In contrast to the idiocy offered by State Rep. Jim Gooch (D), see for yourself some of the leadership being offered by governors of other states -- from both parties.
And be mindful that Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer (D) leads a state that is second to none when it comes to coal reserves (it has four times Kentucky's reserves) yet he's embracing the need for addressing global warming pollution now.
Who do you believe?
When we look back at this era of politics, one of the narratives I'm certain we'll be discussing is how so many of the core ideas and beliefs of the conservative ideologues of our time were either rejected, proved to be wrong-headed, or simply disastrous experiments.
Be it their desire for pre-emptive war, denial of the effects of global warming, refusal to embrace universal health care, attempts to legislate morality, efforts to rollback regulations on corporate America, attempts to destroy organized labor, etc, we're seeing how wrong they are on so many critical issues.
Case-in-point: yesterday in Utah -- arguably the most conservative state in the country -- voters overwhelmingly repealed the nation's first universal school voucher law that the Utah legislature had enacted last year:
After a multimillion-dollar political campaign that pitted teachers’ unions nationally against school choice advocates, Utah voters yesterday repealed the nation’s first universal voucher law by an overwhelming margin.
With nearly 97 percent of the votes counted, state election results showed that 62 percent of voters rejected the voucher law narrowly enacted earlier this year, in what was Utah’s first “citizens’ veto” referendum in 30 years.
The level of opposition was much greater in the voting public than in the GOP-controlled legislature, which approved the voucher law by a single vote. Had the law been allowed to take effect, it would have provided all public school students with vouchers ranging from $500 to $3,000 a year, depending on family income.
To opponents of vouchers, the rejection was even more impressive coming from voters in a conservative, Republican state. “Taxpayers, no matter their politics, see vouchers as poor public policy,” Anne L. Bryant, the executive director of the Alexandria, Va.-based National School Boards Association, said in a statement.
America is finally coming to its senses and rejecting the disastrous policies enacted and pushed by the Bush Administration and 12 years of Republican Congress. We saw the first sign of it with the 2006 elections and 2008 isn't shaping-up to be any better for them either.
Is this the return of common sense government that provides for the greatest good and not their narrow interests? I'm crossing my fingers.
It's one thing for Governor Fletcher (R) to constantly flip-flop on issues, but he should at least have the courage of admitting it when he does so.
Case in point: Recall yesterday's latest shameless Fletcher flip-flop where Fletcher's desperation now has him jumping on the illegal immigration bandwagon, despite his 2002 support of amnesty for some illegal immigrants. Instead of acknowledging that his position has changed, Fletcher instead sends out his mouthpiece to simply lie to the voters on his behalf and claim he didn't vote for amnesty.
Unfortunately for Fletcher, this thingee called the Internet allows us to look at what really happened -- not simply accept his dishonest spin. You see, there are a number of organizations that track immigration-related legislation in Congress and how members of Congress vote on the issue. Here's one of the many that tracked then Congressman Fletcher's immigration positions and votes.
And here's an image from the site on Fletcher and his amnesty votes:
Governor, why must you lie all the time? Don't you know that the voters don't like lying hypocrites?
Ernie Fletcher Version 2007 is such a joke. If he's not blatantly and pathetically flip-flopping on issues like expanded gaming or whether universities should be allowed to provide domestic partner benefits, he takes yet another hard-right flip-flop -- this time on immigration.
Today, our good governor went nuts on some illegal immigration issue that the City of Lexington is dealing with. But the interesting thing is how Fletcher voted on issues of illegal immigration in Congress as recently as 2002.
Thanks to a find by conservative blogger Steve Manning, turns out that Fletcher supported (and voted for) legislation that would have provided real amnesty for some illegal aliens. I'm dead serious. It was legislation that was opposed by both Rep. Ed Whitfield (R) and Rep. Ron Lewis (R).
Here's part of what Manning reported:
Governor Wasn't Tough On Illegals In 2002
Rep. Ernie Fletcher voted on the floor of the House IN FAVOR OF a motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 1885, a four-month extension of Section 245(i), which is a de facto amnesty in that current federal policy did not deport illegal aliens once they applied for Section 245(i) and allowed them to remain in the U.S. for years until they were allowed to become official immigrants...
In fact, at the time, one of the leading conservative groups -- Eagle Forum -- blasted the legislation:
On Tuesday, March 12, the House of Representatives will vote on the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act (H.R. 1885). While this bill contains important border security measures, it includes an extension of Section 245(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which permits illegal aliens to remain in the United States. Because the bill is being brought to the floor under suspension of the rules, there will be no opportunity for amendment. Therefore, the entire bill should be rejected.
After the legislation passed the House, with Fletcher's support, Eagle Forum declared:
MARCH 12, 2002: House passes H.R. 1885 by 275 to 137.
11 million illegal aliens are in the U.S. It is wrong, un-American, and unjust to amnesty them ahead of all the people who are waiting in line for legal admission. In the most important vote of the 107th Congress, only 137 Members were willing to Stand Up for America and the Rule of Law.
Fletcher 2002 is a very different man than Fletcher 2007, now that he's headed for an embarrassing landslide defeat after just one miserable term as governor.
Desperation has quite a hold over him, doesn't it?
UPDATE (5:55 PM): The Beshear camp apparently also has a problem with Fletcher's policy re-invention. Here's a portion of their response to the latest flip-flop:
The need for the Mayor of Lexington to form a commission advising him and city officials of how to deal with the influx of illegal immigrants in his city underscores the importance of why we need a national response to address the issue of illegal immigration.
Those, like Ernie Fletcher, who served in Congress for years and did not provide a solution to the problem have no business preaching reform. In fact, as a Congressman, Ernie Fletcher voted for legislation that would have provided amnesty for some illegal aliens. We need the federal government to address these issues and stop dumping the burden on states or, in this case, our cities.
Nice work, Steve Manning.
I've been candid on this site about my mixed feeling towards Secretary of State Trey Grayson's (R) re-election hopes. While I genuinely like and respect Trey and think he's done a good job in his position, I have been concerned about advancing the political career of the man who I believe may very well be Steve Beshear's (D) 2011 opponent or the Republican nominee for U.S. Senate in 2010 if Senator Bunning (R) chooses not to seek another term.
I gave this a lot of thought over the past few weeks and finally found some clarity last night, so I wanted to share that for whatever it's worth.
First of all, I find the recent attacks on Trey by some Democrats to be very disappointing. There's plenty of legitimate criticism of Trey's handing of his job, but attempts to paint him as corrupt for having taken $150 from a Fletcher-indictee or having taken advantage of a man on his death bed is offensive to me. Those are the smears that we've come to expect from Governor Fletcher (R) and his crew, not from our side. Aside from them being untrue (in my opinion), I think -- more importantly -- they're counter-productive. Those attacks don't speak to any failures in his job, they don't highlight some hypocrisy in his public positions, nor are they evidence of criminality. In my opinion, they're not germane to the race and simply an attempt to smear a candidate in hopes of defeating him.
Not only is Trey undeserving of such smears, they're also unnecessary. This contest is a real race and internal polling completed last week -- that I've learned about first-hand -- shows Trey's lead to be at the margin of error and he's polling well-under 40%. Trey can be defeated legitimately, without resorting to such gutter tactics.
But this begs the question whether Trey deserves to be defeated, and this is what I've spent a lot of time thinking about since it's the only competitive race on the ballot. I'm convinced that Democrats do need to make a 110% effort to defeat Trey, and for reasons concerning his job, not the secondary issues like whether he'll defeat us down the road.
For me, the most difficult time of my political career were those 37 days spent in Florida during the 2000 presidential recount as one of Vice President Gore's campaign staffers, being one of the original 50 or so staffers that were flown from Nashville to Florida on the campaign plane in the early morning hours the day after the election. For the next five weeks, I split my time between Fort Myers and Miami. I'm not going to rehash the criticisms that I have of the recount itself. The history is what it is and there's no point in arguing it.
The reason that I raise Florida is the acknowledgment of the awesome power each state's top elections official holds when it comes to handling the outcomes of those razor-thin contested elections. In Florida, as we all know well, Katherine Harris (R) held that post, and during those 37 days there were numerous occasions when she was forced to make crucial decisions during the recount where the law was not particularly clear or where it provided her with some amount of discretion as to how to handle issues, or the time frames involved. Naturally, in each case, her choice was the one that most benefited the Bush team. If she was a Democrat, those calls would have gone the other way. I understand that. But there's no doubt in my mind that Katherine Harris -- by far -- had the most influence over the recount, and properly so.
This brings me back to Trey.
In the mid 1990s, Trey made a decision to leave the Democratic Party and join the Republicans. It was a real loss (and failure) for Democrats and a coup for Senator McConnell (R) and the rest of Kentucky Republicans. Trey took advantage of the shifting political winds and made the most of that move, and today he's a Secretary of State seeking re-election and it's hard not to believe he'll have a long political career ahead of him. Trey is also a McConnell protege, which is a good thing to be if you're a Kentucky Republican.
But this made me think about the fact that next year is not only presidential year, but it's one which is shaping-up to be a bruising re-election for McConnell, and one where Kentucky Democrats are likely to take a very serious run at the state Senate as well as a couple of Republican-held congressional seats. Keep in mind that not only was President Bush elected by that 500+ vote margin in Florida in 2000, but control of the U.S. Senate last year fell to Democrats thanks to Jon Tester's (D) 3,000 vote margin in Montana and Jim Webb's (D) 7,000 vote margin in Virginia (out of 2.3 million votes cast). That could very well happen again next year.
And that gets me to the meat of this question.
Who do I want as the state's top election official during next year's races? If McConnell's re-election (or even the presidential race) comes down to a few thousand votes, who do I want making the calls on election challenges or provisional ballots or when to certify a race or how to manage a recount at the top of the ticket? Is there any doubt that Trey -- like Katherine Harris -- will provide the Republican Party with an advantage at every possible turn within his legitimate power as Secretary of State? I have no doubt.
Keep in mind that Kentucky has already seen one example of how this during Trey's tenure: the attempt to seat Indiana resident Dana Seum Stephenson (R) as a Kentucky state senator -- until the Supreme Court ruled her ineligible. Thankfully, Democrats now hold that seat. But imagine if that was over McConnell's seat or, though unlikely, if the presidency hung in the balance. How would Democrats feel about that scenario?
And on another substantive note -- while I have no quarrels with Trey's job as Secretary of State -- and believe he executed his duties faithfully (Seum Stephenson notwithstanding) and has done a good job, I have to ask why has there been little or no progress on things like paper trails for electronic voting machines, early voting, easier registration requirements, or campaign finance reform, among other issues? These are relevant issues I raised a year ago (see here and here) about Trey's performance after four years in office. Why hasn't more been done?
Finally, there's the issue of Trey's opponent, Bruce Hendrickson (D).
I don't know Hendrickson and don't believe I've ever met him. I also didn't vote for him in the May primary. But a number of people whose opinions I trust and respect tell me Hendrickson is a thoughtful and competent person, a teacher, a former local official, and someone who would do an honest and ethical job as the state's top elections official. For me, that's all I need to know.
This has been a tough issue for me because I do have a great of respect for Trey, and while I am a committed Democrat, I don't believe all Republicans are evil. I think we (Democrats) do ourselves an injustice to shriek at every Republican all the time, not to mention lose a great deal of credibility when we do. Some Republicans are bad people, like Governor Fletcher. Others like Trey and House Minority Leader Jeff Hoover (R) are solid public servants and it's hard not to like and respect them. But it is impossible to separate Trey's political affiliation, or his close relationship with McConnell, from his job as the state's top elections official. You can't simply remove a thread from that quilt and ignore it. Trey made a decision to be a Republican and that has consequences today when things aren't so rosy for the GOP.
We head into the crucial 2008 elections as a country badly divided on many things and we've seen too many razor-close elections that have determined which party controls Congress, who sits in the Oval Office, and hence who gets to make those lifetime Supreme Court appointments. There is too much at stake for Democrats to give Trey a pass this year. Just remember Katherine Harris. Elections have consequences.
This is why I believe it is important for Democrats to do everything they can to help Bruce Hendrickson defeat Trey Grayson in November.
This morning, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) released its third annual report on the most corrupt members of Congress. Making their report of "The 22 Most Corrupt Members of Congress" are Kentucky's very own Senator McConnell (R) and U.S. Rep. Hal Rogers (R).
Lucky us.
Is this the beginning of a break in Republican unity under Senator McConnell's (R) leadership?
...a few Republican Senators are considering breaking ranks with their leadership and supporting Jim Webb's troop-readiness bill, which would give troops as much time off as they spend in the war -- a measure that would slow the war down in a big way.
The source tells us that three Republicans who voted against the measure last time are now considering backing it: Senators George Voinovich, Lisa Murkowski, and Elizabeth Dole. This is significant, cause it could push the number of total "yeas" towards the magic filibuster-proof number of 60. Last time it got 56 yes votes, with seven Republicans backing it. More defections could be key, though the President would still veto the bill.
The story has an update from the New York Times which believes that Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) might be joining the group as well, and let's not overlook the fact that Sen. Tim Johnson (D-SD) is now back in the Senate and voting, allowing Dems to inch closer to those 60 votes...
A few days ago, I suggested that Senator McConnell (R) had botched the handling of the Larry Craig fiasco, treating Craig like a serious criminal because he was allegedly seeking gay sex, while treating Ted Stevens and David Vitter with kid gloves who are accused of far worse, and that McConnell was hurting his caucus by his actions.
Seems that others felt the same way.
Today, there's a significant story in The Hill with one congressional Republican taking direct aim at McConnell for those very things:
Lashing Out At McConnell
By Betsy Rothstein and Elana Schor, The Hill
Rep. Mike Simpson (R) condemned Senate GOP leaders on Thursday for their treatment of fellow Idahoan Sen. Larry Craig (R), accusing them of hypocrisy.
“I hope I never stub my toe and they throw me under the bus,” Simpson said of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) and other Republican leaders. “It kind of makes you wonder what party you want to be a member of.”
Simpson underscored that he is not considering switching parties. But he also emphasized that he would not want to serve in the Senate, even if chosen by Idaho Gov. C.L. “Butch” Otter (R) to replace Craig.
[...]
“If that’s how they treat their own,” Simpson said, referring to Senate GOP leaders’ quick push for Craig to resign, “that tells me they’re more interested in party than individuals, and the party is made up of individuals. How you treat them says a lot about your party.”
Simpson pointed a finger at Craig’s leaders for staying mum on the legal and personal jeopardy facing other GOP senators, including Alaskan Ted Stevens, now under federal investigations, and Louisianan David Vitter, who has admitted contacting an escort service.
“They have people over there [in the Senate Republican Conference] in far worse trouble that they haven’t said a thing about,” Simpson said.
Is this the tip of the discontent iceberg for McConnell among fellow Republicans?
Get ready folks. It looks like it's going to get ugly real soon and Republicans can thank Larry Craig and Mark Foley for making such inquiries fully relevant given the rank hypocrisy of the GOP agenda as the self-titled protectors of family values and their never-ending crusade against gay Americans.
The chickens are coming home to roost...
Oddly, I haven't noticed any member of the Kentucky media picking this up, but CNN had a report this morning over the contentious Republican Senate Caucus meeting held yesterday over its leadership's (led by Senator McConnell) handling of the Larry Craig matter. Apparently, McConnell and his leadership team were criticized by several members, one of them was fellow Kentucky Senator Jim Bunning (R):
At least three senators complained their leaders "rushed to judgment" while others defended the leaders for quickly pulling their support from the disgraced senator, according to one Republican senator in the room and two GOP aides familiar with the meeting.
"We had to discuss it," the senator said.
Sen. Ted. Stevens of Alaska, whose home was recently raided as part of a federal corruption probe, stood up to say it's wrong to prejudge these matters.
He was joined by Sen. Jim Bunning of Kentucky and Sen. Michael Enzi of Wyoming, who also "wagged their finger" at the leadership, in the words of one of the aides.
Seems significant to me.
(Hat tip: Talking Points Memo)
Thought this was a significant nugget in Robert Novak's weekly political e-mail:
"The guilty plea of Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID) adds to the lengthening list of Republican criminals. The allegations of Craig's homosexual liaisons in public restrooms, still simply hearsay and inference, strike some Senate leaders as unsurprising. This recalls the same questions that arose following the Mark Foley scandal: Why did Republicans let him stick around and give him leadership roles if they knew? What other surprises are Republicans keeping in the closet? Craig's potential un-resignation causes more headaches, but the GOP Senate leadership signals it will flex its muscle to force Craig out as soon as possible."
Does anyone think Novak -- the consummate conservative insider -- is really asking the question or is he simply warning Republican leadership that they should deal with those members still in the closet sooner rather later?
Now that U.S. Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID) appears to be fighting to keep his job, it's hard not to wonder whether Senate Minority Leader McConnell (R) has badly botched the handling of this matter by overcompensating for the gross mishandling of the Mark Foley mess in the House.
Today, Craig's legal team launched a PR offensive as well as seeking to have the Senate Ethics complaint -- filed against Craig by McConnell and his team -- dismissed, arguing that the matter involves a minor offense that does not relate to his official duties. It's hard to simply dismiss that argument and I agree with Josh Marshall's take on the issue:
So why is there an ethics investigation exactly? The answer seems clear, if on two levels. First, Craig's senate colleagues want to engineer a soft expulsion from the senate. That's obvious enough. And second, he was trolling for gay sex in a public restroom. And in the GOP catechism that's not just a felony but a capital offense.
When you consider how the ethics committee isn't worried about the growing problems concerning Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK), or Sen. David Vitter's (R-LA) admitted behavior, why are they going after Craig with such zeal and gusto?
I have little respect for Craig's hypocrisy over the years, given his own apparent preferences, but I am growing sympathetic towards him as the McConnell-led steamroller is moving with uncharacteristic lightning speed in trying to finish him off. I totally agree with McJoan over at DailyKos that should the guilty plea to the misdemeanor charge -- which Governor Fletcher (R) reminds us isn't any more serious than noodling -- be withdrawn by the judge, then what is there for the Senate Ethics committee to review at this time, other than the possibility that Craig is gay?
I love the fact that the Republicans are again finding themselves weighed-down by the scandal anchor, but the way McConnell has been handling the Craig matter has really rubbed me the wrong way. But more importantly, I think McConnell is killing his own caucus by botching this matter -- which now seems headed toward an intra-party collision with Craig staying and fighting -- at the worst possible time for Republicans: General Petraeus is days away from trying to save the GOP from the Iraq debacle.
UPDATE (5:26 PM): Apparently, McConnell has just flip-flopped on Craig, holding a press conference to announce Craig intends to stay in his Senate seat if he can get the charges dismissed. Amazing. So much for McConnell's earlier dismissal of any notion of a Craig return.
Courtesy of TPM Election Central:
Washington Post has a story.
Markos is so right:
Nice contrast between Larry Craig and David Vitter, huh? One has sex with men, and the GOP goes apoplectic. The other has sex with female prostitutes, and that's fine. Republicans didn't line up to demand his resignation, did they?
UPDATE (12:05 pm): Senate 2008 Guru has a great summary of the Republicans scandals of late, noting that the GOP is averaging about 1 new scandalous incident every week so far in 2007.
Also, CNN is reporting that Craig may resign as soon as today.
UPDATE #2 (12:20 pm): Good Lord, more.
Hard not to conclude that today's New York Times had more to do with the timing of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' resignation than anything else. Why else would he resign mid-week, instead of doing so on the Friday before a three-day weekend, if he simply wanted to attract as little media attention as possible? This would answer that question.
Gonzales Faces Inquiry Into Veracity of His Testimony
By Philip Shenon, New York Times
WASHINGTON, Aug. 30 — The Justice Department’s internal watchdog disclosed today that he was investigating whether sworn statements to Congress by Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales were “intentionally false, misleading or inappropriate.”
The first official confirmation that Mr. Gonzales is under investigation within the executive branch over the truthfulness of his testimony came in a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee from Glenn A. Fine, the inspector general at the Justice Department. The committee’s chairman, Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, had requested the inquiry earlier this month.
...It was not clear if the investigation by the inspector general was tied in any way to Mr. Gonzales’s announcement on Monday that he was resigning from the Justice Department, effective next month. He has offered no details for the reasoning behind his resignation or its timing, and his departure caught top aides by surprise.
Meanwhile, Josh Marshall makes a related point on how scandal continues to hound Republicans, even though they are the minority party.
Okay, it's the unreported political story of the year: the GOP's ability to dominate scandal news even while in the minority. Usually, the majority party, with more power and money, takes the scandal cake. It's almost an iron law of politics. But whether it's lobby shop or the restroom, the GOP has so far been able to reverse the historical tide, maintaining a decisive muck advantage even in the political wilderness.
The Courier-Journal is reporting that U.S. Rep. Ron Lewis (R) is calling on U.S. Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID) to resign:
"Senator Craig's guilty plea for his alleged conduct last June illustrates moral hypocrisy inappropriate for an elected official," Lewis said in a statement. "He had the opportunity to contest the charges and chose not to."
The Idaho Republican senator's failure to reveal the incident, as well as his unwillingness to pursue legal means to show his innocence, "undermine the conservative principles of the Republican Party and should not be tolerated by voters or party leaders," Lewis said.
I think this is a strong statement by Lewis and I particularly applaud his criticism over Craig's "moral hypocrisy."
But I don't have the foggiest idea as to what he's referring to in the second paragraph about undermining "conservative principles." Is he talking about Craig's act, the fact that's he's probably gay, or the fact that Craig pled guilty to a crime? It's not very clear.
Meanwhile, Senator McConnell (R) weighed-in as well:
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., repeatedly declined today to say whether he thinks embattled Idaho Senator Larry Craig should resign, but he did call Craig's conduct in a Minneapolis bathroom "unforgivable."
Again, is McConnell concerned about the criminal act or that he solicited a man for sex?
I think it's great that some Republicans are critical of Craig, but what is motivating their outrage is oddly unclear. We're seeing this difference in the presidential race as Mitt Romney (R) is upset about the homosexual act while John McCain (R) is upset about him pleading guilty to a crime.
Anyone?
The arrest of U.S. Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID) as described earlier is pretty lurid. Roll Call has the entire story (which was passed along to me) but it is subscription-only so I'm unable to link. It's a lengthy story, but here's an excerpt:
According to the incident report, Sgt. Dave Karsnia was working as a plainclothes officer on June 11 investigating civilian complaints regarding sexual activity in the men's public restroom in which Craig was arrested.
Airport police previously had made numerous arrests in the men's restroom of the Northstar Crossing in the Lindbergh Terminal in connection with sexual activity.
Karsnia entered the bathroom at noon that day and about 13 minutes after taking a seat in a stall, he stated he could see "an older white male with grey hair standing outside my stall."
The man, who lingered in front of the stall for two minutes, was later identified as Craig.
"I could see Craig look through the crack in the door from his position. Craig would look down at his hands, 'fidget' with his fingers, and then look through the crack into my stall again. Craig would repeat this cycle for about two minutes," the report states.
Craig then entered the stall next to Karsnia's and placed his roller bag against the front of the stall door.
"My experience has shown that individuals engaging in lewd conduct use their bags to block the view from the front of their stall," Karsnia stated in his report. "From my seated position, I could observe the shoes and ankles of Craig seated to the left of me."
Craig was wearing dress pants with black dress shoes.
"At 1216 hours, Craig tapped his right foot. I recognized this as a signal used by persons wishing to engage in lewd conduct. Craig tapped his toes several times and moves his foot closer to my foot. I moved my foot up and down slowly. While this was occurring, the male in the stall to my right was still present. I could hear several unknown persons in the restroom that appeared to use the restroom for its intended use. The presence of others did not seem to deter Craig as he moved his right foot so that it touched the side of my left foot which was within my stall area," the report states.
Craig then proceeded to swipe his hand under the stall divider several times, and Karsnia noted in his report that "I could ... see Craig had a gold ring on his ring finger as his hand was on my side of the stall divider."
Karsnia then held his police identification down by the floor so that Craig could see it.
Don't see how he survives this one with his Idaho constituents, particularly given his staunchly anti-gay voting record. Mark Foley, Ted Haggard, David Vitter and now Larry Craig. What a sick bunch of hypocrites.
While Craig is trying to deny the allegations right now, he's already pled guilty to the charge.
UPDATE (7:20 PM): For some local Idaho coverage of the latest hypocrite pervert Republican, click here and here. Apparently, the Idaho Statesman has a big story later this evening following their "extensive investigation" of the incident, as one of their reporters just told CNN.
UPDATE #2 (7:58 PM): Now this video from 1982 is making the rounds (click here). Seems this isn't the first time Craig has denied illegal sexual activity. Nearly 25 years ago to the date, but this time he pled guilty. This guy is toast. Good riddance.
Good Lord, what is it with Republicans? Breaking news from Roll Call via Talking Points Memo. Interesting how this got buried for more than two months....
Update (5:18 pm): Daily Kos has more.
Two weeks ago, Karl Rove announced his resignation. This morning, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has followed his lead and announced he is leaving as well. This will be announced at a press conference in the next half-hour.
Gonzales' departure will end a short but very disturbing tenure where partisan politics became a counter-weight on the scales of justice and Gonzales' congressional testimony showed him to be either the most incompetent person ever to hold this position or a pathological liar.
TPMmuckraker has Gonzales Top 6 Lies:
1) “The disagreement that occurred, and the reason for the visit to the hospital, Senator, was about other intelligence activities. It was not about the terrorist surveillance program that the president announced to the American people.”
2) “The consensus in the room from the congressional leadership [the gang of eight] was that we should continue the activities, at least for now, despite the objections of Mr. Comey. There was also consensus that it would be very, very difficult to obtain legislation without compromising this program, but that we should look for a way ahead. It is for this reason that within a matter of hours Andy Card and I went to the hospital."
"I just wanted to put in context for this committee and the American people why Mr. Card and I went. It's because we had an emergency meeting in the White House Situation Room, where the congressional leadership had told us, "Continue going forward with this very important intelligence activity.”
3) "I was not involved in seeing any memos, was not involved in any discussions about what was going on."
4) "I haven't done -- I haven't talked to witnesses because of the fact that I haven't wanted to interfere with this investigation and department investigations."”
-- 4/19/07 testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee
“….as I've indicated, I have not gone back and spoken directly with Mr. Sampson and others who are involved in this process, in order to protect the integrity of this investigation and the investigation of the Office of Professional Responsibility and the Office of Inspector General.”
-- 5/11/07 testimony before the House Judiciary Committee
5) “The track record established over the past three years has demonstrated the effectiveness of the safeguards of civil liberties put in place when the act was passed. There has not been one verified case of civil liberties abuse.”
6) “…[L]et me publicly sort of preempt, perhaps, a question you're going to ask me, and that is, I am fully committed, as the administration's fully committed, to ensure that, with respect to every United States attorney position in this country, we will have a presidentially appointed, Senate-confirmed United States attorney.”
How long before Senator McConnell (R) offers us his "Alberto Gonzales will go down as one of the finest attorney general's in history"? as he did with Donald Rumsfeld and President Bush?
UPDATE (10:17 am): Here's what Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) had to say about the resignation:
"Under this Attorney General and this President, the Department of Justice suffered a severe crisis of leadership that allowed our justice system to be corrupted by political influence. It is a shame, and it is the Justice Department, the American people and the dedicated professionals of our law enforcement community who have suffered most from it.
"The obligations of the Justice Department and its leaders are to the Constitution, the rule of law and the American people, not to the political considerations of this or any White House. The Attorney General's resignation reinforces what Congress and the American people already know -- that no Justice Department should be allowed to become a political arm of the White House, whether occupied by a Republican or a Democrat.
"The troubling evidence revealed about this massive breach is a lesson to those in the future who hold these high offices, so that law enforcement is never subverted in this way again. I hope the Attorney General's decision will be a step toward getting to the truth about the level of political influence this White House wields over the Department of Justice and toward reconstituting its leadership so that the American people can renew their faith in its role as our leading law enforcement agency."
I'm sure most of you are familiar with the recent congressional testimony of J. Scott Jennings, Karl Rove's deputy at The White House, former political director for Governor Fletcher's (R) 2003 campaign, and Mitch McConnell protege, over his involvement in a host of scandals that is burying the Bush Administration.
Among the things being investigated is Jennings' use of an e-mail address on the Republican National Committee's servers for official business, evading the Presidential Records Act which requires archiving and record-keeping of all such official communications.
Interestingly, while doing some research this week, I came across an odd, but seemingly related discovery.
Seems that when you try to view a cached version of the Republican Party of Kentucky's old website, you are re-directed to what appears to be the beginning of a personal blog by none other than Scott Jennings dated March 2007.
So, aside from using an RNC e-mail account to avoid archiving his White House communications, was he also using (or attempting to use) the Republican Party of Kentucky's server for additional political communications outside the reach of the Presidential Records Act? What other communications did Jennings attempt to route through the RPK?
Below is a screen-capture of the website (click for larger image):
Hmmmm...interesting coincidence.
I couldn't have said it better myself:
Driven By Politics
No need for special session on energy projects
Herald-Leader Editorial
On Tuesday, the U.S. Senate made a special session of the Kentucky legislature unnecessary by wisely rejecting a support package for converting coal into other fuels.
Without the massive federal subsidies and guaranteed buyer, Peabody Energy and other companies will be in no hurry to move ahead with plans to build $3 billion coal-conversion plants.
Yet Gov. Ernie Fletcher still plans to call a special session, at a cost to taxpayers of $60,000 a day.
[...]
The only emergency is Fletcher's desperation to look like a leader as he faces an uphill run for re-election.
During the regular session earlier this year, the Republican Senate killed an energy bill that would have done most of what Fletcher and Senate President David Williams now consider so urgent. Fletcher didn't lift a finger to save the energy bill then.
The motive for this special session isn't energy policy; it's about giving a jolt to Fletcher's political prospects.
Update (1:31 PM): Speaker Jody Richards (D) weighs-in:
After the governor's presentation, House Speaker Jody Richards, D-Bowling Green, described Fletcher's comments as vague and said he does not think a special session is needed.
Richards suggested that the federal government should first decide whether it wants to provide incentives for coal-to-liquid plants before Kentucky signs off on its own incentive package. Congress has debated massive incentives for the industry in recent weeks, but the proposals offered so far have failed.
...He said he hopes the governor will reconsider his decision to call the session.
Any thoughts on this post over at Alter Net?
Here's another reason why Republicans are going to have an impossible time using gubernatorial nominee Steve Beshear's (D) lobbying for the payday lending industry in the 1990s against him: U.S. Rep. Geoff Davis (R) leads all members of the U.S. House and Senate in the last election cycle in taking contributions from the industry.
In a comprehensive report recently done by MAPLight.org, Davis is listed in first-place among 435 House members and 100 Senators when it came to money from payday lenders (see page 9). In return for that support, you'll recall Davis' secret effort last year to fight a cap on payday loans to military personnel, at least until journalist John Cheves exposed Davis' effort in a front-page Herald-Leader story. While we knew then that Davis had received a good deal of payday contributions, little did we realize that he was 1st of 535.
Congrats to Geoff Davis for being the payday loan industry's BFF (best friends forever).
Remember a few months ago the controversy we discussed concerning the secret hold that a Republican senator had placed on legislation that would have mandated electronic campaign finance filings for Senate candidates and incumbents, just as is law for all House members, House candidates, 527 groups and PACs?
Well, opponents have now stepped-up their pressure on Senate Minority Leader McConnell (R) to reveal which member of his caucus is preventing the legislation from proceeding to a vote. They purchased prominent billboard space in Louisville and have just launched the website WhatsMcConnellHiding.com.
Check it out.
The Hill has this snippet about the apparently added job responsibilities for U.S. Rep. Ed Whitfield's (R) congressional staffers:
It was a dog-day afternoon last Wednesday as reporters, photographers and security types cooled their heels outside a Department of Defense briefing in a Rayburn hallway.
First an aide walked by with a Jack Russell terrier on a leash, apparently bringing the pooch back from a little, um, relief outside. “Whose dog?” a reporter asked. “Congressman Whitfield.” That would be Rep. Ed Whitfield’s (R-Ky.) dog, Nigel.
Five minutes later, another aide came in with Bosley, a little black Scottie. Again, “Congressman Whitfield.”
There's your taxpayer money in action...
From the AP:
In a triumph for the pharmaceutical industry, the U.S. Senate killed an effort yesterday to allow consumers to buy prescription drugs from abroad at a significant savings over domestic prices.
On a 49-40 vote, the Senate required the administration to certify the safety and effectiveness of imported drugs before they can be imported, a requirement that officials have said they cannot meet.
"Well, once again the big drug companies have proved that they are the most powerful and best financed lobby in Washington," said Sen. David Vitter, a Louisiana Republican.
Joining the pharmaceutical industry in killing this legislation was Senator McConnell (R) and Senator Bunning (R).
It's been a while since my old boss, U.S. Senator Tim Johnson (D-SD), was hospitalized for his brain injury in December and it seems that his recovery is coming along very well. I still get e-mails from his office on his progress and thought I'd share this one with you:
Recent Comments