfortably to reelection just a year ago. Half of all Americans now believe he’s not “honest and ethical.”

Now is the autumn of Bush’s discontent, according to the NEWSWEEK poll, taken by phone of 1,002 Americans over Thursday and Friday nights. The president can take some solace in the fact that 42 percent of Americans believe he is honest and ethical. Only 29 percent believe that Vice President Dick Cheney is. And more than a quarter of Republicans, 26 percent, believe the vice president is not honest and ethical. The growing credibility gap could have ramifications across the president’s agenda: 56 percent of Americans say Bush “won’t be able to get much done;” only 36 percent say he “can be effective.”

As problematic as these numbers are for the President, his party fares just as poorly.

Coming on the heels of Democratic wins in closely watched gubernatorial races in (Blue) New Jersey and (Red) Virgina this week, all of this has got to worry Republican leaders contemplating next year’s elections. When NEWSWEEK asked registered voters whether they planned to vote for a Democrat or a Republican in those elections, 53 percent said a Democrat and 36 percent said a Republican. It’s a long way from now to next year’s Congressional contests. But no one knows better than the president how much things can change in a year.

Given the fact that the Republican agenda in Congress is stalled -- at least for now -- and the GOP is losing by a whopping 17 points on the generic congressional ballot (I'm not sure I've seen the deficit that large before), the next few seeks could bring more, rather than less, infighting among Republicans inside the Beltway. And as the Democrats learned in 1994, after they failed to coalesce around President Clinton's healthcare proposal, intraparty bickering looks bad to the public and makes the other party's job a lot easier come election day.

This Site in Profile

2005-11-12T07:32:00.000-08:00

The Student Life, Pomona College's newspaper, penned a profile of this blog for yesterday's paper. Check it out if you're interested.

Quote of the Day

2005-11-11T21:09:00.000-08:00

"I don't know how anyone can say with a straight face that when we voted to cut spending last week to help deficit reduction we can now then turn around two weeks later to provide tax cuts that exceed the reductions we just made in spending."

-- Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH), explaining his opposition to his party's tax cut proposals

Link.

Campaign 2006: Illinois, Pennsylvania

2005-11-11T17:42:00.000-08:00

Illinois

The bevy of Iraq War veterans running on the Democratic ticket in 2006 seems to be growing almost every day. Hotline on Call's Josh Kraushaar has the details of the latest moment in this trend.

Count Army major Tammy Duckworth as one of the most interesting potential DCCC recruits, in IL 06 -- Henry Hyde's old district. (See today's House Race Hotline) Duckworth, a triple amputee, sustained critical injuries as a Black Hawk pilot in the war in Iraq. She has been coy about her intentions, and her policy views are not publicly known. Dems shouldn't make the mistake of assuming the messenger trumps the message, but if she runs on a centrist/pro-business economic platform without being reflexively anti-war -- this has the potential to be an interesting candidacy.

Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) continues to have serious problems in his bid for a third term, as evidenced by the latest polling from Rasmussen Reports.

The latest Rasmussen Reports survey shows that Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum is continuing to lose ground in his battle for re-election. Santorum trails Democrat Bob Casey, Jr by twenty percentage points, 54% to 34%.

In July, Santorum trails Democrat Bob Casey, Jr by eleven percentage points, 52% to 41%.

Corzine Considers African American Woman as Replacement

2005-11-11T12:18:00.000-08:00

Although the Congressional Black Caucus counts 39 members in the House, Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) is currently the only African American serving in the Senate, a body to which only two African Americans were popularly elected in the 20th century. But as Tom Hester Jr. reports for The Trenton Times (via MyDD), New Jersey's Governor-elect Jon Corzine (D) is now considering the appiointment of an African American woman to fill out the remaining year of his term.

While various men jockey to replace him in the U.S. Senate, Governor-electo Jon Corzine said yesterday that he very well could appoint a woman to fill his seat, a move that would prove historic.

Corzine yesterday mentioned state Sen. Nia Gill, D-Montclair, an appointment that would allow him to play a role in naming the first woman and minority from New Jersey to the U.S. Senate.

[...]

He called Gill an "extraordinarily capable woman."

[...]

U.S. Reps. Rob Andrews, Rush Holt, Robert Menendez, Frank Pallone and acting Gov. Richard J. Codey have been the most cited possibilities to be appointed by Corzine.

Andrews, Menendez and Pallone have been the most active in seeking the job.

It's certainly time for the Senate to become a more representative body, and the appointment of Gill, or even Mendendez, would at least be a good step towards this goal.

The Five Lessons of Election 2005

2005-11-11T11:20:00.000-08:00

Gregory L. Giroux takes a look at Tuesday's elections for CQ Politics Weekly (a free email service) and finds the following five important lessons to be learned.

The thrill is gone for President Bush -- While George W. Bush previously could push Republican candidates over the top in close races, now he "has lost a lot of his magic."
The media must interpret something -- This is a slow news period, so the media are perhaps too quick to extrapolate meaning from Tuesday's results.
Democrats may profit when they emphasize faith, especially in the South -- Tim Kaine was able to overcome his unpopular position on the death penalty by talking about his faith.
The Republicans’ vital advantage in the suburbs may be slipping -- Both Kaine and Jon Corzine were able to perform well in the suburbs, which could become a real battleground in the future.
There are limits to populism -- Reforms, if viewed as partisan, will go down to defeat, as occurred this week in Ohio and California.

Thank You

2005-11-11T09:23:00.000-08:00

The sincerest appreciation goes out to all of the men and women who serve and have served our country. We are safe as a result of your selflessness and sacrifices. Thank you.

AP-Ipsos: 57% Say Bush Not Honest

2005-11-11T08:53:00.000-08:00

Ipsos has conducted a second round of November polling for the Associated Press (the first survey), and yet again, the President's numbers have failed to bounce back from historic lows. Will Lester has the story.

Almost six in 10 — 57 percent — said they do not think the Bush administration has high ethical standards and the same portion says President Bush is not honest, an AP-Ipsos poll found. Just over four in 10 say the administration has high ethical standards and that Bush is honest. Whites, Southerners and white evangelicals were most likely to believe Bush is honest.

[...]

That loss of trust complicates Bush's efforts to rebuild his standing with the public. His job approval rating remains at his all-time low in the AP-Ipsos poll of 37 percent.

"Honesty is a huge issue because even people who disagreed with his policies respected his integrity," said Bruce Buchanan, a political scientist from the University of Texas.

Some of the other key data from the poll:

When leaners are removed, President Bush's approval rating stands at 28 percent, his disapproval rating at 49 percent.
Eighty two percent of voters call President Bush "stubborn."

DeLay Had Planned to Plea to Misdemeanor

2005-11-10T23:20:00.000-08:00

In perhaps the most wideranging article on the indictments of Tom DeLay to date, The Washington Post's R. Jeffrey Smith lays out exactly how we got to the current situation.

Lawyers for Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) tried unsuccessfully in late September to head off felony criminal indictments against the then-majority leader on charges of violating Texas campaign law by signaling that DeLay might plead guilty to a misdemeanor, according to four sources familiar with the events.

The lawyers' principal aim was to try to preserve DeLay's leadership position under House Republican rules that bar lawmakers accused of felonies from holding such posts. DeLay was forced to step down as leader on Sept. 28 after the first of two grand jury indictments.

The last-minute negotiations between the lawyers and Texas prosecutor Ronnie Earle were arranged after DeLay made what Earle considered a seriously damaging admission about his fundraising activities during an Aug. 17 meeting with the prosecutor in Austin.

At that session, DeLay acknowledged that in 2002 he was informed about and expressed his support for transfers of $190,000 in mostly corporate funds from his Texas political action committee to an arm of the Republican National Committee in Washington and then back to Texas, according to the sources, who spoke on the condition that they not be named.

Those transfers are at the heart of the prosecutor's investigation of the alleged use of corporate funds in the 2002 Texas elections, in violation of state law. In the prosecutor's view, DeLay's admission put him in the middle of a conspiracy not only to violate that law but also to launder money.

As disclosed by sources involved with the case, the new details present a more complete picture of the sequence of events leading to the indictment of DeLay at the end of September. They reveal the unusual lengths to which DeLay and his lawyers were willing to go to avoid charges that would force him to leave his powerful post -- and how it was DeLay's own words that ultimately got him in trouble with the prosecutor.

Smith reports that although DeLay was ready to plea in the case, Earle's offer of a minimum of three to four months in jail was simply too much to swallow. By the time it became apparent that Earle was ready to indict on felony charges, a moved that forced DeLay's resignation as House Majority Leader, the Texas Congressman decided he had little to gain by further cooperation, and instead turned to the media to hammer away at the DA. Interestingly, Smith writes,

Over the weekend of Oct. 1 and 2, Earle asked his staff to collect transcripts of everything DeLay had said publicly. Armed on Monday morning, Oct. 3, with what he considered these fresh admissions by DeLay of his knowledge of the deal, Earle persuaded a new grand jury at its first meeting to return two new indictments for money laundering and conspiracy.

Perhaps DeLay's decision to take Earle head on was not the best legal strategy possible, after all.

Fox News: Bush Approval Down 5 Points in 2 Weeks

2005-11-10T18:43:00.000-08:00

After the nomination of Harriet Miers was withdrawn, there was much talk among the puditry that President Bush's approval would begin inching back up as social conservatives came back into the fold. As Fox News' Dana Blanton reports, this hasn't happened.

Today, 36 percent of Americans approve and 53 percent disapprove of the job Bush is doing as president. For comparison, two weeks ago 41 percent said they approved and 51 percent disapproved, and at the beginning of his second term 50 percent approved and 40 percent disapproved (January 25-26).

Until this week, Bush's approval rating had been at 40 percent or above — buoyed in large part by consistent strong support among Republicans; however, in mid-October approval among Republicans fell below 80 percent for the first time of his presidency and now sits at 72 percent.

In addition, Bush's approval rating is down by double digits among other demographic groups. Since the beginning of his second term, his approval is down 26 percentage points among independents, 16 points among women, 15 points among whites and 11 points among men.

Looking at more data from the poll we find that a 39 percent plurality think the Bush administration is less ethical that other recent presidential administrations. This seems to jive with other recent polling that has shown only about one third of Americans find President Bush honest and straighforward, for instance.

House GOP: Yes on Tax Cuts for Rich, No on Middle Class Tax Cuts

2005-11-10T18:29:00.000-08:00

With the amended budget bill -- particularly the stalling version in the House -- the Republican Party has shown a willingness to cut programs for the poor in able to partially finance more tax cuts for the wealthy (the balance of the tax cuts being offset by further borrowing). As unpopular as this policy is among some camps, it seems that the Republicans are poised to make an even less popular move on tax cuts. The AP's tax writer Mary Dalrymple has the story.

The House's top tax writer introduced a bill Thursday that would allow the alternative minimum tax to hit millions more taxpayers next year.

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Thomas opted to use tax cuts allotted in the GOP's budget to extend tax cuts for capital gains and dividends for two years instead of holding back the alternative minimum tax.

Thomas, R-Calif., said last week that preventing the alternative minimum tax, or AMT, from spreading deeper into the middle class next year could drain the energy from efforts to overhaul the nation's tax laws.

[...]

The alternative minimum tax aims to prevent wealthy individuals from avoiding all taxation. The annual effects of inflation have brought it closer to less wealthy taxpayers each year. Those with several children and those who live in states with high income and property taxes are more likely to feel its pinch.

Lawmakers routinely enact temporary patches to restrain it. More than 20 million taxpayers can expect to pay the alternative minimum tax next year without that temporary fix.

If Republicans really believe that it's good policy to make tax cuts for the extremely wealthy while allowing the tax rates on the middle class to artificially grown -- and cutting services for the working and middle classes -- they should go ahead and try it. On Tuesday, voters across the country showed what they thought of Republican priorities. And if Thomas and his fellow GOP leaders continue with these policies, November 2, 2006 will be a very good night for Democrats.

Campaign 2006: The Senate

2005-11-10T16:29:00.000-08:00

Montana

For quite some time, the Democrats have been looking at the possibility of knocking off Montana's Republican Senator Conrad Burns. Six years ago, the Dems came extremely close as current Governor Brian Schweitzer held Burns to only 51 percent of the vote. New polling from the state indicates that Burns might be just as vulnerable this time around, as Matt Gouras reports for the AP.

Only 48 percent approve of Burns' job performance, down from his 2002 approval rating of 63 percent. Burns fared better among those people making more money, those who considered themselves more religious, and older Montanans, the pollsters reported.

[...]

Burns' disapproval rating is at 31 percent, while 21 percent remain undecided on his job performance.

[...]

Two Democrats who are vying to challenge Burns in the 2006 election are largely unknown, the pollsters found.

State Auditor John Morrison was not known by 25 percent of the poll respondents, and 44 percent remain undecided about him. While 27 percent had a positive opinion about him, only 4 percent had a negative opinion.

State Senate President Jon Tester, D-Big Sandy, was not known by 39 percent of the respondents, and 38 percent remain undecided about him. Just 17 percent said they had a positive opinion of Tester, while 6 percent had a negative opinion.

Montana's lone Congressman, Denny Rehberg, faces a similarly difficult challenge in 2006, and his approval rating is not much better at 49 percent.

Pennsylvania

As Dave Davies reports for the Philadelphia Daily News, Pennsylvania's Republican Senator Rick Santorum is also embroiled in quite the reelection campaign.

The [Daily News/CN8 Keystone] poll shows Republican Santorum's fortunes also sinking. His job-approval ratings are at a six-year low, and the poll shows him trailing Democratic opponent Bob Casey by 16 points, 51 to 35 percent.

"You may see Santorum try to make Casey the issue, and convince voters he's the least objectionable candidate," Madonna said. "So it's likely Santorum will go negative, and harshly negative."

The poll found Casey leading his announced opponent, Chuck Pennacchio, in the Democratic senatorial primary, 67 to 5 percent, with 28 percent undecided.

As difficult of a position as Santorum is in currently, even he won't allow President Bush to campaign for him. In fact, as Thomas Fitzgerald reports for The Philadelphia Enquirer, Santorum won't even attend the President's event in Pennsylvania this week.

National

Bob Novak:

The victory of Democrat Tim Kaine over Republican Jerry Kilgore was the only contest in scattered off-year elections that was carefully monitored on Capitol Hill. For a liberal Virginian to win a Southern red state signaled that cherished Republican majorities in both House and Senate, plus all the perquisites they entail, could be lost in 2006. Eyeing the Democratic landslide in suburban northern Virginia just over the Potomac from Washington that gave Lt. Gov. Kaine the governorship, Republicans in Congress envision their own doom.

The antidote to avoid that fate is to keep as far away from President Bush as possible, a lesson underlined by the president's failed election rescue mission for former Virginia state Attorney General Kilgore. The consequences may be profound. As his approval rating dipped, Bush increasingly has been treated in Congress as a lame duck. Tuesday's Virginia outcome increases the propensity of Republican senators and House members not only to avoid their president on the campaign trail but also to ignore his legislative proposals.

[...]

The political message read on Capitol Hill came strictly from the Virginia governor's race. How to explain that Democratic victory in a red state where both U.S. senators, eight out of 11 House members and comfortable margins in both houses of the legislature are Republican, and a Republican won for lieutenant governor Tuesday?

They blame Kilgore's defeat on Bush's popularity dipping below 50 percent in Virginia. After avoiding the president on Bush's recent visit to Norfolk, a desperate Kilgore asked for eleventh-hour help. The Monday night appearance in Richmond by a dispirited and exhausted Bush, returning from his difficult Latin America trip, was a dud.

To tell the truth, Novak isn't so off base with his reading of yesterday's election. (It's a bit surprising and weird for me to say that I agree with Bob Novak. So it goes sometimes...)

GOP Budget Stalls in House

2005-11-10T13:17:00.000-08:00

The Republican leadership in the House had planned on passing a budget bill today, but the likelihood of their success appears to be diminishing, as CQ Today's Midday Update (a free email service) reports.

In a sign of trouble for the Republican leadership, the House recessed this morning shortly after convening, delaying consideration of a $50 billion budget savings bill.

Although GOP leaders last night expressed confidence that they had made enough changes to bring their moderates on board and pass the bill, the delay suggested they still don’t have the votes.

The leadership dropped provisions to allow oil drilling in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and offshore, and softened planned cuts to food stamps for legal immigrants. They hoped that would suffice to win the last of the Republican votes they will need to pass the budget-cutting package. No Democrats are expected to support the measure.

But leadership may have conceded too much to the moderates, and in doing so lost the votes of some ardent ANWR supporters. Furthermore, as of this morning, changes were under discussion involving the $12 billion package of cuts to Medicaid contained in the bill.

No oil drilling in ANWR. No more tax cuts. Has the unravelling of the GOP coalition in Congress commenced?

GOP Tax Cut Stalls in Senate Finance Committee

2005-11-10T11:37:00.000-08:00

In the wake of Tuesday's elections, it looks like House moderates aren't the only ones in ascendency in Washington. As Mary Dalrymple reports for the AP, a moderate GOP Senator has effectively blocked the party's attempt to further cut taxes for the extremely wealthy.

The GOP's tax cut agenda hit a snag Thursday when the tax-writing Senate Finance Committee, lacking enough Republican votes, postponed debate on $78 billion in tax reductions.

"No progress," Senate Finance Committee Chairman Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, said. Republicans talked among themselves most of the morning but couldn't agree on a combination of tax cuts that could win support from all of them.

They lacked the pivotal support of Sen. Olympia Snowe, a moderate Republican from Maine, who said she'd like to see senators concentrate their attention on matters that must be done this year, like tax cuts that expire in 2006.

[...]

Snowe isn't the only moderate Republican to voice concerns about passing tax cuts this year. Sen. George Voinovich of Ohio, another Republican moderate, said he will vote against tax cuts because the government is accumulating too much debt and the economy does not need stimulation through tax reductions right now.

"It is time to recognize a simple fact of life," Voinovich said. "Contrary to what some of my colleagues seem to believe, tax cuts do not pay for themselves."

Is this the beginning of an unravelling or just a hiccup in conseravatives' stranglehold on Capitol Hill? Today's budget vote in the House should provide a little more indication of the answer, but I'd imagine the recent developments, from Tuesday's election to the removal of ANWR from the House Budget bill, have a lot of folks in the Republican establishment worried.

Only 37% Say Their Rep. Deserves Reelection

2005-11-10T11:30:00.000-08:00

Poltiical Wire's Taegan Goddard notices an overlooked finding of the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll.

In the 2006 election for U.S. Congress, do you feel that your representative deserves to be reelected, or do you think it is time to give a new person a chance?

Deserves to be reelected -- 37 (49 in Oct. 2004)
Give new person a chance -- 51 (34 in Oct. 2004)

So much for GOP claims that there isn't a broad mandate for change. These numbers haven't been this high since late 2000, right before the Democrats picked up four seats in the Senate to force a 50-50 tie and and narrowed Republican control of the House to it's lowest point since 1995.

Another Military Dem Emerges

2005-11-10T10:17:00.000-08:00

House and Senate Democrats have been doing a fairly good job at recruiting potentially top-tier challengers -- particularly military veterans -- for GOP incumbents for next year's elections. And as Hotline on Call's Josh Kraushaar, it looks the the Dems might be lining up yet another veteran to challenge a defeatable Republican.

Keep an eye out for attorney Peter Duffy as the Dems likely nominee against Rep. Jeb Bradley (R-NH 01) now that Manchester Bob Baines is likely out as a candidate. An anti-war lawyer with military credentials -- he was called up to the Army National Guard in '04 -- Duffy said his campaign is "full speed ahead" after Baines suffered a shocking defeat in the Manchester mayor's race. Bradley has won by significant margins in his two previous election bids but has been aided by weak opposition. His district only went for Bush by three points in '04, and he recently was one of very few GOPers who returned money from DeLay's PAC.

We'll keep you up to date as this one develops...

On Tuesday Dems Won Big Downticket, Too

2005-11-10T08:53:00.000-08:00

While many have rightly noted the major Democratic wins in Virginia, New Jersey and California on Tuesday, it's important not to forget that there were key elections in other areas of the country, too. With this in mind, we turn to the Wednesday edition of New York Newsday, in which Rick Brand notes the major shift in one notable region of the state.

The Democrats' dramatic gains in Tuesday's election signal the end of decades of Republican domination of Long Island politics, experts in both parties say.

"The days of monolithic Republican control are over," said John V.N. Klein, a former GOP Suffolk County Executive. "In the past when this kind of thing happened, I'd say give it a couple of elections and we'll be back in charge again. We can't count on that anymore."

[...]

While Democrats Bill Clinton and John Kerry have won Long Island in their presidential bids, local Democrats for the first time Tuesday consolidated their gains -- winning control of the legislatures in both counties as well as the offices of county executive and district attorney.

Those gains come on top of Democrats' control of four of the Island's five congressional seats and the September special election of Marc Alessi to the State Assembly. "Only a few years ago, this kind of thing would have been unheard of and undreamed of," said Hope, an East Hampton resident.

New York state sent 29 people to the US House of Representatives following the 2004 elections, eight of whom are Republican. Of the eight, one represents a district John Kerry won in 2004, and the other seven were elected from districts carried by Bush -- but only with 51 to 56 percent of the vote.

If the trends noted in this article continue, New York Republicans will find it increasingly difficult to be reelected in these marginal districts. And if even the closest of these seats switched hands -- just the six seats in which Bush received 53 percent of the vote or less in 2004 -- Republican control over the House would become extremely tenuous.

ANWR Drilling from House GOP Budget Bill

2005-11-10T08:29:00.000-08:00

Earlier, we noted the likelihood that drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve would be dropped from the new budget bill offered by House Republicans. According to The New York Times' Carl Hulse, it's now official.

Mike Brown Finally off Federal Payroll

2005-11-10T08:26:00.000-08:00

From the AP's Lara Jakes Jordan.

Former FEMA chief Michael Brown is no longer on the agency's payroll, the Homeland Security Department said Wednesday, ending nearly two months of compensation after he resigned under fire.

[...]

Initially, Brown was permitted to continue collecting his $148,000 annual salary for 30 days after he resigned. Last month, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said he extended Brown's contract for an additional 30 days, until mid-November, to help the agency complete its review of the response to Katrina.

A more detailed timeline of events:

On the morning of August 29, Hurricane Katrina made landfall near New Orleans, and within two days there was already discussion of the federal government's lack of preparedness.
Within a week, there were serious questions about the federal response.
On September 9, the head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Michael Brown, was relieved of control over Washington's response to Katrina. However, Brown remained at the helm of FEMA.
Three days later, Brown resigned as administrator of FEMA.
On September 26, word leaked out that despite his resignation, Brown was still receiving a salary from the federal government.
On or before October 22, Brown's contract was again renewed and the former bureaucrat continued to receive a salary.
Brown's federal salary is terminated on November 2.

WSJ/NBC: 33% Rate Bush Honest and Straightforward

2005-11-09T21:28:00.000-08:00

As the inimitable John Harwood reports for The Wall Street Journal, President Bush's approval rating has continued to slide even through this week.

The CIA leak investigation has deepened President George W. Bush's political problems, driving his approval rating to its lowest-ever point in the new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll.

Just 38% of Americans now approve Bush's job performance, while 57% disapprove, the poll shows. The telephone survey of 1,003 adults, conducted Nov. 4-7, carries a margin for error of 3.1 percentage points.

The CIA leak case, in which former vice presidential aide Lewis "Scooter" Libby was recently indicted on felony charges, has made a strong impression on the public. Fully 79% of respondents call the case "a serious matter." Americans now view Vice President Dick Cheney negatively 49%-27%, his worst-ever showing and a significant deterioration since January.

The case, by compounding doubts about the administration's pre-war claims about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, appears to have also taken a toll on public regard for Bush's credibility. Some 33% now give the president high marks for "being honest and straightforward," while 47% rate him poorly on that score. In January, he was rated positively on this score by 50%-36%

NBC News' Mark Murray offers more information and conclusions from the survey.

With the midterms a year away, these numbers could spell trouble for the GOP. “These are not good times for Republicans,” says Republican pollster Bill McInturff, who conducted the survey with Democratic pollster Peter D. Hart. “This is a very unhappy electorate that’s going to be unstable, and they are terrifically unstable numbers for a Republican majority.”

Perhaps the best news for Republicans in the poll is that Democrats aren’t necessarily faring much better. “Both parties are having difficulties,” McInturff observes.

[...]

So are Democrats poised to take advantage of this situation and pick up seats in the 2006 congressional elections? Not necessarily. While the poll shows that a plurality of 43 percent views the Republican Party negatively, the Democratic Party doesn’t fare much better — just 33 percent view them positively, vs. 36 percent who see them in a negative light.

“We have a year [left],” McInturff says. “We don’t see evidence where there’s much lift for Democrats.” Of course, that’s also especially true for Republicans.

As important as polling is, elections are the true gauge in American politics. And given the remarkbly widespread rejection of the Republican Party in yesterday's elections (the only Republican to emerge as a big winner was New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg -- a lifelong Democrat before 2001 who remains closer in rhetoric and governing to the Democratic Party than the GOP), it looks like the electorate is ready for change.

Of course, this is certainly not to say that the Democrats have the 2006 Congressional elections in the bag. As the aforementioned polling indicates, although Democrats are less unpopular than Republicans, that doesn't necessarily make them popular. Nevertheless, the Democrats have a golden opportunity to bring real change to Washington next fall, and if they blow it, it might be a very long time before they get another chance at recapturing either House.

Two GOP Reps. Clear Up Legal Woes

2005-11-09T21:12:00.000-08:00

As The Hill's Jeff Dufour reports, two Republican Congressmen cleared up some outstanding legal issues yesterday.

Tuesday was a big day for members trying to put their legal troubles behind them.

Rep. Don Sherwood (R-Pa.) settled a $5.5 million lawsuit from 29-year-old Cynthia Ore, with whom he had a five-year affair. She said he repeatedly abused her. She called the police on Sherwood in September 2004.

According to a statement by Sherwood’s office, the lawsuit will be dismissed, as the parties “have resolved their differences.” Terms are confidential, and they will not comment further. In The Wilkes-Barre Times Leader, Ning Ye, Ore’s attorney, said it was “amicable.” Each side is paying its own court costs and attorney’s fees.

Also on Tuesday, Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Texas) pleaded no contest to an October drunk-driving charge in South Dakota.

Brady paid the standard $350 fine. He is also prohibited from driving for 30 days in South Dakota, his home state. Brady was arrested after a cocktail reception at the University of South Dakota on Oct. 7.

Shimon Peres Loses Support in Party Primary

2005-11-09T21:02:00.000-08:00

Shimon Peres, one of the few remaining members of Israel's founding generation remaining in politics, was dealt a major setback in the Labour Party primary today, as Josef Federman reports.

Amir A fiery union leader won a stunning victory over Shimon Peres in the leadership contest for Israel's Labor Party, officials said Thursday, dealing a blow to the elder statesman that could endanger the country's shaky governing coalition.

Peretz has promised to pull Labor out of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's government, raising the likelihood of early elections. The defeat also could spell the end of Peres' distinguished, six-decade political career. Peres had been heavily favored to win.

[...]

While Peres, a Nobel peace laureate, is widely revered abroad, he has had trouble connecting with Israeli voters and failed in five previous elections for prime minister.

Peres, 82, repeatedly has emerged from the political wilderness. But political analyst Hanan Crystal said the defeat might mark the end of his career.

"This could be his wake. What can he do after this?" Crystal said. He said Peres' other options including becoming Peretz's deputy or splitting off from the party.

Back in August, when former conservative Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu announced his primary challenge against Sharon, we noted the discussions about the possibility that Sharon, Peres and Tommy Lapid (another senior Israeli politician) would form a centrist coalition. Should Peres indeed decide in favor of "splitting off from the party," this new coalition could be a reality, freeing Sharon to jettison the more fringe elements of his own coalition, and thus making the peace process even a little more feasible.

Oy Vey

2005-11-09T18:15:00.000-08:00

From the Associated Press.

Suicide bombers carried out nearly simultaneous attacks on three U.S.-based hotels in the Jordanian capital Wednesday night, killing at least 57 people and wounding 115 in what appeared to be an al-Qaida assault on an Arab kingdom with close ties to the United States.

The explosions hit the Grand Hyatt, Radisson SAS and Days Inn hotels just before 9 p.m. One of the blasts took place inside a wedding hall where 300 guests were celebrating — joined by a man strapped with explosives who had infiltrated the crowd. Black smoke rose into the night, and wounded victims stumbled from the hotels.

[...]

Jordan's deputy prime minister, Marwan Muasher, said there was no claim of responsibility but that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the Jordanian-born leader of al-Qaida in Iraq, was a "prime suspect."

Dems See 2006 Omen in Yesterday's Results

2005-11-09T18:10:00.000-08:00

In tomorrow's issue, The Hill offers couple of interesting pieces on Democratic reaction to their wideranging victories in yesterday's off year elections. First, campaigns reporter Peter Savodnik.

It was the best Election Day that Democrats have seen in years, and yesterday they were determined to make the most of it.

Democratic congressional candidates from Rhode Island to Colorado to Illinois said Democratic wins in New Jersey and, especially, GOP-leaning Virginia prove the country wants change.

[...]

Republicans have privately acknowledged that the president’s low poll numbers make it more difficult to recruit viable Senate and House candidates, raise campaign money and move the GOP agenda on Capitol Hill.

A South Carolina Republican campaign aide earlier pointed out that in previous election cycles the GOP has “nationalized” elections to great effect, particularly in the South and Midwest. That will not be an option in 2006, he said.

Schumer seemed aware of as much. The senator noted that Republicans had been unable to recruit their top choices as candidates in Washington, West Virginia, Florida, Michigan and other states. And he said the DSCC has had a successful fundraising season.

Josephine Hearn, who covers House Democrats, follows up with an article on the reaction of the Democratic Caucus to yesterday's developments.

A year after their demoralizing election performance, House Democratic leaders yesterday were giddy as they basked in gubernatorial victories in New Jersey and Virginia as well as the demise of Republican-backed voter referendums in California.

Emerging from their caucus meeting, House Democratic leaders were buoyed by Tuesday’s off-year elections, saying they foreshadow what is to come in 2006.

Before telling reporters that the results bode ill for Republicans’ efforts to pass budget cuts slated for today, the Democrats reveled in their wins.

[...]

Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.) came forward to school the press on 18th-century French philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville’s relevance to the budget vote before Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer (Md.) warned centrist Republicans not to cave to their leaders.

“Too often we have found that those moderate Republicans who do not believe in the policy nevertheless vote for it,” Hoyer said. “I think yesterday’s election ought to give them serious pause when [former House Majority Leader] Tom DeLay [R-Texas] talks to them tomorrow.”

CQ: House GOP Likely to Drop ANWR from Budget

2005-11-09T13:06:00.000-08:00

House Republicans, still desperately struggling to find the votes to pass the amended budget, seems poised to remove the portion of the bill that would allow companies to drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve. CQ Today's Midday Update (a free email service) has the story.

House GOP leaders appear likely to drop a provision opening Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling and make other changes to win votes from reluctant moderates for the budget-savings bill set for floor action tomorrow.

Charles Bass, R-N.H., maintained that the drilling provision must come out of the bill (HR 4241) or it will fail. Although some leaders have floated raising fuel efficiency standards for motor vehicles instead of dropping the ANWR provision, Bass said that would not fly.

Michael N. Castle, R-Del., a leading moderate, said deletion of ANWR is only the “starting point” for negotiations with leadership. Moderates also want smaller spending cuts to social programs. “They are the usual suspects — food stamps, foster care, child support, all the things you’ve been writing about,” Castle said.

Majority Leader Roy Blunt, R-Mo., left the door open to changes when the Rules Committee meets this evening. “We’ll just have to see how things develop later today, and what is the most helpful thing for this bill,” Blunt said.

In the wake of yesterday's wideranging defeat for Republican candidates, the moderates within the House GOP caucus not only have the gumption, but now also the clout, to push around their leadership -- even if only on an issue or two. And given that tomorrow's scheduled vote on the budget is the first major vote for Republicans without Tom DeLay (with the exception of a closer than expected vote on energy legislation), it looks like Blunt simply does not have the muscle to push around the moderates anymore... and that's probably a good thing.

Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham Back in the News

2005-11-09T12:29:00.000-08:00

Earlier this month, the North County Times' Mark Walker noted that the bevy of new scandals surrounding the GOP and its members had taken the focus away from embattled Republican Representative Randy "Duke" Cunningham (CA). But now the Duke-Stir, as he is known to some, is back in the national spotlight with a long USA Today expose on his relationship with MZM -- a Pentagon contractor. Matt Kelley and Jim Drinkard have the story.

A USA TODAY analysis of MZM-related campaign contributions shows how the company's growth and its political activities became intertwined at key moments. In more than 30 instances, donations from MZM's political action committee or company employees went to two members of the House Appropriations Committee — Cunningham and Rep. Virgil Goode, R-Va. — in the days surrounding key votes or contract awards that helped MZM grow.

For example, MZM's political action committee gave Cunningham $5,000 in 2003 the day before his appointment to a congressional panel negotiating the final version of the defense budget. Ten days later, the day after the House passed the final Pentagon spending bill, Wade gave Cunningham $2,000.

[...]

Political donations from military contractors are quite common, but timing those donations around contract decisions is not, said [Larry] Noble, a former chief counsel for the Federal Election Commission.

In a civil lawsuit filed by the U.S. Attorney's office in San Diego on Aug. 25, federal prosecutors accused Cunningham of seeking and receiving a bribe in exchange for helping MZM get government contracts.

The alleged bribe involved Wade's purchase of Cunningham's home near San Diego. A company [then-CEO Mitchell] Wade controlled paid $1.675 million for the house, then sold it eight months later at a $700,000 loss.Prosecutors saythat Wade deliberately paid more than the house was worth and that Cunningham used the excess to trade up to a more expensive house in Rancho Santa Fe, Calif.

A criminal investigation started in June by the FBI and Defense Department of MZM, Wade and Cunningham continues. No one has been indicted. Cunningham referred all questions to his lawyer, K. Lee Blalack, who says Cunningham did nothing illegal or unusual to help MZM. Goode says the MZM donations weren't payback for his support. Wade and his lawyer declined comment.

Cunningham isn't running or reelection next fall, though his problems could still rub off on his fellow Republicans. Along with

The conviction of Ohio's Republican Governor Bob Taft;
The indictments of former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, former Cheney chief of staff Scooter Libby, top White House procurement official David Safavian, and GOP superlobbyist Jack Abramoff;
And the ongoing SEC investigation into Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and Justice Department inquiry into the leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame

the continuing probe into Cunningham's relationship with Wade can only serve to further hurt the GOP. And as we saw yesterday, the Republican Party doesn't have too much room for error anymore.

Digesting Yesterday's Electoral Results

2005-11-09T09:45:00.000-08:00

A smattering of what some in the upper eschelons of the media are thinking about yesterday's electoral results...

Although they provide a warning not to read too much into yesterday's elections, ABC News' Gary Langer and David Chalian write the following.

The Democrats had a very good election night, just one year after President Bush won a solid re-election victory and Republicans increased their Senate majority to 55 seats.

Democratic Lt. Gov. Tim Kaine beat Republican Jim Kilgore in the Virginia gubernatorial race, and Democratic Sen. Jon Corzine defeated Republican Doug Forrester in a bitter contest for New Jersey's top job.

Kaine's victory could make it more difficult for the president to govern by marshalling his party in the year ahead. In an ABC News/Washington Post poll on the 2006 midterm elections released this weekend, Americans by nearly a 2-1 margin, 34 percent to 18 percent, say they're more likely to oppose than to support a candidate who's closely associated with Bush. Independents — the true swing voters — say so by 37 percent to 12 percent. [emphasis added]

Ron Brownstein's lede for his analysis piece in today's Los Angeles Times:

Democrats swept gubernatorial elections in New Jersey and Virginia on Tuesday, sending new tremors through Republicans worried that President Bush's sagging popularity may drag down the party in next year's midterm elections.

Top non-partisan political analyst Stu Rothenberg, via The Washington Times' Donald Lambro:

"New Jersey has no national implications. That's all about the state Democratic bench and local concerns," said veteran elections analyst Stuart Rothenberg.

"But Virginia -- you have to wonder whether or not there was a drag on the Republicans coming from the White House and the GOP's national problems. Virginia is a state you'd expect Republicans to win," he said.

Robin Toner's lede in the Political Memo for today's issue of The New York Times:

After months of sagging poll ratings, scandal and general political unrest, the Republicans badly needed some good news in Tuesday's elections for governor. What they got instead was a clear-cut loss in a red state, and an expected but still painful defeat in a blue one.

ABC News' The Note:

"President Bush has gone from being an unalloyed asset to being a mixed bag (at best) and in some places an obvious drag for GOP candidates"
"Democrats can now (again) plausibly argue that they can win by advocating bigger government programs for things such as health care and education"
"[T]he Democratic victory lap that starts today will jazz up their donors and help candidate recruitment"

Quote of the Day

2005-11-09T08:43:00.000-08:00

"In a word, no."

-- Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ), indicating to Imus that he would not like President Bush to "come to Arizona and cut campaign commercials."

Link.

Hayworth, who represents a district Bush carried with 54 percent of the vote in 2004, is exactly the type of Republican Congressman who might begin to think twice before toeing the party line on tough votes in the next year. If he's willing to run from the President this quickly, I'm not sure how the GOP is going to maintain the level of party unity it has for so many years.

Campaign 2005: Schwarzenegger Goes Down in Cali.

2005-11-08T22:49:00.000-08:00

For those interested in the results of Arnold Schwarzenegger's slate of propositions, in addition to the propositions regarding abortion, prescription drugs and electricity regulation, the California Secretary of State's office is maintaining an up-to-date website.

The Governor's propositions are teetering right now with one -- restricting unions -- garnering a little over 50 percent of the vote with 45 percent of precincts reporting. All other propositions are currently failing. Per the Los Angeles Times: Early Returns Show 3 of 4 Key Initiatives Failing.

[Update 11:22 PM Pacific]: With 57.0% of the precincts reporting, every proposition -- including all four in Governor Schwarzenegger's slate -- are failing. The closest measure currently, Prop. 75 (restricting unions), is now trailing 49.6-50.4 after previously leading for the entire night. The new headline from the LA Times: Voters Rejecting Schwarzenegger's Bid to Remake State Government.

[Update 1:11 AM Pacific 11/9/05]: With 86.2% of the precincts reporting, all eight propositions, including 73 (restricting abortions) and the Governor's package of 74-77, are still being defeated. The even later headline from the LA Times: Voters Reject Schwarzenegger's Bid to Remake State Government

More on what this means for Schwarzenegger later this morning (i.e. after I get a few hours of sleep)...

AP: "Bush Gambles, Loses Campaigning"

2005-11-08T22:00:00.000-08:00

Earlier tonight, I opined that the results of tonight's elections reflect poorly on President Bush's standing among the electorate. In an analysis piece for the AP, political reporter Ron Fournier thinks along the same lines (though with notably more cogent and well researched prose).

Iraq, Katrina, CIA leak, Harriet Miers. Things couldn't possibly get any worse for President Bush. Wait, they just did.

Bush put his wispy political prestige on the line in the Virginia governor's race and lost Tuesday when the candidate he embraced in a last-minute campaign stop was soundly defeated. While there are many reasons for Jerry Kilgore's defeat, chief among them his poor campaign, giddy Democrats said the Virginia race as well as a Democratic victory in New Jersey prove that Bush is a political toxin for Republicans.

[...]

It's not clear that's the message voters intended to send in Virginia or New Jersey, but Republicans couldn't deny that Tuesday's results heightened their anxieties about the 2006 midterm elections, when much more will be at stake, and raised questions about Bush's political standing. Some blamed Bush for a low GOP turnout.

"Republicans are not so angry at the president that they want to vote for the other guy. They just stayed home," said GOP consultant Rich Galen. Others noted that Bush battled conservative allies over Miers' failed Supreme Court nomination and has drawn criticism from within the GOP ranks for government spending.

Warranted or not, the jitters could cause Republicans to slap Bush with a lame duck's label and move on.

[Update 12:11 AM Pacific 11/9/05]: Robert Tanner's new lede for the AP.

Democrats cleaned up big in off-year elections from New Jersey to California, sinking the candidate who embraced President Bush in the final days of the Virginia governor's campaign. They also turned back GOP Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's efforts to limit the power of California's Democratic leaders.

"Democrats cleaned up big." It's the first time I've heard that said in quite a while.

Lott: Leak May Have Come from the GOP

2005-11-08T21:33:00.000-08:00

Earlier today, the Republican leadership in both Houses called for an investigation into the leaking of information related to secret American prisons in Eastern Europe. But as CNN notes, at least one Republican Senator has suggested that it was someone inside the GOP caucus who might of been the leaker.

Earlier Tuesday, Republican congressional leaders asked for an investigation into the matter, and Sen. Trent Lott of Mississippi suggested his own GOP colleagues could be to blame for the possible leak.

[...]

Lott told reporters the information in the Post story was the same as that given to Republican senators in a closed-door briefing by Vice President Dick Cheney last week.

"Every word that was said in there went right to the newspaper," he said. "We can't keep our mouths shut."

Lott, a former Senate majority leader who was pushed out in 2002, suggested the information was passed along by a senator to a staff member.

He said the investigation Frist and Hastert want may result in an ethics probe of a Senate member.

If Lott's statements are at all true -- and I can't conceive of a reason why he would lie about a matter like this (even if he's bitter about Frist's role in his 2002 demotion, Lott wouldn't play politics on a matter like this) -- Frist would have either

Known that the information had been given to the GOP caucus, so the leak at least could have come from one of his own; or,
Didn't attend the meeting of the Vice President and the GOP caucus.

Neither one of these is a particularly good explanation. And given the fact that Frist appeared to be confused about whether or not he had signed the letter in the first place, I'd say this was a fairly bungled operation by the Republican leadership.

What Today Means for the Country

2005-11-08T19:22:00.000-08:00

The Democrats have found a message: the election today shows that the Democratic Party has the momentum in the country. Rahm Emanuel, per Hotline on Call.

DCCC Chair Rahm Emanuel is the first nat'l Dem we've heard from tonight. His basic spin on VA GOV: a straight-forward Dem message of health care, education etc. beat a straight-forward GOP message of tax cuts, death penalty and immigration. "In a red state, a Democratic message beat a Republican message." And while Emanuel didn't say it, his implication was that Kaine's no Warner, meaning Warner won in '01 by trying to deliver a Republican-lite message. But that wasn't the Kaine message; he delivered a much more conventional Dem message.

Emanuel also claimed that both the NJ and VA victories are part of a pattern that started with the OH 02 special. The pattern: Democratic voters are simply more motivated than the GOP right now.

If this meme takes hold, particularly among Republican members of Congress from battleground and blue states and districts, the GOP's relatively small margins of control in the House and Senate will start to seem a lot smaller. When the budget comes to a vote on Thursday in the House, for instance, will acting Majority Leader Roy Blunt really be able to whip moderates on either side of the aisle into submission?

On another point, it's important to note that President Bush went out of his way yesterday to campaign for the GOP candidate in Virginia, Jerry Kilgore. Clearly, the President's sway among the electorate -- even in a state he carried by nine points in 2004 -- is greatly diminished.

President Bush has been able to keep his party in line largely because of his popularity among voters and his campaigning abilities. But now that he's lost these assets, will he still be able to coerce and cajole members of his party to stick together? Will he be able to recruit talented Congressional candidates and convince aging incumbents to give it one more go? If the answer is no, the Democrats shot at retaking one or both Houses will be greatly enhanced.

Campaign 2005: Election Day

2005-11-08T17:57:00.000-08:00

With two thirds of precincts reporting in Virginia, Democrat Tim Kaine is leading his Republican rival Jerry Kilgore by just under four percentage points. In much earlier counting from New Jersey (only 12 percent of precincts reporting), Democrat Jon Corzine is leading Republican Doug Forrester by about seven points -- and according to the Hotline on Call blog, "Corzine is winning the bellwether Bergen County with 57% of the vote and 13.5% precincts reporting in that county." Click here for constantly updated results from the two races.

[Update 7:05 PM Pacific]: Per the AP's Robert Tanner: A Democratic Sweep.

Democrats swept both governors' races Tuesday, with Sen. Jon Corzine easily winning New Jersey and Lt. Gov. Tim Kaine taking Virginia despite a last-minute campaign push for his opponent from President Bush.

[...]

Kaine had 860,719 votes, or 51 percent, to Kilgore's 789,273 votes, or 46.8 percent, with 88 percent of precincts reporting.

In New Jersey, Democratic Sen. Jon Corzine trounced Doug Forrester, pulling in 54 percent of the vote to the Republican's 42.8 percent, with 55 percent of precincts counted. Corzine had 605,915 votes, and Forrester had 480,477.

Sen. Finance Chair: No Soc. Sec. Reform Until 2009

2005-11-08T12:48:00.000-08:00

It's almost difficult to remember now, but there was a time this year when the vast majority of the political discourse in Washington and around the country was devoted to President Bush's plan to partially privatize Social Security. What happened to the proposal? CQ Today's Midday Update (a free email service) reports that the Senator with the most control over the entitlement program has said that the "reform" is effectively dead until 2009 -- at the earliest.

Senate Finance Chairman Charles E. Grassley, R-Iowa, said today that he is “very pessimistic” about the prospects for overhauling Social Security any time soon, predicting that another push to change the program may not be possible until 2009.

In a speech to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Grassley noted that months of presidential speeches and many meetings of the Finance Committee’s Republican members failed to yield any movement on the issue this year, thanks to opposition from Democrats and GOP moderates.

Polls showed strong public resistance to White House proposals to allow workers to divert a portion of their payroll taxes to individual investment accounts in exchange for reduced guaranteed benefits.

“I’m very pessimistic about it in the future,” Grassley said.

Grassley has made it clear he is more interested in fixing Social Security’s financial problems than in creating individual accounts. Rep. Jim Kolbe, R-Ariz., who has written legislation that would bring Social Security back into long-term financial balance, has said he doubts Congress will return to the issue again before the next president’s second term.

Grassley says 2009, Kolbe says 2013... What ever happened to the sense of urgency trumpeted by Republicans not even a year ago? If the reform was imminently needed nine months ago, shouldn't it be more imminently needed today? And if private accounts are so necessary for the program, why don't Congressional Republicans follow through with the President's efforts to create the new program?

If Republicans were actually interested in slamming through revisions to the Social Security program, they would go ahead and do it. What of a potential Democratic filibuster in the Senate? If the GOP is willing to get rid of filibusters of judges, shouldn't it also be willing to get rid of the filibuster over an issue as imminently problematic as Social Security?

Republican spinners often call the Democrats the "do nothing" party. But given Republicans' apprehension to do what was and is necessary to pass the Bush plan on Social Security, it seems the only "do nothing" party is the GOP.

Libby Indictment Weighs Down Bush Approval

2005-11-08T12:34:00.000-08:00

In the latest polling from The Pew Research Center, President Bush's approval rating has fallen to 36 percent -- down four points since late last month. Among Republicans and Independents, the President's numbers are at an all-time low of 77 percent and 29 percent, respectively. (Note that Independents are 15 points removed from Democrats but 48 percent removed from Republicans.) From Pew:

President George W. Bush's approval ratings have fallen to another new low, amid a growing focus on alleged ethical lapses in his administration. Just 36% now believe that Bush has lived up to his campaign pledge to restore integrity to the White House.

In contrast, fully 79% of Americans say the recent indictment of I. Lewis Libby, formerly a top aide to Vice President Cheney, on perjury and other charges is a matter of at least some importance to the nation; that is greater than the percentage who said that in 1998 about charges that former President Clinton lied under oath about a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky (65%).

A plurality of Americans (42%) think that Libby is guilty of the charges brought against him. Moreover, an increasing number of Americans think that U.S. and British leaders were mostly lying when they claimed prior to the Iraq war that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction; 43% express that opinion now, up from 31% in February 2004.

Despite mounting criticisms of the president, Bush's latest nominee for the Supreme Court Judge Samuel Alito Jr. has received favorable initial reviews from the public. By nearly two-to-one (40%-23%), Americans say the Senate should confirm Alito to the court. This is similar to the public's response to Judge John Roberts in mid-September, nearly two months after his nomination, and is a greater vote of confidence than failed nominee Harriet Miers received in early October.

Unfortunately for the administration, the positive glimmers from Alito's nomination are being overshadowed by negative developments elsewhere. When asked to name the first current news story that comes to mind, Americans most frequently cite the war and troop deaths in Iraq (19%), recent hurricanes and their aftermath (14%), and the Libby case (11%); far fewer mention Bush's appointments to the Supreme Court (5%).

Among the more interesting findings in the poll is the comparison between President Bush and President Nixon at the same time in their presidencies. George W. Bush's approval rating is only nine points higher than Richard Nixon's was in November 1973 -- but statistically the same among both Democrats and Independents (Bush has higher support among Republicans). At what point do the media begin calling George W. Bush an unpopular President?

GOP Pushes Different Leak Investigation

2005-11-08T11:29:00.000-08:00

There have been many complaints that Congressional Republicans have been dragging their feet over investigations into allegations of misuse of intelligence to sell the Iraq War, but less than one week after The Washington Post's Dana Priest reported on secret American-run jails in Eastern Europe, the Republican leadership in Congress is unanimously pushing for a thorough investigation. The Associated Press reports.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and House Speaker Dennis Hastert are circulating a letter calling for a congressional leak investigation into the disclosure of secret U.S. interrogation centers abroad.

The Washington Post reported Nov. 2 on the existence of secret U.S. prisons in Eastern Europe for terrorism suspects. The Bush administration has neither confirmed nor denied that report.

"If accurate, such an egregious disclosure could have long-term and far-reaching damaging and dangerous consequences, and will imperil our efforts to protect the American people and our homeland from terrorist attacks," stated the letter, which Hastert's office said the House speaker had signed. There was no immediate word on whether Frist had given it his signature.

[...]

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said Republican leaders should also investigate possible manipulation of prewar intelligence on Iraq and the disclosure of covert CIA officer Valerie Plame's identity.

"If Speaker Hastert and Majority Leader Frist are finally ready to join Democrats' demands for an investigation of possible abuses of classified information, they must direct the House and Senate Intelligence Committees to investigate all aspects of that issue," said Pelosi.

As a rule, leaking classified material is a charge that should be investigated. But the short shrift the Republicans have given to the probes into the leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity and the alleged misuse of intelligence related to Iraq indicates to me that the GOP is less interested in finding the root of this leak as it is with playing "gotcha" politics.

I Voted!

2005-11-08T11:04:00.000-08:00

This morning, I went to my polling place and voted on a slate of propositions. What struck me most was that of all of the voters, I appeared to be the only one under the age of 50. Perhaps this was because I was in a retirement home, but it is the polling place for all Pomona College students, so I at least expected to see some familiar faces.

Whatever the case, I'm thankful that I was able to vote, and that moreover I was able to vote in a timely manner (i.e. I did not have to wait hours to vote). If only all Americans could say the same thing...

The Legal Issues of Ney and DeLay

2005-11-08T08:46:00.000-08:00

Two of indicted GOP superlobbyist Jack Abramoff's former best friends in Washington, Reps. Bob Ney (R-OH) and Tom DeLay (R-TX), both find themselves stuck in relatively difficult situations. First, as The Hill's Alexander Bolton reports, Ney recently set up a legal defense fund.

Sixth-term Rep. Bob Ney (R-Ohio) is setting up a legal defense fund as Democrats are trying to turn up the heat on the Administration Committee chairman because of his past contact with indicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff, according to a source familiar with the activity.

Brian Walsh, Ney’s spokesman, declined to comment.

Ney, who recently hired the law firm of Vinson & Elkins to defend him against potential investigations by the Justice Department and the House ethics committee, has up to this point paid his legal bills out of his reelection fund.

Ney reported in a filing with Federal Election Commission last month that he paid Vinson & Elkins $136,000 at the beginning of August. Mark Tuohey, a partner at the firm, is representing Ney.

The bills are costly for a public official who reported less than $2,000 in assets on his public financial-disclosure report and who is one of the Democrats’ top targets in 2006. Ney had $422,000 in his campaign account at the end of September.

As you might recall, some of Ney's documents were subpoenaed last week by federal officers looking into the Congressman's ties to Abramoff. But Ney is not the only former friend of Abramoff to be the hot seat these days. The initial trial date for former House Majority Leader DeLay, who had to cede his position after being indicted in September, has been set, reports R.G. Ratcliffe for the Houston Chronicle.

The new judge in the criminal trial of U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay on Monday set his first hearing in the case for Nov. 22, most likely taking up motions to move the trial from Travis to Fort Bend County.

Attorneys for DeLay, R-Sugar Land, have asked Senior Judge Pat Priest to take up the change of venue motion first, but there also are motions before Priest to quash the indictments against DeLay and to sever his trial from his co-defendants, John Colyandro and Jim Ellis.

DeLay lawyer Dick DeGuerin filed a motion Monday asking Priest to move the trial to Fort Bend County, DeLay's home. He said the charges against DeLay are based on state election law, which establishes venue as the home county of the alleged violator.

[...]

The brief filed by DeLay's lawyers said the role he played in dividing the county into three congressional districts during the 2003 congressional redistricting battle had made him "unpopular" in Travis County. He called Austin "one of the last enclaves of the Democratic Party in Texas."

[...]

[T]he Democratic Lone Star Project put out a statement challenging DeLay's contention that Travis County is Democratic. The group said election returns for the past two presidential elections, past two U.S. Senate races and the 2002 governor's race show Travis County was more Democratic than Republican by a margin of two-tenths of one percent.

Pacifying Baghdad Within 12 Months

2005-11-08T08:34:00.000-08:00

As Jackson Diehl notes in a column for The Washington Post, the American Ambassador in Iraq recently offered comments about the situation in Iraq that did not cohere particularly well with the Bush administration line.

The ambassador argues that U.S. policy is finally on track. "We do have the beginning of adjustments that I think puts us on the right path," he told Gwen Ifill of PBS in one of his few on-the-record interviews. In addition to his own diplomacy, which has persuaded Sunni parties to compete in upcoming elections and Shiite and Kurdish parties to agree to post-election negotiations, there is, at last, a concerted counterinsurgency campaign underway, aimed at clearing areas of militants and then holding them. [Zalmay] Khalilzad believes Baghdad should now be systematically secured, starting with the airport and then moving into the city. But the process will be slow and hard: Just pacifying the capital could take a year. [emphasis added]

If it will take an entire year to pacify Baghdad, how long will it take to pacify the entire country?

Campaign 2006: North Carolina

2005-11-07T22:16:00.000-08:00

Often, reporting on politicians with a background in sports is overwrought with poor puns. For example Virginia Senator George Allen, son of the legendary NFL coach of the same name, is often "leading his troops to the field," "looking for a touchdown," etc. But in tomorrow's issue of The New York Times, sports writer Lee Jenkins pens an extremely easy to read profile of college football star-turned-underperforming NFL quarterback-turned-Democratic House candidate, Heath Shuler.

A fan approaches the former quarterback Heath Shuler, and their meeting unfolds predictably enough. They have friends in common. They share some grass-stained memories. But at the end of the encounter, the fan turns into a voter and the legend turns into a candidate. The fan is no longer seeking the approval of the legend; the candidate is seeking the approval of the voter.

Because Shuler is a Democrat who played football at the University of Tennessee, and because this part of western North Carolina generally votes Republican and roots for Tennessee, the endorsement usually goes this way: "You're on the wrong side of the ticket, but you know what? I'm going to vote for you anyway."

College football loyalties can run deeper than party lines. The candidate nods and smiles. The voter tips his Tennessee cap. Just like that, the voter is once again a fan and the candidate once again a legend.

[...]

Shuler was not a traditional quarterback; he would often run before he would pass. And he is not what most would consider a traditional candidate: he is a Democrat who opposes abortion rights, gay marriage and gun control. He is perhaps the only kind of Democrat who can compete in this part of North Carolina. [emphasis added]

Newt Gingrich, who forwarded the cause of conservatism as much as almost anyone in the last 20 years, had the following to say last year about building a conservative coalition.

"We can create a center-right majority in America, but it is impossible to create a right-only majority."

Likewise for the Democrats, it's near to impossible to create a left-only majority, but a coalition of moderates and liberals can produce a lasting majority. Recruiting candidates like Shuler, who clearly is not a liberal, is a good step towards building the coalition. And if Democratic Congessional Campaign Committee chair Rahm Emanuel can continue to find unique candidates of all political stripes, just like Shuler, the Democrats will have a real shot at retaking the House in 2006.

The Hill: House GOP Doesn't Yet Have Votes on Budget

2005-11-07T19:00:00.000-08:00

The Hill's team of Patrick O’Connor and Elana Schor take a preliminary WHIP count of the House Republican caucus and find that "the votes are not there for spending cuts."

As House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), Majority Leader Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) and their leadership team rally the conference, GOP lawmakers are actively working against provisions included in a version of the bill marked up last week by the House Budget Committee.

Most of these members oppose single items, not the entire legislation, and changes are expected by the time the bill reaches the House Rules Committee today or tomorrow.

Concerns vary, and members are listening to leadership as well as to constituents. Some of the most controversial items include allowing oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), eligibility changes to the federal food-stamp program, increased prescription-drug co-payments for Medicaid beneficiaries and lender changes to the subsidized student-loan program.

O'Connor and Schor identify 28 possible GOP "no" votes. With 231 Republicans in the House, that means that if the Democrats can united -- a big if, of course -- only half of the fence-sitting Republicans would have to vote no to scuttle the budget.

Invariably, the results of tomorrow's elections will have an effect on the budget vote, which is slated for Thursday. If Republicans are able to win the gubernatorial race in Virginia and keep the gubernatorial contest in New Jersey close (or even pull off a win), it's quite possibile that a number of the leaners will fall into place. If, however, the Democrats are able to win both governor races, moderate Republicans will be much more loath to go out on a limb for their party.

Progressive Talker Finally on American Forces Radio

2005-11-07T13:51:00.000-08:00

About three weeks ago, the morning he was supposed to debut on American Forces Radio, progressive radio talk show host Ed Schultz found out that his show had been effectively yanked. But many groups, including Wes Clark's WesPAC, the People for the American Way and other liberal organizations, organized, as did Democratic members of Congress. And today, Schultz found out from Senator Carl Levin that he will be on the air.

Dear Senator Levin:

Thank you for your October 19th letter to Secretary Rumsfeld concerning the radio programming distributed by the American Forces Radio and Television Service (AFRTS) on its American Forces Network (AFN).

AFRTS attempts to make available to forces stationed overseas a breadth of programming that reflects the quality and diversity that would be available to service members and their families if they were in the United States.

[...]

I am advisted that AFRTS managers are updating the programming mix and have decided to include additional programs, including the Ed Schultz Show, that apparently meet the criteria that AFRTS managers apply to such decisions.

[...]

Sincerely,

Lawrence Di Rita
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs

It's not always evident, but from time to time, the Democrats can muster some sway in Washington. And this time, it's for a good cause. It's important that members of the Armed Services are able to listen to more voices than just Rush Limbaugh and his imitators on the right.

Chalabi in Town; Probe of his Activities Lags

2005-11-07T11:41:00.000-08:00

Scot J. Paltrow of The Wall Street Journal, which is apparently free online this week, has a very interesting article today on the Washington visit of Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Ahmad Chalabi and the pending investigation into his pre-war activities.

As Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Ahmad Chalabi arrives this week in Washington for talks, there is little sign of progress in a federal investigation of allegations that he once leaked U.S. intelligence secrets to Iran.

More than 17 months after then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice publicly promised a full criminal inquiry, the Federal Bureau of Investigation hasn't interviewed Mr. Chalabi himself or many current and former U.S. government officials thought likely to have information related to the matter, according to lawyers for several of these individuals and others close to the case.

The investigation of Mr. Chalabi, who had been a confidant of senior Defense Department officials before the war in Iraq, remains in the hands of the FBI, with little active interest from local federal prosecutors or the Justice Department, these people said. There also has been no grand-jury involvement in the case.

The investigation centers on allegations that one or more U.S. officials in early 2004 leaked intelligence to Mr. Chalabi, including the fact that the U.S. had broken a crucial Iranian code, and that Mr. Chalabi in turn had passed the information to the Baghdad station chief of Iran's Ministry of Intelligence and Security. The assertions about Mr. Chalabi's involvement came after U.S. intelligence agencies intercepted a cable from the station chief back home to Iran, detailing what the chief claimed was a conversation with Mr. Chalabi about the broken code.

Former intelligence officials said such a leak could have caused serious damage to U.S. national security. The broken code had enabled U.S. intelligence agencies to monitor covert cable traffic among Iranian operatives around the world. The encrypted cable traffic was a main source of information on Iranian operations inside Iraq. The leak also threatened U.S. efforts to monitor any Iranian steps to develop nuclear weapons. And there was concern that the disclosure could prompt other countries to upgrade their encryption, making it more difficult for the U.S. to spy on them.

Remind me again which party is generally considered by the talking heads to be stronger on national security?

GOP Sen. Mike DeWine Lagging in Ohio

2005-11-07T10:55:00.000-08:00

Ohio might be a very difficult state for Republicans next year. The GOP Governor, Bob Taft, has been convicted while in office; Reps. Bob Ney and Deborah Pryce have widely-reported ties to indicted GOP superlobbyist Jack Abramoff; and there is widespread unease with the direction of both the state and the country. And the results can be seen in the most recent polling on the state's senior Senator, Republican Mike DeWine, as the Associated Press reports.

Ohio Senator Mike DeWine faces re-election a year from now, and he's got some work to do.

A new poll from The Columbus Dispatch newspaper shows the Republican has the support of only about a third of the state's voters, and that's against either of his potential Democratic challengers, Paul Hackett and Congressman Sherrod Brown.

In hypothetical head-to-heads, Hackett nearly ties DeWine, and Brown even outpolls the incumbent by a couple of points.

Pollster John Zogby also did some internet polling on the race that found Hackett leading DeWine 45 to 35, and Brown leading DeWine 40 to 37. While these polls don't arrive at exactly the same numbers, they both indicate that DeWine is in extreme jeopardy, which should be a cause for concern among those trying to maintain a GOP majority in the Senate.

Cheney's Fight Against More Restrictive Rules on Prisoners

2005-11-07T09:15:00.000-08:00

Vice President Dick Cheney is not the most popular politician in the country these days, particularly in the wake of the indictment and resignation of his chief of staff Scooter Libby for perjury and obstruction of justice. But as Dana Priest and Robin Wright report for The Washington Post, that's not stopping him from continuing to push policies that are widely unpopular even within his own party.

Over the past year, Vice President Cheney has waged an intense and largely unpublicized campaign to stop Congress, the Pentagon and the State Department from imposing more restrictive rules on the handling of terrorist suspects, according to defense, state, intelligence and congressional officials.

Last winter, when Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, began pushing to have the full committee briefed on the CIA's interrogation practices, Cheney called him to the White House to urge that he drop the matter, said three U.S. officials.

In recent months, Cheney has been the force against adding safeguards to the Defense Department's rules on treatment of military prisoners, putting him at odds with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and acting Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon R. England. On a trip to Canada last month, Rice interrupted a packed itinerary to hold a secure video-teleconference with Cheney on detainee policy to make sure no decisions were made without her input.

Just last week, Cheney showed up at a Republican senatorial luncheon to lobby lawmakers for a CIA exemption to an amendment by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) that would ban torture and inhumane treatment of prisoners. The exemption would cover the CIA's covert "black sites" in several Eastern European democracies and other countries where key al Qaeda captives are being kept.

[...]

Increasingly, however, Cheney's positions are being opposed by other administration officials, including Cabinet members, political appointees and Republican lawmakers who once stood firmly behind the administration on all matters concerning terrorism.

Ninety United States Senators, including 46 out of 55 Republicans, have supported the McCain amendment as written on two separate roll call votes. Whatever clout Cheney once had inside the halls of Congress seems to have flown away.

On another level, is this really the type of battle the administration is itching for? Do they really believe that it is worth what little political capital they still hold to fight against an amendment that would largely ban torture?

McCain Begins Courting Religious Right

2005-11-07T08:37:00.000-08:00

I have been generally skeptical of talk of a 2008 presidential bid by John McCain due to his age (at the time of inauguration he would be two years older than Ronald Reagan when he was first inaugurated), but one of the briefs in US News & World Report's Washington Whispers this week gives me some pause.

Sen. John McCain is taking action to make it hard for conservatives to write him off in the 2008 presidential race. His office confirms that the maverick moderate recently met with the Rev. Jerry Falwell, a conservative icon who is influential with voters on the right. Also, as McCain prepares a campaign-style trip to South Carolina, critical in the 2008 GOP primaries, a key ally is putting himself in the good graces of conservatives. South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham is winning kudos from conservatives for backing Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito, raising his stature in the state and maybe even making his 2008 endorsement the key to victory. And should McCain win the state that derailed his 2000 bid, Graham would vault to the top of the veep list, say insiders.

While McCain receives a great deal of praise nationally for his appearance of non-partisanship and moderation, his notable veer right to gain standing among religious conservatives will go a long way towards undercutting that good will.

Can McCain carefully walk the tightrope and win the support of both religious conservatives and many in the middle? George W. Bush did so to a degree of success in 2000. But will moderates fall for the same tricks again? That's where we'll see if John McCain is actually that once-in-a-lifetime politician or just another flash in the pan.

Quote of the Day

2005-11-07T08:25:00.000-08:00

The state of the world. How about that indictment?! And why did it take so long to respond to the crisis in New Orleans? Everything is imploding. It all seems to lead back to our dear president."

-- Jennifer Anniston, explaining one of the seven things she'd rather talk about than the men in (or Out) of her life

Link.

Miss the Sunday Shows?

2005-11-07T08:18:00.000-08:00

Check out this compilation of the top clips of the week provided by The Hotline (a free Real Player file).

Dangerous Omens for Congressional Republicans

2005-11-06T12:32:00.000-08:00

The Washington Post's trio of Dan Balz, Shailagh Murray and Peter Slevin, aided by David S. Broder, polling director Richard Morin and assistant polling director Claudia Deane, take a look at the tea leaves and try to divine the fate of Congressional Republicans.

One year before the 2006 midterm elections, Republicans are facing the most adverse political conditions of the 11 years since they vaulted to power in Congress in 1994. Powerful currents of voter unrest -- including unhappiness over the war in Iraq and dissatisfaction with the leadership of President Bush -- have undermined confidence in government and are stirring fears among GOP candidates of a backlash

[...]

Two-thirds of those surveyed by The Post and ABC News said the country is heading in the wrong direction. Asked whom they were likely to support in next year's House elections, 52 percent of registered voters said the Democratic candidate, while 37 percent said the Republican. While this testing of generic preferences is not always a reliable indicator of elections, the result suggests that Republicans for now are in trouble.

Republicans may find solace in the fact that 60 percent of those surveyed approved of the job their own House member is doing -- but that, too, was the case one year before the 1994 election. Then the percentage declined throughout 1994; if the same happens next year, Republicans will be in serious trouble.

In another indication of unrest, a majority now say they have little or no confidence in the government in Washington to solve problems, another statistic that is similar to findings at this point 12 years ago. Confidence deteriorated steadily throughout 1994.

When asked which party they trusted to handle the main problems facing the nation, registered voters preferred Democrats by 49 percent to 38 percent. On the eve of the 2002 midterms, when the GOP defied historical trends by gaining House and Senate seats, Republicans led on that question among those most likely to vote by 51 percent to 39 percent.

There is no doubt that the Democrats have a long way to go before they are able to retake either House of Congress. But both Rahm Emanuel and Chuck Schumer, chairmen of the Democrats' House and Senate campaign committees, respectively, are doing great jobs at fundraising and recruiting, and the Democrats have come up with an overarching theme for 2006. And if this polling is even remotely correct, the basis is evident within the public for real change next fall.

Rove Still on the Way Out?

2005-11-06T10:53:00.000-08:00

This week, Time's Mike Allen takes a look at the possibility that Karl Rove is not nearly as in the clear as suggested by some right-leaning talking heads.

Despite Rove's flashes of ebullience in recent days and the insistence of friends that he is out of legal jeopardy, several of the most important lawyers who deal with special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald said they saw more clues last week that Fitzgerald is continuing to look into the possibility of charging Rove with lying to investigators or the grand jury or both. If that happens, Rove almost certainly would resign immediately, as did I. Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, when Libby was indicted two weeks ago. Otherwise, Rove is likely to wait for a chance to minimize the perception that he is being hounded out or leaving under a cloud. And he's got one constituency rooting for him, the conservatives who rely on him to be their voice. If he leaves, he will not be alone. Several well-wired Administration officials predict that within a year, the President will have a new chief of staff and press secretary, probably a new Treasury Secretary and maybe a new Defense Secretary.

This could be a very long and very cold winter at the White House.

The Sunday Shows

2005-11-06T01:38:00.000-08:00

It's that time of the week again...

CBS' "Face the Nation" -- Sens. Pat Roberts (R-KS), Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Orrin Hatch (R-UT)

NBC's "Meet the Press" — Sens. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and Tom Coburn (R-OK)

ABC's "This Week" -- Sens. Joe Biden (D-DE), Chuck Hagel (R-NE); Bill Gates, Microsoft founder

"Fox News Sunday" -- Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY); Mike Wallace, CBS correspondent; John Berry, National Zoo

CNN's "Late Edition" — Sens. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) and George Allen (R-VA); British Defense Secretary John Reid

Chris Wallace's interview with his father, the veteran CBS newsman, should be quite interesting.

Jonathan Singer

Interview with Congressman Rahm Emanuel

Interview with Senator Russell Feingold

Interview with former NAACP Chairman Kweisi Mfume

Interview with former Navy Secretary James Webb

Interview with House Speaker Tom Foley

Interview with MT-Sen Candidate Jon Tester

Interview with MN-Sen Candidate Amy Klobuchar

Interview with Rep. Ben Cardin (D-MD)

My Interview with Rep. Ted Strickland (D-OH)

My Interview with Former RI Att. Gen. Sheldon Whitehouse

My Interview with RI Sec. of State Matt Brown

My Inteview with Congressman Sherrod Brown

Site News

Who Leaked to Woodward?

More Documents Subpoenaed in DeLay Case

Menendez Increases Push for Senate Appointment

Oil Execs Asked to Clarify Discredited Testimony

Bill Clinton: Invading Iraq was "Big Mistake"

Bush's Approval Continues Fall in Many States

Campaign 2006

Moderate GOP Rep. Calls for New Leadership Elections

Quote of the Day

Specter Cuts Pork, Diverts Funds to Liberal Programs

Former GOP Chair of CPB Violated Federal Law

GOP Still Struggling to Pass Tax Cuts

Arizona Considers Joining Oregon with Vote by Mail

Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson Still Way up in Florida

Poll Signals Possible Rift in Democratic Party of Oregon

Senate GOP Challenges Administration on Iraq

Another Republican Turns Down Shot to Challenge Byrd

Yet Another New Low for Bush's Approval

Campaign 2006: Democratic Senators

Miss the Sunday Shows?

Interview with George McGovern

Capturing the Situation in Iraq in Film

Another Possible Motive for Libby

The Sunday Shows

George McGovern Interview

Newsweek: Bush, Republicans Take a Hit

This Site in Profile

Quote of the Day

Campaign 2006: Illinois, Pennsylvania

Corzine Considers African American Woman as Replacement

The Five Lessons of Election 2005

Thank You

AP-Ipsos: 57% Say Bush Not Honest

DeLay Had Planned to Plea to Misdemeanor

Fox News: Bush Approval Down 5 Points in 2 Weeks

House GOP: Yes on Tax Cuts for Rich, No on Middle Class Tax Cuts

Campaign 2006: The Senate

GOP Budget Stalls in House

GOP Tax Cut Stalls in Senate Finance Committee

Only 37% Say Their Rep. Deserves Reelection

Another Military Dem Emerges

On Tuesday Dems Won Big Downticket, Too

ANWR Drilling from House GOP Budget Bill

Mike Brown Finally off Federal Payroll

WSJ/NBC: 33% Rate Bush Honest and Straightforward

Two GOP Reps. Clear Up Legal Woes

Shimon Peres Loses Support in Party Primary

Oy Vey

Dems See 2006 Omen in Yesterday's Results

CQ: House GOP Likely to Drop ANWR from Budget

Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham Back in the News

Digesting Yesterday's Electoral Results

Quote of the Day

Campaign 2005: Schwarzenegger Goes Down in Cali.

AP: "Bush Gambles, Loses Campaigning"

Lott: Leak May Have Come from the GOP

What Today Means for the Country

Campaign 2005: Election Day

Sen. Finance Chair: No Soc. Sec. Reform Until 2009

Libby Indictment Weighs Down Bush Approval

GOP Pushes Different Leak Investigation

I Voted!

The Legal Issues of Ney and DeLay

Pacifying Baghdad Within 12 Months

Campaign 2006: North Carolina

The Hill: House GOP Doesn't Yet Have Votes on Budget