HOME | BIO | MUSIC | JOURNEYS BY DJ | STUDIO BLOG | POLITICAL BLOG | BOOKING INFO | CONTACT

The first few days of the semester have been intense! There hasn't been much time to write while I've been settling back in, so it looks like its time for a big ole scandal-filled roundup! In no particular order....

The Congressman says it's not a bribe, but I ask you - why else is the president of a bank turning to a member of Congress for a loan? And lest you think this is yet another innocent Republican member of Congress needlessly being swept up in a partisan witch-hunt (I swear I'm trying to keep a straight face while I type that!), consider this interesting coincidence - the man's former chief of staff is David Safavian, the now disgraced chief of staff to the Office of Management and Budget who was recently indicted as a part of the Jack Abramoff probe. Talk about a scandal with reach!

Speaking of which, well... where to begin?

Let's see... The Republican party appears to be finally taking this scandal seriously. Apparently they've decided to take up the mantle of reformers! Don't laugh! I'm serious! And their proposal? No gifts from lobbyists allowed, unless.... wait for it... it was accompanied by a campaign donation! I swear to you I am not making this up. That is their idea of reform.

At the same time the White House has been pushing its own Abramoff-inspired agenda - namely, that they don't know the man and have never worked with him. Funny that. A few years back Abramoff was charging $25,000 to arrange lunch and a meeting with the president. Of course the White House denies everything, sort of, but there are a number of high-profile bloggers out there dedicated to uncovering the truth provided by photographic evidence. And that's got the administration scared enough to try and round up any incriminating evidence.

But seriously kids, that's just the beginning. The entire K-Street project led by Tom DeLay following the Republican takeover of the people's house back in the mid-1990's was a giant project designed to whore out the federal government to friends, colleagues, and people who ponied up the necessary cash. And what the long tentacles of the Abramoff affair show us is that they were willing to break whatever laws necessary to make it happen.

Take, for example, money laundering. Josh Marshall is right. Grover Norquist, one of the single most powerful, well connected, and influential conservative activists in the country, is directly implicated in this. And not only does good old Grover have Rove and the White house on speed dial, they've returned the favor. And lest you think this scandal won't go anywhere, remember this: Abramoff's plea is contingent on his rolling up people above him. Oh, and also this: the White House has just nominated Grover Norquist's brother David to be new Chief Financial Officer of the Department of Homeland Security. I know. It reads like a bad Daily Show skit.

What else? Let's see...

How about the NSA wiretapping scandal? That'll do! Some developments:

* The non-partisan and well respected Congressional Research Service said today that the Bush White House broke the law when it limiting congressional briefings on its warrantless domestic spying program.

* Even conservatives are riled about the program. And no, not just some fringe ones. Apparently even the aforementioned Grover Norquist has signed on to a movement led by former Republican congressman Bob Barr to get Congress to step up and hold hearings on the matter. Makes that previous bit about Grover's brother even more timely, no?

* The ACLU has filed a lawsuit in federal court to stop illegal spying by the NSA. And interestingly, journalist Chirstopher Hitchens has signed on. Which makes you wonder... how does he have standing to sue? Has he been the target of an illegal wiretap? And if so, he cannot possibly be the only journalist, can he? And with a big tip o' the cap to Andrew Sullivan and his stunning new blog, a quote from Hitch:

I believe the President when he says that this will be a very long war, and insofar as a mere civilian may say so, I consider myself enlisted in it. But this consideration in itself makes it imperative that we not take panic or emergency measures in the short term, and then permit them to become institutionalised. I need hardly add that wire-tapping is only one of the many areas in which this holds true. The better the ostensible justification for an infringement upon domestic liberty, the more suspicious one ought to be of it. We are hardly likely to be told that the government would feel less encumbered if it could dispense with the Bill of Rights. But a power or a right, once relinquished to one administration for one reason, will unfailingly be exploited by successor administrations, for quite other reasons. It is therefore of the first importance that we demarcate, clearly and immediately, the areas in which our government may or may not treat us as potential enemies.

And a prediction from me: When the public learns the full extent of this program, the outrage is going to fundamentally transform politics in this nation for a generation. He is our president, not our king, and it matters not if he is trying to hurt us or protect us. He must at all times and in all ways follow the laws of the land, signing statement or no.

And on that topic Sully simply nails it

A somewhat legal law is a little like a somewhat pregnant woman. At first blush, it seems like an absurdity. But President Bush disagrees. In the past five years, quietly but systematically, he has been arguing that the law doesn't always apply to him. How has he done this? By attaching "signing statements" that spell out his own attitude to bills he signs.... (T)his isn't a Republican-Democrat issue. It's a very basic one. A President, Democrat or Republican, has every right to act unilaterally at times to defend the country. But a democracy cannot work if the person who is deputed to execute the laws exempts himself from them when he feels like it. Forget the imperial presidency. This is more like a monarchical one. America began by rejecting the claims of one King George. It's disturbing to think we may now be quietly installing a second one.

Another prediction: If this stands, the Republican party is going to come to regret it. One day in the not too distant future a Democrat will hold the keys to the White House, and well.... no doubt you see where that thought leads.

Want news from Iraq? USAID has issued a formal report that describes the situation on the ground as "dire", and, as described by The Guardian, amounting to a "social breakdown" in which criminals have "almost free rein." Your blood and treasure at work my friends!

Meanwhile, James Webb, former Secretary of Defense for Ronald Reagan, has had enough with efforts by the Republican party to smear war critics who happen to wear their nation's uniform. The entire NYT op-ed is a must read. Here's an excerpt:

Military people past and present have good reason to wonder if the current administration truly values their service beyond its immediate effect on its battlefield of choice. The casting of suspicion and doubt about the actions of veterans who have run against President Bush or opposed his policies has been a constant theme of his career. This pattern of denigrating the service of those with whom they disagree risks cheapening the public's appreciation of what it means to serve, and in the long term may hurt the Republicans themselves[...] The political tactic of playing up the soldiers on the battlefield while tearing down the reputations of veterans who oppose them could eventually cost the Republicans dearly. It may be one reason that a preponderance of the Iraq war veterans who thus far have decided to run for office are doing so as Democrats. A young American now serving in Iraq might rightly wonder whether his or her service will be deliberately misconstrued 20 years from now, in the next rendition of politically motivated spinmeisters who never had the courage to step forward and put their own lives on the line. Rudyard Kipling summed up this syndrome quite neatly more than a century ago, writing about the frequent hypocrisy directed at the British soldiers of his day: An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please; An' Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool - you bet that Tommy sees!

That point about Dems running for office? For the record, there are now about 40 Iraqi war vets running for Congress this year. And of that group, only one is running as a Republican.

Stop. Let that sink in. That is a sea change in American politics. James Webb sees it. Does the Republican party?

All for now... More tomorrow ....

ONE UPDATE: Mark Schmitt has an excellent post over at TPM Cafe tying the Lobbying scandals to the Medicare debacle. The entire thing is a must read, but the conclusion really stands out:

But people have a natural inclination to believe in concepts like good intentions gone awry (Medicare) or that power inevitably corrupts. Those natural inclinations are right now a barrier to understanding the real true stories behind these two scandals."

I think he nails this right on the head but for one thing... people also have a natural tendency to believe that politicians are corrupt. So frankly, although I think most of his points stick, I'm not nearly so pessimistic about the chances of both of these events having an enormous impact in the fall. Assuming, of course, that the good guys craft a strong message and then stick to it!

--------