Friday, September 25, 2009

Massachusetts throws law out the window

Governor to name replacement

BOSTON — Massachusetts lawmakers fulfilled Sen. Edward Kennedy’s dying wish Wednesday, granting the governor the power to appoint an interim replacement for him so President Barack Obama can regain a crucial 60th U.S. Senate vote he needs to pass a healthcare overhaul this year. Gov. Deval Patrick vowed to fill the seat "very, very soon," proclaiming that he will send a letter to the Massachusetts secretary of state to declare an emergency. That would let him override a legislative vote Wednesday that defeated his administration’s effort to make the bill take effect immediately. Normally, legislation faces a 90-day wait. "I recognize the gravity of this decision and I will make it very soon, and tell you just as soon as I do," the governor told reporters Wednesday night. Patrick would not discuss potential appointees, though a top aide confirmed earlier that Kennedy’s sons lobbied for former Democratic National Committee Chairman Paul G. Kirk Jr. The Boston attorney was close friends with Kennedy. Kirk, 71, and his wife, Gail, live on Cape Cod, and he was among the few regular visitors allowed at Kennedy’s Hyannis Port home before Kennedy died Aug. 25. — The Associated Press

Friday, August 21, 2009

Ridge pressured to raise terror level

After Osama bin Laden released a threatening videotape four days before the election, Attorney General John Ashcroft and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld pushed Mr. Ridge to elevate the public threat posture but he refused, according to the book. Mr. Ridge calls it a “dramatic and inconceivable” event that “proved most troublesome” and reinforced his decision to resign.

The provocative allegation provides fresh ammunition for critics who have accused the Bush administration of politicizing national security. Mr. Bush and his Democratic challenger, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, were locked in a tight race heading into that final weekend, and some analysts concluded that even without a higher threat level, the bin Laden tape helped the president win re-election by reminding voters of the danger of Al Qaeda.

Keith M. Urbahn, a spokesman for Mr. Rumsfeld, said the defense secretary supported letting the public know if intelligence agencies believed there was a greater threat, and pointed to a variety of chilling Qaeda warnings in those days, including one tape vowing that “the streets of America will run red with blood.”

“Given those facts,” Mr. Urbahn said, “it would seem reasonable for senior administration officials to discuss the threat level. Indeed, it would have been irresponsible had that discussion not taken place.”

Mr. Urbahn said “the storyline advanced by his publisher seemingly to sell copies of the book is nonsense.”

Mr. Ashcroft could not be reached for comment. But Mark Corallo, who was his spokesman at the Justice Department, dismissed Mr. Ridge’s account. “Didn’t happen,” he said. “Now would be a good time for Mr. Ridge to use his emergency duct tape.”

Frances Fragos Townsend, who was Mr. Bush’s homeland security adviser, said that “there was a fulsome debate” about the threat level but that “the politics of it were not ever a factor.”

Mr. Ridge’s book, called “The Test of Our Times” and due out Sept. 1 from Thomas Dunne Books, is the latest by a Bush adviser to disclose internal disagreements and establish distance from an unpopular administration. Mr. Ridge complains that he was never invited to National Security Council meetings, that Mr. Rumsfeld would rarely meet with him and that the White House pressured him to include a justification for the Iraq war in a speech.

He also writes that he lobbied unsuccessfully before Hurricane Katrina in 2005 to replace Michael D. Brown as head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency and that the White House killed his proposal to open a homeland security regional office in New Orleans.

The most sensational assertion was the pre-election debate in 2004 about the threat level, first reported by U.S. News & World Report. Mr. Ridge writes that the bin Laden tape alone did not justify a change in the nation’s security posture but describes “a vigorous, some might say dramatic, discussion” on Oct. 30 to do so.

“There was absolutely no support for that position within our department. None,” he writes. “I wondered, ‘Is this about security or politics?’ Post-election analysis demonstrated a significant increase in the president’s approval rating in the days after the raising of the threat level.”

Mr. Ridge provides no evidence that politics motivated the discussion. Until now, he has denied politics played a role in threat levels. Asked by Eric Lichtblau of The New York Times if politics ever influenced decisions on threat warnings, he volunteered to take a lie-detector test. “Wire me up,” Mr. Ridge said, according to Mr. Lichtblau’s book, “Bush’s Law.” “Not a chance. Politics played no part.”

Tuesday, August 11, 2009

Papers Show Bush Aides’ Role in Firings of Prosecutors

August 12, 2009

WASHINGTON — Thousands of pages of once-secret congressional testimony and e-mail messages released on Tuesday showed that Karl Rove and other senior aides in the Bush White House played an earlier and more active role than previously known in the 2006 firings of a number of federal prosecutors.

Early discussions at the White House in the spring of 2005 were focused on unhappiness with David C. Iglesias, a United States attorney in New Mexico who was later among eight prosecutors who were fired in a purge that created a political firestorm for the White House. A top aide to Mr. Rove wrote in an internal e-mail message in June 2005, a year and a half before Mr. Iglesias was fired, that Republicans in New Mexico were “really angry” over what they saw as the prosecutor’s inaction in pursuing voter fraud charges against Democrats in the state in tight elections.”

“Iglesias has done nothing,” the Rove aide, Scott Jennings, wrote to another White House staff member. ”We are getting killed out there,” he added, urging that the White House “move forward with getting rid of the NM USATTY.”

White House aides to former President George W. Bush have long maintained that the White House played only a limited role in the firings of Mr. Iglesias and the seven other United States attorneys and that the Justice Department took the lead in the review that led to their dismissals. Mr. Rove and Harriet E. Miers, the former White House counsel, played down their roles in congressional testimony last month as part of an agreement to resolve a years-long dispute with Congressional Democrats.

Transcripts of their testimony — including many instances in which the two aides said they could not remember important details of the debate over the United States attorneys — were among the materials released Tuesday by the House Judiciary Committee.

A lawyer for Mr. Rove could not be reached immediately for comment.

The e-mail messages, in particular, raise questions about the Bush White House’s assertion that it played only a limited role in the firings. A federal prosecutor is continuing to investigate accusations that officials may have acted criminally in the firings or in their testimony to Congress about the incident, which led to the resignation of former Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and many of his top aides at the Justice Department.

Representative John Conyers Jr., the Michigan Democrat who leads the Judiciary Committee and has led the push to examine the Bush White House’s role in the firings, said the e-mail messages and testimony contradicted major claims by Bush aides.

“This basic truth can no longer be denied: Karl Rove and his cohorts at the Bush White House were the driving force behind several of these firings, which were done for improper reasons,” Mr. Conyers said. “Under the Bush regime, honest and well-performing U.S. attorneys were fired for petty patronage, political horse trading and, in the most egregious case of political abuse of the U.S. attorney corps — that of U.S. Attorney Iglesias — because he refused to use his office to help Republicans win elections.”

Thursday, June 25, 2009

Sanford Case a New Dose of Bad News for Republicans

June 25, 2009

WASHINGTON — Republicans were just starting to breathe a little easier.

The news that Senator John Ensign had had an affair with a former aide who was married to another former aide was fading. Polls showed some voter impatience with President Obama’s policies, if not with the president himself. And the Politico, the insidery Web site that is widely read in the capital’s political precincts, even featured an article exploring the possibility of a Republican Party comeback.

Then Gov. Mark Sanford of South Carolina, a fiscal conservative seen by many Republicans as an attractive standard-bearer for the next presidential campaign, went missing. Worse, he returned.

His confession on Wednesday that he had been in Argentina with a woman not his wife — and not hiking the Appalachian Trail as his staff had said Monday — was another jolt of bad news for a party that has struggled to get off the ropes all year.

That it was the second such confession in little more than a week from a potential Republican presidential contender — Mr. Ensign had been exploring a run in 2012 as well — left party leaders dazed. They spent Wednesday alternating between gallows humor and yet another round of conversations about what the party stands for and who will give it its best shot to retake the White House.

“Personal circumstances over the course of the last week have managed to shrink the front line of the 2012 possible-contender list by 30 percent,” said Phil Musser, a former executive director of the Republican Governors Association.

Speaking of Mr. Sanford’s confession, Mr. Musser said, “The concern here is that this continues a broader narrative that is completely unhelpful to the Republican Party’s rebuilding — that’s life, but it’s a personal tragedy that fairly or unfairly compounds a series of problems.”

That series of problems has become so chronic that even the party’s most pragmatic members could be forgiven for wondering whether being named “possible 2012 contender” is like winning the movie role of Superman, long believed by some to carry a curse for those actors who don his blue tights.

One by one, those who have been publicly discussed as possible Republican candidates in 2012 have stumbled.

Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana suffered a political setback after even his fellow conservatives harshly critiqued his televised response to Mr. Obama’s prime-time address to Congress in February. The speech, which was supposed to provide a moment to shine in front of a national audience, instead became fodder for late-night comedy.

Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska, the former Republican vice-presidential nominee who was eviscerated by some of her own political aides at the end of last year’s presidential race, continued to get national attention, but hardly the kind likely to help convince voters that she would be a substantive candidate. The father of her unwed teenage daughter’s baby feuded openly with the Palin family, and the governor exasperated some Republicans in Washington with her off-again, on-again plans for headlining a fund-raiser there.

After basking in glowing reviews among political pundits this year, Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker, had to apologize for a post on Twitter in which he called Mr. Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, “racist” for saying that she hoped Latinas would be generally better equipped to make judicial decisions than their white male counterparts.

Another possible Republican presidential candidate in 2012, Gov. Jon M. Huntsman Jr. of Utah, fell out of contention when he accepted Mr. Obama’s offer to become ambassador to China, robbing the party of a rising star.

All of their troubles have served to improve the prospects of other contenders who have generally stayed out of the spotlight this year, or have ventured into it only gingerly, like former Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, Gov. Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota and Gov. Haley Barbour of Mississippi.

Some prominent party members argued that criticism in the mainstream news media of Ms. Palin, Mr. Gingrich and Mr. Jindal did not reflect their standing among the conservative voters who decide primaries and caucuses — and that the confessions of Mr. Ensign and Mr. Sanford would be viewed in isolation.

“I disagree with the idea that this shows problems for the modern Republican Party,” said Grover Norquist, the president of Americans for Tax Reform, a group that applauded Mr. Sanford’s attempt to refuse some federal stimulus funds earlier this year. In reference to the fiscally conservative philosophies of Mr. Ensign and Mr. Sanford, he joked, “I think instead it shows that sexual attractiveness of limited-government conservatism.”

As television pundits noted on Wednesday, confessions by former Gov. Eliot Spitzer of New York that he had been involved with a prostitute and by former Gov. Jim McGreevey of New Jersey that he had been unfaithful to his wife with a gay lover did not hurt Democrats nationally, although both men resigned.

But other senior Republican strategists and leaders said they were concerned that their party’s large segment of evangelical voters makes the party more vulnerable to political damage from scandal, especially when it involves politicians like Mr. Sanford and Mr. Ensign, who had both been harshly critical of the infidelities of former President Bill Clinton and others.

“When we do these kinds of things like what happened with Ensign and now with Sanford it hurts our credibility as a party of good governing and of values,” said Ron Kaufman, a Republican lobbyist who is close to Mr. Romney. Mr. Kaufman is among those in his party who believe that the news that former Representative Mark Foley of Florida had sent sexually explicit e-mail messages to male Congressional pages cost the party in 2006 and 2008.

“I think there is somewhat of an identity crisis in the Republican Party,” said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, an evangelical group in Washington. “Are they going to be a party that attracts values voters, and are they going to be the party that lives by those values?”

Saturday, May 16, 2009

Obama’s 48-Hour Makeover

Obama’s 48-Hour Makeover

Posted By Jason Ditz On May 15, 2009 @ 5:15 pm In Uncategorized | 1 Comment

President Obama’s tenuous claim to the antiwar community was already unraveling long before he formally took office. Shortly after the election his national security team’s extremely hawkish makeup was drawing concern. Two days after his inauguration, he had backed off his campaign promise to have all US troops out of Iraq in 16 months. Still, his supporters could find some measure of solace in his halting of the military tribunals at Guantanamo Bay and his promises of a more transparent administration.

Or at least they used to be able to. In the past 48 hours the administration has backed off of the few scraps of significant policy revisions thrown to an electorate hungry for his campaign’s mantra of change. First, he overruled the Pentagon’s decision that undisclosed photos of detainee abuse could be released. Perplexingly, he insisted that the photos did not contain anything “particularly sensational,” before cautioning that making them public would imperil the troops and inflame anti-American opinion.

It was less than 48 hours later that the president confirmed that he was going to resume the military tribunals against detainees at Guantanamo Bay. He had previously ordered such tribunals halted when pledging to close the facility. Now instead of the rule of law, the administration is offering a modest selection of new “rights” detainees will enjoy, none of them particularly earth-shattering.

Even the pledge to close the detention center has become something of a hollow victory, amid reports that the administration is floating to Congress the idea of holding many of the detainees on American soil indefinitely and without trial. This legal sleight of hand would be accomplished through the creation of National Security Courts, which would be empowered to try detainees without the legal rights enjoyed in US criminal courts. The new courts would also provide an aegis for holding the detainees without trial while still appearing to have some measure of legal oversight on their captivity.

At the end of the day the only group really satisfied with President Obama’s new policies are the hawkish wing of the Republican Party. And why shouldn’t they? After all they supported them when President Bush introduced the notion of keeping people imprisoned without charging them with a crime, and was the architect of much of the secrecy-obsessed culture President Obama was so quick to dismiss on taking office, and is now so quick to embrace. For human rights groups, antiwar factions and even much of his own party’s base, the disappointment is becoming palpable.

Related Stories

Obama Considers Detaining Terror Suspects Indefinitely

WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration is weighing plans to detain some terror suspects on U.S. soil -- indefinitely and without trial -- as part of a plan to retool military commission trials that were conducted for prisoners held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The proposal being floated with members of Congress is another indication of President Barack Obama's struggles to establish his counter-terrorism policies, balancing security concerns against attempts to alter Bush-administration practices he has harshly criticized.

Obama Administration Manages Detainee Policy

2:05

WSJ's Justice Department reporter Evan Perez discusses the Obama administration's efforts to create a detainee policy in line with both national security concerns and the critiques Obama raised during his campaign.

On Wednesday, the president reversed a recent administration decision to release photos showing purported abuse of prisoners at U.S. military facilities in Iraq and Afghanistan. Mr. Obama cited concern that releasing the pictures could endanger U.S. troops. Mr. Obama ordered government lawyers to pull back an earlier court filing promising to release hundreds of photos by month's end as part a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union.

The decision to block the detainee photos contrasts with the administration's release last month of Bush-era Justice Department memorandums outlining the interrogation tactics used on prisoners by the Central Intelligence Agency. The release of the memos set off a heated political fight, with supporters of the Bush administration accusing the Obama White House of endangering the country and some of the current president's supporters calling for criminal probes of those responsible for the interrogation policies.

The administration's internal deliberations on how to deal with Guantanamo detainees are continuing, as the White House wrestles with how to fulfill the president's promise to shutter the controversial prison. But some elements of the plans are emerging as the administration consults with key members of Congress, as well as with military officials, about what to do with Guantanamo detainees.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.), who met this week with White House Counsel Greg Craig to discuss the administration's plans, said among the proposals being studied is seeking authority for indefinite detentions, with the imprimatur of some type of national-security court.

Sen. Graham said he wants to work with the administration to pass legislation to increase judicial oversight of military commissions, but noted the legal difficulties that would arise.

Getty Images

U.S. President Barack Obama makes a statement at the White House on Wednesday.

"This is a difficult question. How do you hold someone in prison without a trial indefinitely?" Sen. Graham said.

The White House had no comment Wednesday about its detainee deliberations.

The idea of a new national security court has been discussed widely in legal circles, including by Bush administration Attorney General Michael Mukasey and Neal Katyal, a former Georgetown law professor and now Obama Justice Department official.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates, at a hearing last month, hinted at the administration's deliberations, saying that there were "50 to 100 [detainees] probably in that ballpark who we cannot release and cannot trust, either in Article 3 [civilian] courts or military commissions."

The administration's move to block the release of military detainee photos was welcomed by Republicans in Congress and by some military family groups but condemned by the ACLU and others.

Mr. Gates, Gen. David Petraeus and Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, had all raised concerns with the White House about releasing the detainee photos. Mr. Gates and the commanders worried that the pictures would spur new anti-American violence in Iraq and Afghanistan.

—Yochi J. Dreazen contributed to this article.

Wednesday, May 13, 2009

Just Gotta Laugh

In reversal, Obama seeks to block abuse photos

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama declared Wednesday he would try to block the court-ordered release of photos showing U.S. troops abusing prisoners, abruptly reversing his position out of concern the pictures would "further inflame anti-American opinion" and endanger U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The White House had said last month it would not oppose the release of dozens of photos from military investigations of alleged misconduct. But American commanders in the war zones have expressed deep concern about fresh damage the photos might do, especially as the U.S. tries to wind down the Iraq war and step up operations against the Taliban and al-Qaida in Afghanistan.

Obama, realizing how high emotions run on detainee treatment during the Bush administration and now, made it a point to personally explain his change of heart, stopping to address TV cameras late in the day as he left the White House for a flight to Arizona.

He said the photos had already served their purpose in investigations of "a small number of individuals." Those cases were all concluded by 2004, and the president said "the individuals who were involved have been identified, and appropriate actions have been taken."

When photos emerged in 2004 from the infamous U.S.-run Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, showing grinning American soldiers posing with detainees — some of the prisoners naked, some being held on leashes — the pictures caused a huge anti-American backlash around the globe, particularly in the Muslim world.

The Pentagon conducted 200 investigations into alleged abuse connected with the photos that are now in question. The administration did not provide an immediate accounting of how they turned out.

"This is not a situation in which the Pentagon has concealed or sought to justify inappropriate action," Obama said of the photos. "In fact, the most direct consequence of releasing them, I believe, would be to further inflame anti-American opinion and to put our troops in greater danger."

The Justice Department filed a notice of its new position on the release, including that it was considering an appeal with the Supreme Court. The government has until June 9 to do so.

Spokesman Robert Gibbs said release of the new batch of photos from the Pentagon cases would merely "provide, in some ways, a sensationalistic portion of that investigation."

Obama said later, "I want to emphasize that these photos that were requested in this case are not particularly sensational, especially when compared to the painful images that we remember from Abu Ghraib."

Still, he said he had made it newly clear: "Any abuse of detainees is unacceptable. It is against our values. It endangers our security. It will not be tolerated."

The effort to keep the photos from becoming public represented a sharp reversal from Obama's repeated pledges for open government, and in particular from his promise to be forthcoming with information that courts have ruled should be publicly available.

As such, it invited criticism from the more liberal segments of the Democratic Party, which want a full accounting — and even redress — for what they see as the misdeeds of the Bush administration.

"The decision to not release the photographs makes a mockery of President Obama's promise of transparency and accountability," said ACLU attorney Amrit Singh, who had argued and won the case in question before the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York. "It is essential that these photographs be released so that the public can examine for itself the full scale and scope of prisoner abuse that was conducted in its name."

Human Rights Watch called the decision a blow to transparency and accountability.

On Capitol Hill, Republicans welcomed the change, however. A military group also said it was relieved.

"These photos represent isolated incidents where the offending servicemen and women have already been prosecuted," said Brian Wise, executive director of Military Families United.

The reactions were a reverse of what happened after Obama's decision last month to voluntarily release documents that detailed brutal interrogation techniques used by the CIA against terror suspects. Those also came out in response to an ACLU lawsuit, and his decision then brought harsh and still-continuing criticism from Republicans.

This time he's kicking the decision back into court, where his administration still may be forced into releasing the photos.

Indeed, there is some evidence that the administration has little case left.

Gibbs said the president instructed administration lawyers to challenge the photos' release based on national security implications. He said the argument was not used before.

But the Bush administration already argued against the release on national security grounds — and lost.

"It is plainly insufficient to claim that releasing documents could reasonably be expected to endanger some unspecified member of a group so vast as to encompass all United States troops, coalition forces, and civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan," the three-judge appeals panel wrote in September 2008.

The Justice Department had concluded that further appeal would probably be fruitless, and last month, Gibbs said the president had concurred with that conclusion, though without commenting on whether Obama would support the release if not pressed by a court case.

Thus, the administration assured a federal judge that it would turn over the material by May 28, including one batch of 21 photos and another of 23 images. The government also told the judge it was "processing for release a substantial number of other images," for a total expected to be in the hundreds.

The lower court also has already rejected another argument the president and his spokesman made, that the photos add little of value to the public's understanding of the issue. "This contention disregards FOIA's central purpose of furthering governmental accountability," the appeals court panel concluded in the same decision.

Obama's own Jan. 21 memorandum on honoring the Freedom of Information Act also takes a different line. "The government should not keep information confidential merely because public officials might be embarrassed by disclosure, because errors and failures might be revealed, or because of speculative or abstract fears," it said.

The president informed Gen. Ray Odierno, commander of U.S. troops in Iraq, of his decision during a White House meeting on Tuesday.

Gen. David Petraeus, the senior commander for both wars, had also weighed in against the release, as had Gen. David McKiernan, the outgoing top general in Afghanistan.

Military commanders' concerns were most intense with respect to Afghanistan. The release would coincide with the spring thaw that usually heralds the year's toughest fighting there — and as thousands of new U.S. troops head into Afghanistan's volatile south.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said he had once held the view that it might be best to "go through the pain once" and release a large batch of images now, since so many are at issue in multiple lawsuits. But he — and the president — changed their minds when Odierno and McKiernan expressed "very great worry that release of these photographs will cost American lives," Gates said before the House Armed Services Committee.

"That's all it took for me," Gates said.

Wednesday, April 29, 2009

Specter leaves a shrinking GOP tent

Analysis: Specter leaves a shrinking GOP tent

WASHINGTON (AP) — With Sen. Arlen Specter's switch to the Democrats, the Republican Party is increasingly at risk of being viewed as a mostly Southern and solidly conservative party, an identity that might take years to overcome.

Specter's move, which rocked Congress and the political world Tuesday, is the latest blow to Republicans, especially in the Northeast, once a GOP stronghold. The region's Republicans now have been reduced to a scant presence in the House and a dwindling influence in the Senate.

But Specter's defection has symbolic and immediate ramifications for the GOP nationwide. It makes it easier for Democrats, fairly or not, to paint the party as ideologically rigid and alien to large swaths of the country.

Olympia Snowe of Maine, one of the Senate's few remaining moderate Republicans, called Specter's decision another sign that her party must move toward the center.

"Ultimately, we're heading to having the smallest political tent in history," Snowe said. "If the Republican Party fully intends to become a majority party in the future, it must move from the far right back toward the middle."

But Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky was defiant.

"I do not accept that we are going to be a regional party," he said. "We're working very hard to compete throughout the country."

Specter's departure follows recent Republican losses in once-reliable states. While Barack Obama was cruising to the White House last fall, Republicans were losing long-held Senate seats in Alaska, Colorado, New Mexico, North Carolina and Virginia. A moderate Republican lost his seat in Oregon, and the same seems likely to happen when Minnesota's long recount is settled.

In the House, Republicans have suffered deep losses in the last two elections, especially in the Northeast. Last week, Democrat Scott Murphy won a special election in a heavily Republican congressional district in upstate New York. Murphy will be sworn in Wednesday, giving Democrats' 256 House seats to 178 for Republicans with one vacancy.

The congressional Republicans' base is shrinking, leaving them with strongholds only in the South and parts of the mountain West.

With the departure of each centrist, including Pennsylvania's Specter, the party also appears more firmly right-of-center. Polls show most Americans nearer the political center, and Democratic leaders were happy Tuesday to promote the GOP's image as narrow-minded.

"This is now officially a Republican Party where moderates need not apply," said Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass.

Specter made similar remarks. "The Republican Party has moved farther and farther to the right," he said, adding to the trend with his switch.

Specter accused party leaders of abandoning moderate Republicans in tough races, saying, "there ought to be an uprising."

In the 1970s, '80s and early '90s, the nation's political realignment favored the GOP. Voters in many of the 11 former Confederate states ousted Democrats by the dozens, no longer accepting the old odd-bedfellows alliance of Southern conservatives and more dominant Northern liberals.

With the Northeast still home to many "Rockefeller Republicans" — centrists in the mold of former New York Gov. Nelson Rockefeller — the realignment pinched Democrats hard.

In recent years, however, the tide has reversed. Moderate-to-liberal voters in the Northeast and Pacific West felt increasingly at odds with the national Republican Party, and they began electing more Democrats to local and federal posts. Obama won surprising victories in Virginia, North Carolina and Indiana, though it's far from clear that Democrats can hold those states.

The result is a shrinking and increasingly right-leaning GOP, throughout the nation and in Congress. There, moderate Republicans are almost an endangered species. While lonely, they may play pivotal roles in brokering legislative deals, especially in the Senate.

Snowe and her Republican colleague from Maine, Susan M. Collins, now are the Senate's most prominent GOP moderates.

Collins said she was "very, very disappointed and surprised" by Specter's defection. "It's something I would never do," she said, but she called on her party to be more inclusive.

"The Republican Party has been most successful when it has adopted the big tent approach that was favored by Ronald Reagan, by Gerald Ford" and others, Collins said.

Obama hailed Specter's switch, but its blessing may prove mixed. The president vowed a more bipartisan era in Washington, and the loss of another GOP centrist will make Congress more partisan than before.

Republican leaders, meanwhile, faced an uphill battle in next year's Pennsylvania Senate race even before Specter made the switch. In that sense, they probably have lost little. Besides, only 15 years ago some pundits predicted permanent minority status for Democrats, following their huge losses in the 1994 elections.

Political fortunes can change rapidly, and unexpectedly. But for now, Republicans hold distinct minority status in the House and Senate, where Democrats and independents hold 59 seats to 40 for the GOP. They confront a popular Democratic president, and they face numerous ill-timed retirements in next year's Senate races.

Tuesday was another bad day in a political season that some Republicans must feel cannot possibly get worse.

Tuesday, April 07, 2009

You by-God don't fuck with Ted Stevens!

A federal judge this morning tossed out the conviction of former senator Ted Stevens and assigned an outside lawyer to investigate allegations of misconduct by the prosecutors who tried him on public corruption charges.

In throwing out the October conviction, U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan called accusations that prosecutors mishandled evidence and witnesses "shocking and disturbing." In his 25 years on the bench, the judge said he had "never seen anything approaching the mishandling and misconduct in this case." He then urged Attorney General Eric H. Holder to better train prosecutors about the requirements for turning over evidence to defense lawyers that may help their case.

Stevens, 85, who narrowly lost reelection eight days after being found guilty of seven counts of lying on financial disclosure forms, said the actions of prosecutors had "nearly destroyed" his faith in the criminal justice system. But he thanked the judge and a new team of Justice Department lawyers for pressing to uncover the truth.

One of those Justice Department lawyers, Paul O'Brien, told Sullivan that "we deeply, deeply regret that this occurred."

Last week, the Justice Department asked Sullivan to throw out the conviction after officials discovered prosecutors' notes of an April 2008 interview that contradicted testimony of a key witness. It was the latest of several revelations of potential misconduct by prosecutors with the Justice Department's Public Integrity Unit in connection with this trial. Sullivan chastised them several times during the trial for how they handled witnesses and evidence.

At least twice, the judge instructed the jury to ignore evidence introduced by the prosecution. After the trial, the problems didn't end. A witness complained about being lied to by federal authorities about an immunity deal. And an FBI agent filed a report that accused prosecutors and fellow agents of misconduct.

ad_icon

In February, Sullivan held three prosecutors -- William Welch II, Brenda Morris and Patricia Stemler -- in contempt for failing to comply with a court order. Welch is the head of the public corruption unit, and Morris was the lead prosecutor. Six members of the prosecution team eventually withdrew from the case.

Much of the hearing today focused on what transpired during an April 15, 2008, interview with the key witness, Bill Allen. During that interview, according to notes taken by two of the prosecutors, Allen said he did not recall talking to a friend of Stevens's about sending the senator a bill for work on his home, according to Sullivan.

Under oath at trial, however, Allen testified that he was told by the friend to ignore a note Stevens sent seeking a bill for the remodeling work.

"Bill, don't worry about getting a bill" for Stevens, Allen said the friend told him. "Ted is just covering his [expletive]."

It was an explosive moment at the trial and buttressed prosecutors' arguments that Stevens knew he was receiving gifts and was trying to create a paper trial as a cover story if anyone ever asked about them. But defense attorneys have argued that Allen lied on the stand. They have noted in court papers that Allen did not mention that conversation during at least 20 interviews with agents and prosecutors.

Prosecutors who took the notes and participated in the interview have not been identified. Stevens's attorney, Brendan Sullivan, said that Brenda Morris, the lead prosecutor on the case, did not take part in the interview, which was conducted in Alaska. Two prosecutors participated from Washington by telephone, Brendan Sullivan said.

During the two-hour hearing, the judge said he couldn't trust the Justice Department to conduct an internal probe into the actions of prosecutors. So, the judge said, he was taking the rare step of starting criminal contempt proceedings and appointed an outside attorney, Henry F. Schuelke III, to investigate the misconduct allegations. After gathering evidence, Schuelke will submit a report to the judge with a recommendation on whether to hold the prosecutors in contempt for violating court rules.

The judge can then hold a trial to examine the allegations and decide what sanctions to impose. He can fine them or send them to jail. Those being investigated are Welch, Morris, Joseph Bottini, Nicholas Marsh, Edward Sullivan and James Goeke. Morris has declined to comment in the past. Other prosecutors could not be reached or did not return phone calls seeking comment.

After a month-long trial, Stevens was convicted of not reporting on Senate disclosure forms that he accepted about $250,000 in gifts and free renovations to his home in Girdwood, Alaska. Most of the gifts and free remodeling work were supplied by Bill Allen, chief executive of Veco, a now-defunct oil services company. Stevens testified in his own defense, but jurors said he came off as evasive, arrogant and combative. His testimony also did not jibe with the evidence, they have said.

His legal team said the result would have been different if they knew about the results of prosecutors' interview with Allen. "It is clear from the evidence that the government engaged in intentional misconduct," Brendan Sullivan told the judge.

Tuesday, February 03, 2009

Pressure on Daschle reaches tipping point

  • Story Highlights
  • NEW: Political climate tripped up Daschle, says CNN's Ed Henry
  • Source says Daschle was worried about what his confirmation would do to Obama
  • Senators say they did not see the withdrawal coming
  • Daschle's nomination questioned due to tax problems, work in recent years

(CNN) -- The White House insists that it was entirely former Sen. Tom Daschle's decision to withdraw his nomination, but some observers say he didn't have a choice.

Despite the controversy over his tax records and his work in a field that some consider lobbying, Daschle was expected to be confirmed.

His withdrawal shocked Capitol Hill, and Democratic colleagues expressed regret over his decision.

"I think one of the major factors had to be that the political climate has changed radically just in the last couple of weeks," CNN Senior White House Correspondent Ed Henry said.

President Obama ripped Wall Street executives last week for their "shameful" decision to hand out $18 billion in bonuses in 2008 while accepting federal bailout money.

The next day, news broke that Daschle hadn't paid his taxes in full. Daschle said Monday that he was "deeply embarrassed" for a series of errors that included failing to report $15,000 in charitable donations, unreported car service and more than $80,000 in unreported income from consulting.

Daschle recently filed amended tax returns and paid more than $140,000 in back taxes and interest for 2005-07.

"That, in this political climate, really tripped up Tom Daschle because it looked awful politically for this White House," Henry said.

At a news conference Tuesday afternoon, press secretary Robert Gibbs insisted that the White House did not pressure Daschle to step down. VideoWatch Gibbs answer questions about Daschle's move »

Pressed on whether Daschle was given any sort of signal to resign, Gibbs said, "I don't know how much more clear I could be. The decision was Sen. Daschle's."

A Daschle ally familiar with his thinking said Tuesday that he was not aware of any White House pressure on the former Senate majority leader to withdraw his nomination.

Asked whether Daschle was pushed, the source said, "things don't work that cleanly."

The issue was not whether Daschle could "survive"; it was what that process "would do to Obama" and his health care reform and economic agenda. It's a question of the "price of that confirmation," he said.

The source said Daschle read the Tuesday New York Times editorial urging him to withdraw from consideration but would not say whether that might have played a part in his decision.

"Tom has been a politician for a very long time," the source said. "He understands this town. He made a mistake; he apologized, but timing matters. There was a critical mass building."

Obama senior adviser David Axelrod said he thought Daschle made the decision Tuesday morning.

"I have to believe that Sen. Daschle having spent as many years as he has up here had a clear picture that there was going to be a delay, and I think he didn't want to contribute to that.

In announcing his withdrawal, Daschle said it was an honor to be chosen to lead the reform of America's health care system.

"But if 30 years of exposure to the challenges inherent in our system has taught me anything, it has taught me that this work will require a leader who can operate with the full faith of Congress and the American people, and without distraction," he said in a statement.

"Right now, I am not that leader and will not be a distraction."

Mark Preston, CNN's political editor, pointed out that Daschle has a "history of making 11th-hour decisions."

Six years ago, Daschle made a last-minute decision not to run for president after he had been all set to go.

"I think that the Tom Daschle we saw yesterday was all set to go, and then the pressure started mounting ... and then he decided to pull out," Preston said.

Although he was expected to be confirmed, it was also expected that he'd have to undergo a bruising confirmation hearing that could have led to negative headlines for Obama.

As news broke of the withdrawal, some senators said they were sad to see Daschle step aside, but others said it was the right thing to do.

"I'm in shock. I didn't know that. I don't know what happened," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California. "I talked to him ... the night before last, and he showed no signs of withdrawing."

Feinstein praised Daschle as rare person who could get something like health care through the Senate and said she wishes he had not withdrawn. "I have great faith in him."

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said Daschle "did a service to President Obama" by stepping aside.

"I think it really would have looked bad for the Senate to close ranks around a fellow member and sort of reinforce the idea that they were going to protect a member as part of the good ol' boys club," he said.

Daschle has a lengthy history with members of Congress. He represented South Dakota in the House of Representatives for four terms, and he served in the Senate for three terms. He was the Senate majority leader from June 2001 to January 2003 and served as the minority leader before losing his re-election bid in 2005.

Sen. John Ensign, R-Nevada, said Daschle "saved the president from being embarrassed" by withdrawing.VideoWatch Republicans weigh in on the move »

Sen. Max Baucus, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, said he was "a little stunned" by Daschle's decision.

"I thought he was going to get confirmed. I thought -- he's a good man, and I thought he'd be confirmed. I'm surprised," said Baucus, D-Montana.

Sen. John Kerry, D-Massachusetts, insisted that Daschle had owned up to his mistakes.

"He's made his decision, I respect his decision, and we go on from there," Kerry said.

Daschle's resignation came hours after Nancy Killefer's withdrawal as Obama's chief performance officer, a new post in the administration. Officials said privately the reason for Killefer's withdrawal was unspecified tax issues. The much-touted post was designed to scrub the federal budget.

CNN's Lisa Desjardins, Candy Crowley and Kristi Keck contributed to this report.

All AboutThomas DaschleBarack Obama

Friday, January 30, 2009

Obama's Lobbyist Ban Meets a Loophole: William Lynn

Tuesday, Jan. 27, 2009

Last year the Pentagon paid the Raytheon Corp., its fifth largest contractor, a cool $10 billion for its missiles, missile shields and a constellation of electronics. This year President Barack Obama is putting Raytheon's recently departed top lobbyist in charge of the Pentagon's day-to-day management.

In Washington that almost qualifies as business as usual, except for a small detail: on the campaign trail, Obama vowed to stop the revolving door that lets onetime lobbyists go to work for the Federal Government and oversee contracts that could harm — or help — their former employer. And one of the first things the new President did in office was seemingly make good on that promise, signing an Executive Order barring former lobbyists from joining his Administration to work at agencies they recently lobbied. (See pictures of Obama's Inauguration.)

Not surprisingly, Obama's good-government backers were less than pleased to see the President, only a few days after signing the blanket ban, issue a waiver permitting William Lynn to serve as Deputy Secretary of Defense. The lobbying loophole was allowed, Administration officials explain, because Lynn is "uniquely qualified" for the job. Realists at the Pentagon and elsewhere put it slightly differently, saying the President was simply acknowledging that people who know how to run the Pentagon generally have been involved in the process.

The episode is a painful lesson for Obama. Even though his team asserts that it has put into place the toughest rules ever against lobbyists going to work for the Federal Government, the only thing most folks will remember is that Obama made an exception to that rule for one of his top officials. (See who's who in Obama's White House.)

As with most Federal Government arcana, there are arguments on both sides of Obama's leaky lobbyist ban. Lynn, Obama's choice to serve as the Pentagon's No. 2 civilian, got high marks for struggling to bring some accountability to Pentagon spending when he served as its top money manager from 1997 to 2001. By one account, he reduced the amount of undocumented Pentagon spending from $2.3 trillion to $1.3 trillion (before the federal banking bailout, only at the Pentagon could $1.3 trillion in undocumented spending be deemed progress).

But the idea that Lynn is "uniquely qualified" — the White House's language — for the post is simply bogus. The phrase doesn't mean merely good or talented; it means that Lynn, of all the possible candidates for the position, is the only person who could fill it.

"While Lynn may be well qualified, it is absurd to argue that he is uniquely qualified," says Danielle Brian, head of the nonprofit Project on Government Oversight, a watchdog group in Washington. "There are plenty of people with far greater business-management experience than that of a lobbyist." Nonetheless, Lynn, who during his confirmation hearing on Jan. 15 pledged to "maintain the highest ethical standards," appears headed for Senate confirmation. To ease some Senators' concerns, he has promised to sell all his Raytheon stock and have his dealings at the Pentagon for the first year subject to an ethics review.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates told reporters on Jan. 22 that he pushed for Lynn's hiring and the waiver it required. "I asked that an exception be made because I felt that he could play the role of the deputy in a better manner than anybody else that I saw," Gates said. The next day, Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs said Lynn would be getting one of a "very limited number of waivers" so he could assume the Pentagon post despite being a registered lobbyist for Raytheon from 2003 to mid-2008.

Lynn's defenders say it's wrong to paint all lobbyists as evil. He has "precisely the kinds of skills required," says William Cohen, who served as Lynn's boss when Cohen ran the Pentagon during President Clinton's second term. "The fact that he lobbied for a defense contractor should not lead anyone to conclude that he is now rendered incapable of exercising his duties with complete fidelity to Secretary Gates or President Obama."

John Hamre, who was Cohen's deputy at the Pentagon, says Lynn "didn't do lobbying on a day-to-day basis" and is being unfairly lumped in with "bottom feeders" who have given lobbying a bad reputation. "Representing the interests of American citizens in Washington is a necessary attribute of our democracy," Hamre adds. "People are conflating 'lobbying' with unethical behavior, and that is unfair." Of course, when one of those people is the President, the argument tends to carry more weight.