Huffpolitics on The Huffington Post

Rep. Joe Crowley Ejects HuffPost Before Crooning To Lobbyists

2009-07-10T11:05:35Z

The Huffington Post crashed a Thursday evening fundraiser for Rep. Joe Crowley's political action committee, the Jobs, Opportunies and Education PAC.

The event, a typical Washington fundraiser, was listed on the Sunlight Foundation's website, www.politicalpartytime.org, as CROWLEY UNPLUGGED!! The venue was the Washington office of the Recording Industry Association of America, an organization that has spent more than $1.8 million in lobbying Congress so far in 2009, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Via his leadership PAC, Crowley can distribute cash he earned last night to his friends in the House, who so far this year have received $23,000.

Friendly Crowley staffers greeted the Huffington Post in the lobby of the downtown office building and said the New York Democrat would indeed be singing at the event, a spectacle for which attendees would have to stuff $100 into an envelope to see. For $1,000, guests could get ten tickets and two passes to the "VIP After Party."

Several lobbyists introduced themselves, including Lou Constantino of the Managed Funds Association, a hedge funds lobby that has spent $750,000 in lobbying so far this year as part of the industry's efforts to avert regulation. Patrick Collins said he was there just because he likes Crowley. Law firm Holland & Knight sent at least one intern.

After ten minutes of friendly schmoozing with these people, a new guest refused to identify himself. "Yeah, I don't deal with reporters," he said.

It was then that the Huffington Post noticed Crowley's staffers huddled over their Blackberrys on the other side of the lobby. One of them walked over and said he was reading "your Isakson story."

After a few minutes, the Huffington Post was escorted to the door -- but not denied the company of a Crowley staffer. He proceeded to maneuver himself between this reporter and arriving guests for about 10 or 15 minutes.

"It'd be best if you just keep going," he told arriving guests as the Huffington Post attempted to make new acquaintances. "Just go inside."

"You can't do this shit," he said in an exasperated but still-friendly tone at one point between arrivals. Asked if he would follow his charge all the way to the corner, he said he would -- and he actually did follow when this reporter started walking. But he eventually relented and left the Huffington Post alone to query dozens of incoming guests.

The vast majority of arrivals cordially refused to identify themselves. But a few were more forthcoming, including a woman from the Edison Electric Institute, which has spent more than $2.5 million in lobbying this year, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The EEI has a lot at stake in climate change legislation.

Finally, the congressman arrived. As he hurried into the lobby, the Huffington Post asked him what his guests would get out of attending the event.

"A couple good songs," Crowley said.

HuffPost readers: Got a tip on a party, or see one worth crashing at www.politicalpartytime.org? Send tips to arthur@huffingtonpost.com.

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs Plan To Rebrand Failure As Success

2009-07-10T10:53:29Z

I have wonderful news to report to everyone! Apparently I have woken up today in a parallel universe, where the sun is shining and the birds are singing and my coffee tastes like malted orgasm. There's something called a "Dylan Ratigan" on my teevee, asking shouty sports pundit Stephen A. Smith about auto bailouts, so it's not like EVERYTHING makes perfect sense, but here's the real good news! Apparently, the financial collapse in the derivatives market never happened! EVERYTHING OLD IS NEW AGAIN AND WILL SUCK AGAIN, YAY!

From this bizarro universe's Bloomberg:

Morgan Stanley plans to repackage a downgraded collateralized debt obligation backed by leveraged loans into new securities with AAA ratings in the first transaction of its kind, said two people familiar with the sale.

Morgan Stanley is selling $87.1 million of securities that it expects to receive top AAA ratings and $42.9 million of notes graded Baa2, the second-lowest investment grade by Moody's Investors Service, according to marketing documents obtained by Bloomberg News. The bonds were created from Greywolf CLO I Ltd., a CDO arranged in January 2007 by Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and managed by Greywolf Capital Management LP, an investment firm based in Purchase, New York.

Ahh, apparently this parallel universe's version of Choire Sicha is just as critical of these geniuses as he is in the real one. This is blockquoted for maximum sarcasm:

HOW COULD THIS IDEA FAIL? How could anyone not want to put their money in this? This is so dizzying, it's like it is 2003 outside, and everything is new and shiny again.

You know what is going to be neat? Seeing which ratings agency bites first at giving this turd sandwich a AAA rating! All of us in this parallel universe plan on running around the streets with our pants off that day, because there are no consequences for failure, ever, apparently.

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

Google Posts Advertising 'Spin Document' Online

2009-07-09T16:40:54Z

Yesterday, we reported that Consumer Watchdog had obtained, and provided satiric annotations for, a "spin document" that Google had presented as a part of a June 18th hearing before Congress. At issue was Google's practice of "behavioral advertising," and the possibility that consumers would be given, as a part of government regulation, the opportunity to "opt in" or "opt out" of being surveyed by Google's invasive mining of user browser habits, which they use to serve up online advertising.

At the time, I remarked that "'Confidential' 'spin documents' on transparency and privacy are awesome monuments to irony." But hey! Google has now posted those documents online themselves, fresh for your consumption today! But, there's a tiny little twist: They've deleted the words "GOOGLE CONFIDENTIAL."

Here is the original cover page:

And here's what's been made available for public consumption:

Well, it's a good nod to almost-transparency, anyway. But just so you remember: They'd have preferred you not see these materials at all! And Consumer Watchdog President Jamie Court remains concerned:

Google is becoming more Orwellian every day in order to perpetuate the myth they are an open and transparent company. In this case, they are rewriting history by only putting the presentation forward after the exposure, failing to mention the impetus and altering the documents in the process to eliminate the "confidential" and "proprietary" tag. It's hard to trust a company with our most sensitive data when they go to such lengths to twist the truth. Google owes us an explanation of who met on capitol hill with whom, and whether or not they were registered lobbyists.

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

Emanuel's Public Plan With Triggers Trial Balloon "Blew Up": Dem Lawmaker

2009-07-09T16:06:29Z

A leading progressive in the House of Representatives said on Wednesday that she felt reassured that the White House would not pursue health care reform that tied a public plan to worsening economic triggers.

In an interview with the Huffington Post, Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.) said that Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel might have been floating a "trial balloon" when he told the Wall Street Journal earlier this week that a trigger option could be a compromise approach to health care reform. Judging by his interaction with progressives in the House of Representatives in the subsequent hours, she added, it seems that the administration has taken the proposal off the table.

"The president wasn't talking about a trigger," said Woolsey. And when Emanuel floated the idea, she said, "the balloon blew up. He got to the Democratic caucus and he heard loud and clear that that is not what we wanted. And he definitely heard it from myself and the progressives, very clearly, that we're talking about a robust public option."

The co-chair of the Progressive Caucus, Woolsey said that when Emanuel came to meet House Democrats on Tuesday evening -- hours after his interview with the Journal was published -- he did not receive a warm reception.

"He was on the defensive because he got there and he had to explain that what the president really wants is a robust public plan," said Woolsey.

The California Democrat said that she has whipped the progressive caucus in the House and concluded that more than 60 of its members would vote against a health care reform plan that had a public option tied to economic triggers. It is a line in the sand that she and others expressed to Emanuel when he met with his former House Democrats.

"Fortunately, when [Emanuel] left, we knew that he was not going to be out working for a trigger," said Woolsey. "He didn't make excuses," she added. "We [the progressive caucus] have already compromised. More than 90 percent of the progressive caucus would vote today for a single payer system. And so for us to compromise and get behind a really good strong public plan, I mean that's as far as we're going. And I started with that and he said, 'Lynn I know that.' He knows that we're very serious about this."

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

LobbyBlog

2009-07-09T15:50:00Z

I'm blogging about the world of lobbying and its effect on, well, just about everything our government does. Email me thoughts and tips at huffpostlobbywatch@gmail.com. Because some people look at laws and ask, why not? We're looking at laws and asking, who paid for them?

--July 10, 2009--

CIRCLE OF LIFE "Some people call it the way the system works. Others call it bribery -- but not the Supreme Court. The high court has said that campaign contributions are not bribes." That's from NPR's piece on fundraising parties, starring Chris Dodd and Bruce Braley!

As for Dodd, his spokesman wrote an e-mail: "Campaign contributions do not and never have influenced Senator Dodd's agenda and priorities. His work is always and has always been about representing the interest of the people of Connecticut."

Rep. Bruce Braley of Iowa put it this way: "I look at these as two separate and distinct things that I do. One is to try to get re-elected, and the other is to do a good job for my district, and I think that's the way most members look at it."

Wouldn't one imagine that "doing a good job for one's district" would be enough to get re-elected? If you truly believe that they are two "separate and distinct things," then you are effing DISEASED.

ACCIDENTAL TRUTH-TELLING Via ThinkProgress, here's Scott Talbott, senior vice president for government affairs at The Financial Services Roundtable, discussing the proposed Consumer Financial Protection Agency, which the Roundtable lobbies against, like furtive voles. As you'll see, he sort of messes up there!

HOST: So if not this process by the administration, the creation of the CFPA, how would the Financial Services Roundtable go about assessing and remedying this...

TALBOTT: Sure, sure. We're not for any regulation. In fact, we have some proposals, but what we don't want to do is separate out the regulation of the entity from the regulation of the product, which is what the CFPA would do.

IS ANYONE NOT PART OF THE HEALTH CARE ORGY? Open Secrets reports today that just about everyone under the sun is working to dilute and defang health care reform:

The Coca-Cola Company, for one, fears that Congress may institute new soda taxes as a way to pay for health care reforms and discourage sugary beverages. While it is unclear how much money the company has spent specifically on health care issues, Coca-Cola filed two health-related (and five tax-related) lobbying reports with the federal government during this year's 1st Quarter. The company has already spent $600,000 on lobbying this year, hiring elite Beltway firms such as Glover Park and BKSH.

Some entities are even more unlikely.

The National Association of Realtors, which boasts an in-house staff of 20--plus lobbyists and ranks as the ninth all-time leading spender on lobbying, has filed more lobbying reports on health issues than any topic but one, taxes, this year. The 1.2 million-member association is No. 8 among top lobbying spenders this year. NAR spent $5.8 million in the first three months of 2009 alone, retaining the prominent firm Quinn Gillespie & Associates to complement the internal staff. NAR also stands third among the top 100 donors in federal politics during the past 20 years, spending $4.3 million last election cycle and $35 million since 1989. During the 2008 campaign, 58 percent of NAR's contributions went to Democrats.

More here.

THIS MINUTE IN CHRIS DODD Mother Jones reports live from the "Chris-Dodd-is-no-K-Street-pawn campaign." ACT ONE: Sanctimony!

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Another great piece from Open Secrets:

As members of Congress assess the proper dose of reform for the nation's health care system, many of them have likewise invested hundreds of thousands of dollars of their personal funds into the very companies whose financial fortunes depend on what measures become law.

While some political scientists and other experts are concerned this reality inhibits good policy, lawmakers themselves say the financial health of their constituents -- not their investment portfolios -- alone drive their decisions.

Legislators held significant investments in pharmaceutical companies such as Pfizer, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Amgen, the Center for Responsive Politics has found. Through 2008 -- the most recent year for which lawmakers filed this information -- many congressional members' personal funds were also invested in big-time insurers Aetna, UnitedHealth Group and Metlife, among others.

I think that I'd prefer to not study politics under a political scientist who is NOT "concerned this reality inhibits good policy."

Open Secrets goes on to provide thumbnail sketches of how well invested John Kerry, Johnny Isakson, Judd Gregg, Jane Harman, Jared Polis, and Dave Camp are in health companies, and where they stand on reform. As reporter Lindsay Renick Mayer notes, "Nearly one in four current members of Congress had invested some money in health companies during 2007, the most recent year CRP calculated lawmakers' extensive personal finances."

FROM THE HUFF POST BLOGS Art Levine: Health Care Lobbyists vs. The People: The Final Showdown.

WALL STREET WONKERY From Bloomberg:

The derivatives market's trade group retained Edward Rosen, a lobbyist with law firm Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP, to water down the Obama administration's plan to regulate over-the-counter securities.

[...]

Credit Suisse, whose representative is chairman of the group, recommended Rosen, who in 2000 lobbied for the Swiss bank in favor of a law that kept derivatives unregulated, said the people, who declined to be identified because of the matter is private. The eight banks wanted to deploy lobbyists from the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, the individual banks and New York-based law firm Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP, they said.

According to Cleary Gottlieb's website, Rosen is a specialist in the "structuring of complex securities and derivatives transactions." And like most experts in that field, in which nothing calamitous has ever happened, EVER, he shoudl totally be trusted!

RELATED: "Not all derivatives have put the financial system at risk and they should not all be treated the same."

THANK YOU FOR SMOKING From PRWatch: "At first look, one might not think that the health insurance industry has much in common with the tobacco industry." But then, you LOOK AGAIN.

LET'S REVIEW In case you're just joining us, here are the highlights from your health care reform flesh-fest:

Billy Tauzin's outfit, The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America: $27.2 million
American Medical Association: $24.9 million
American Hospital Association: $23.8 million
Kindly old persons organization AARP: $31 million
U.S. Chamber of Commerce: $107 million

Now, here's the new, NEW look at the playing field, from CRP's Aaron Kiersch, who's running lawmakers to ground on their stands on the public option and individual mandates.

FUN FACT Even lettuce has lobbyists! And remember, YOU SHOULD NOT SMOKE THE LETTUCE:

--July 9, 2009--

"HOW LOBBYING DOESN'T WORK" This is an auspicious day for us to be starting this here spotlight on lobbyists, because Marshall Brain at How Stuff Works has conveniently taken on this very issue. As such, his post is a useful primer:

The majority of American voters want X. Corporations want Y. Because the corporations have the money to lobby and donate to politicians, what we get is Y. Is this how we want the system to work?

See also the previously cited post from Allison Kilkenny at True/Slant: "Banning lobbying could save American democracy."

HEALTH CARE LOBBYING BY THE NUMBERS Open Secrets has a convenient spreadsheet listing all the money that's been changing hands over health care reform, including "how much money they've spent on lobbying expenditures in 2008 and in the first three months of 2009, the total they've given to lawmakers' candidate committees and leadership political action committees since the start of the 2008 election cycle and which party they're bankrolling."

HOUSE COMMITTEE RAKES IT IN Jonathan Kantrowitz of CT News reports:

An analysis of campaign finance data by Public Campaign Action Fund, a national campaign finance watchdog group, found that members on the House Financial Services Committee have received $62.9 million in campaign donations from financial, insurance, and real estate interests. The data, which was compiled by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, covers lifetime campaign contributions received by the 71 members on the committee.

"Wall Street and their allies on Capitol Hill should not write the rules that govern the financial, banking, and housing industries," said David Donnelly, national campaigns director for Public Campaign Action Fund. "Their years of influence peddling, big money campaign contributions, and unaccountable rampant greed got us into this mess. Congress should follow Chairman Barney Frank's example and stand up to these well-heeled special interests. It's time to put consumers, workers, homeowners, and taxpayers first for a change."

More here.

BIRTH OF A "SUPER LOBBY?" Teryn Norris, over at Alternet, predicts that the American Clean Energy and Security Act, despite being "a good first step," will breed a powerful new coalition of special interests that will align themselves against whatever the "second step" might be. Naturally, Wall Street plays a kew role in our forthcoming ruination:

But what are the prospects for strengthening ACES in future years? This question is subject to many uncertainties, depending on the vagaries of the political climate. But a closer examination reveals that ACES could create a "super-lobby" of interest groups that will significantly diminish the possibility of achieving future reforms.

The newest climate lobby -- and potentially one of the most powerful in years to come -- is the financial industry. If ACES is signed into law, the global carbon market could become the largest commodity market in the world. According to Bart Chilton, Commissioner of the U.S. Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), "The potential size and scope of a structured carbon emissions market in the US is unequivocally vast. It is certainly possible that the emissions markets could overtake all other commodity markets."

More here.

PARTY CRASH And, in case you missed it, our own Arthur Delaney attempted to crash a dinnertime shindig for Georgia Sen. Johnny Isakson. It looked for a while that Arthur would be spending the evening chilling with "John Greene of the National Association of Health Underwriters" and "two young women from Polaris Government Relations," but then, things took a turn for the GET THE HELL OUT OF HERE.

LOBBYISTS IN THE ADMINISTRATION Looks like the Obama administration has found another former lobbyist whose genius has been deemed indispensible.

Susan L. Kurland, who the Obama administration announced this week as the nominee for assistant secretary of Transportation for aviation and international affairs, registered as a lobbyist in 2004 and 2005. Kurland did not report earning money for services rendered.

SCHUMER AND HEDGE FUNDS Via Clusterstock:

The hedge fund sector's main lobbying group employs Sen. Chuck Schumer's former top banking aide, Carmencita Whonder.

Just two years after Schumer sat down with top hedge fund managers to tell them that they'd better start playing politics now that Democrats were running Capitol Hill, the circle has been completed. Hedge funds set up the Managed Fund Association, which then hired Whonder's firm Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schrek to lobby lawmakers.

FOX/HENHOUSE So, "Obama's considering appointing a former Monsanto vice president, Mike Taylor, to head the Food Safety Working Group at the FDA." That will probably work out awesomely for everyone.

More here.

DODD BACKS AWAY FROM K The uncozying of Christopher Dodd is underway:

As Sen. Chris Dodd gears up for a grueling re-election fight, he has tried to distance himself from K Street by taking an increasingly pro-consumer, anti-industry tack, according to many lobbyists who work closely with the Connecticut Democrat.

The Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs chairman has been vulnerable to critics who charge that he was too close to financial services lobbyists and executives, many of whom helped fund his long-shot presidential ambitions.

He has also come under fire for taking a plum mortgage from Countrywide Financial, moving his family to Iowa during the primary and being out of touch with his Nutmeg State constituents.

More here.

TAUZIN, GAH Ugh, You really need to watch everytime the name Billy Tauzin appears near your legislation, because he is like all four horsemen of the lobbyocalypse rolled into one.

Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America CEO Billy Tauzin and five member- company CEOs went to the White House on Tuesday afternoon to solidify the $80 billion deal they recently struck with the White House and Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.).

The group was slated to meet with Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, Deputy Chief of Staff Jim Messina and Counselor to the President and Director of the White House Office of Health Reform Nancy-Ann DeParle.

"We thought it was important for the White House to hear the commitment directly from some of our CEOs," PhRMA spokesman Ken Johnson said.

"We also wanted to reinforce our $80 billion pledge towards achieving that goal. This represents a huge financial commitment by our companies -- one that requires some painful decisions for all of them," he added.

CEOs from Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Merck, Abbott Laboratories and Amgen accompanied Tauzin to the West Wing.

Just like War, Death and Famine accompany Pestilence.

FAQ QUESTION: "How else can you explain former GOP and Democratic House Majority Leaders, Dick Armey and Dick Gephardt, both doing healthcare reform lobbying for the same New Jersey healthcare company?"

Uhm...I'm guessing they're both monstrously greedy people?

OH, CANADA! What is it about Canada that makes so many Canadians so happy about Canada? Well, over at True/Slant today, Alison Kilkenny reveals one of the Great White North's ingredients for success:

Stephen Harper, the Canadian Prime Minister, introduced the 2008 Federal Accountability Act, including the Lobbying Act that was designed to regulate the behavior of lobbyists. The act created an independent office of the commissioner of lobbying who reports directly to Parliament, and whose job consists of investigating lobbyists' activities. The Lobbying Act also increased the penalties for violations by doubling the fines to $200,000 and increasing potential prison time to up to two years for serious violations of the law. One has to assume the behavior of our $1.4 million/day lobbyists would land them in jail for decades.

Additionally, the act calls for monthly reports of any arranged meetings between senior officials and lobbyists. Such a provision would surely give healthcare money hogs like Chris Dodd (D-CT), Max Baucus (D-Mont.), Arlen Specter (D-Pa.), and Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) simultaneous aneurysms, but a Constitutional amendment regulating lobbyists might also save democracy.

ME WANTY.

THIS MINUTE IN WAPO SALONS OH HAI. Those WaPo Flesh Fests that were supposedly just some rapidly thrown together dealie that had popped out of the heads of the business division guys who were, you know, just spitballing up some ways to make some money for the paper and maybe show off some of Marcus Brauchli's awesome canape recipes? Yeah, boy, I don't know...Michael Calderone has additional material that makes these things look pretty well planned out. Post spox Kris Coratti sez: "This was a precursor to the flier for the events The Post has cancelled and the Publisher has apologized for." Oh, Kris. Y'all aren't NEARLY DONE APOLOGIZING FOR THIS.

OUROBOUROS This pull from the bio of Miller/Wenhold Capitol Strategies' Paul Miller, via Jill Richardson at DailyKos, is pretty priceless:

In addition to his work for his firm, Paul was elected as the youngest President of the American League of Lobbyists, the national association representing the lobbying profession...

Paul was also instrumental in shaping the debate on lobbying reform in 2006 and 2007. As chief spokesman and lobbyist for the profession, Paul met with leaders from both parties on the issue of reform. He has appeared before both the House and Senate and has appeared on most television programs educating the public on the issue of lobbying and proposed changes to the Lobbying Disclosure Act. He has been a tireless champion in the fight to protect every citizen's right to petition their government through lobbying activities.

That's like a whore being in charge of pimp reform.

AN ORGY OF HEALTHCARE LOBBYING The Washington Post has a lengthy article on the healthcare lobbyists that the paper had hoped to get to know a lot more intimately, at those $25K orgies Katherine Weymouth was going to host. Salient details include some obscene numbers:

The nation's largest insurers, hospitals and medical groups have hired more than 350 former government staff members and retired members of Congress in hopes of influencing their old bosses and colleagues, according to an analysis of lobbying disclosures and other records.

The tactic is so widespread that three of every four major health-care firms have at least one former insider on their lobbying payrolls, according to The Washington Post's analysis.

Nearly half of the insiders previously worked for the key committees and lawmakers, including Sens. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), debating whether to adopt a public insurance option opposed by major industry groups. At least 10 others have been members of Congress, such as former House majority leaders Richard K. Armey (R-Tex.) and Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.), both of whom represent a New Jersey pharmaceutical firm.

The hirings are part of a record-breaking influence campaign by the health-care industry, which is spending more than $1.4 million a day on lobbying in the current fight, according to disclosure records. And even in a city where lobbying is a part of life, the scale of the effort has drawn attention. For example, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) doubled its spending to nearly $7 million in the first quarter of 2009, followed by Pfizer, with more than $6 million.

Hey, and it's ALL GOOD, DUDE:

Also inside the closed committee hearing room that day was Richard Tarplin, a veteran of both the Department of Health and Human Services and the Senate, where he worked for Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), one of the leaders in fashioning reform legislation this year. Tarplin now represents the American Medical Association as head of his own lobbying firm, Tarplin Strategies.

"For people like me who are on the outside and used to be on the inside, this is great, because there is a level of trust in these relationships, and I know the policy rationale that is required," Tarplin said in explaining the benefits of having government experience.

BAUCUS ON REFORM What "goes a long way in explaining why [Max] Baucus, one of 60 Democratic Senators, has been fighting so hard against a public option....the one that more than 70% of all Americans support?" This does!

THIS MINUTE IN WAPO SALONS The Washington Post is apparently "launching a review of its operating practices to 'ensure that its business practices do not compromise its journalistic ethics when the newspaper organizes conferences or private events funded by sponsors.'" I suppose it would be too easy to just say, "God, we just sort of lost our goddamned minds, there, for a second."

Anyway, that's an improvement over their last move on this matter, which was to "review" the Atlantic, and their practices.

NYT vs. INOUYE The New York Times calls out Daniel Inouye in an editorial this morning:

From the start, the government's emergency $700 billion program to bolster financial institutions prompted a virtual stampede by members of Congress to get a piece of the action for their local banks. This is hardly surprising and not necessarily unethical. But one call to Treasury deserves particular scrutiny by the inspector general now reviewing the heavy Congressional lobbying for money from the Troubled Asset Relief Program.

It came from Senator Daniel Inouye's office to ask regulators about the status of a bailout request for a troubled Hawaiian bank in which the senator owns hundreds of thousands of dollars in stock. The senator was a founder of the bank, Central Pacific Financial, which has seen its stock price plummet and which regulators initially pronounced as too undercapitalized to be eligible for the program. But following a call by an Inouye staffer, the bank received $135 million in help via Treasury's follow-up process for reviewing marginal applicants.

More, here.

FROM THE HUFF POST BLOGS Huff Post blogger Bryan Young sizes up the tango being danced all over a potentially effective health care reform bill and calls for a "Fairness Doctrine" in the world of lobbying:

Firstly, we need to be calling and writing our representatives angry about this. We need to be demanding an investigation on how much damage this is doing to legislation and we need independent commissions to offer guidelines on what can be done to prevent travesties like this that undermine our democracy from happening. (No doubt they'll recommend making elections publicly financed, which is what Jim Hightower told us would fix most problems with government and policy when we interviewed him for our documentary, Killer at Large.)

Calling our representatives about this is only a first step (one I suggested on this topic last week).

The next thing we need to do if we're going to continue to allow companies to pump hundreds of millions of dollars to subvert our democratic process (and this is going to scare the hell out of conservatives, but damn it, it needs to happen) is to enact a fairness doctrine on lobbying. Our voices and our votes simply aren't convincing enough for our public servants to do the people's business anymore.

Read more, here.

PAT ROBERTS IS SCAMMING YOU Sunlight Foundation's Lisa Rosenberg offers a warning that Sen. Pat Roberts is goind to propose an amendment to the Senate Campaign Disclosure Parity Act that's in keeping with Roberts' traditional tendencies toward disingenuousness:

By requiring senate candidates to file their campaign finance reports electronically, S. 482 will provide immediate, online access to critical campaign contribution and expenditure information, an obvious boon to shining more light on elections.

The Roberts amendment would make the names of donors to nonprofit organizations public any time the nonprofit decided to file an ethics complaint against a sitting senator.

The amendment would eradicate the constitutionally protected right of free association, including the right to make private contributions to nonprofit organizations, whenever an organization asks the Ethics Committee to investigate whether a senator violated Senate rules. The result? Organizations will be forced to choose between protecting their donors' constitutional rights and filing an ethics complaint. Many will be left with no choice but to decide against filing the complaint. Fewer ethics complaints means questionable behavior by senators will go undetected. It does not create a more transparent Congress.

THIS MINUTE IN MURTHA More on Ianeri and Murtha. Ianeri, the POLITICO reports, has fingers all over the world of Pennsylvania politics, including on sainted Specter-killer hero Joe Sestak:

Other Democratic recipients of Ianieri's campaign donations include Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.) and Reps. Mike Doyle (Pa.), Patrick Murphy (Pa.), Joe Sestak (Pa.), Chet Edwards (Texas), and Neil Abercrombie (Hawaii).

Ianieri also donated $2,300 to Rep. Bill Shuster (R-Pa.).

John Bresnahan also fills out Murtha's dealings with PMA with a little more color:

Murtha also has a close relationship with Paul Maggliocchetti, founder of the PMA Group. The PMA Group was raided by federal agents in November and has since imploded. Murtha and Visclosky received hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from PMA, its employees and clients, while at the same time steering tens of millions of dollars in earmarks to those clients.

Visclosky and his former chief of staff, Charles Brimmer, have been subpoenaed by the a federal grand jury for documents related to PMA, while the House ethics committee has begun its own investigation into lawmakers' ties to the firm.

PARTY DOWN! Paul Blumenthal at the Sunlight Foundation is taking a look at the lucrative field of partying with members of the Senate Finance Committee, and how it's impacting the health care debate. So far, he's got the names on the dance card -- Chuck Schumer, Orrin Hatch, and Mike Crapo courting Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Teva, the AMA, and the American Council of Life Insurers -- but no fix on how much scrilla changed hands.

THIS MINUTE IN HIRINGS Lobby shop Parven Pomper is staffing up on Dems. One cited hire is Roger Murry, who was "a former aide on health care and trade issues to then-Rep. Ellen Tauscher."

THIS MINUTE IN MURTHA The Center For Public Integrity has more on Murtha, who's very popular today!

The Center's recent investigative report, Pentagon Travel, revealed that over a decade's time, Defense Department employees took thousands of trips paid for by outside sources. Turns out a handful of those trips were to Johnstown, Pennsylvania, a former coal and steel mining town of some 27,000 people that's been getting plenty of attention -- from both DOD personnel and federal law enforcement officials.

Much of the attention likely has to do with the hundreds of millions of dollars directed to Johnstown and the surrounding region through earmarks by its congressional representative, Democrat John P. Murtha, chair of the powerful House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. Those earmarks and their recipients are now drawing a variety of scrutiny.

More here.

MURTHA AND IANERI A defense contractor named Richard ianeri has been charged with accepting over $200,000 in kickbacks. As it turns out, he was a big donor to Representative John Murtha. Murtha chairs the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. Circle of life.

Ianeri's former company, Coherent Systems International, "received millions of dollars in earmarks from Murtha, and continued giving money to the Pennsylvania Democrat after Ianieri left Coherent and Argon ST bought it."

In total, the employees of Coherent, and employees and political action committees of Argon and its subsidiaries, have given $81,950 to Murtha's campaign committee and leadership PAC since the 2004 election cycle, according to a Center for Responsive Politics analysis.

Open Secrets also notes that Murtha's committee jas showered favors on another defense lobbying firm, PMA Group:

Current members of the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, including Visclosky and chairman Murtha, have received $7.6 million from PMA and its clients since 1989, and $74,650 in the first three months of 2009. This subcommittee has doled out earmarks to some of PMA's clients.

Download a list of all current members of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee who have collected money to their candidate committees or leadership PACs from the PACs or employees of PMA Group and its clients since 1989: PMAClients_SubComm.xls

So far this year, PMA's clients have spent $20.3 million total on lobbying but paid out a mere $2 million to the embattled firm before it shut its doors. In 2008, PMA was paid $13.5 million for its lobbying services. DRS Technology and Parametric Technology Corp. paid PMA the most this year at $130,000 and $120,000, respectively.

OIL MARKET REGS COMING? The CFTC is considering taking steps to curb speculations in the oil markets:

Reacting to swings in oil prices in recent months, federal regulators announced on Tuesday that they were considering trading restrictions on hedge funds and other "speculative" traders in markets for oil, natural gas and other energy products.

In a big departure from the hands-off approach to market regulation of the last two decades, the chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Gary Gensler, said his agency would consider limits on the volume of energy futures contracts that purely financial investors would be allowed to hold.

So, now, if you were wondering how Gary Gensler's face came to look as if it had been gnawed on by energy lobbyists, you'll know why. There's more!

The agency also announced that it would pull back part of the veil on the oil and gas markets, publishing more detailed information about the aggregate activity of hedge funds and traders who arbitrage between domestic and foreign energy prices.

So, yeah, that sounds like the sort of thing that normally comes off without a hitch.

FAQ TPM's Brian Beutler asks a simple question: Do Baucus' Ties To Health Care Industry Compromise His Reform Efforts?

Yes, yes, yes!

If you're a long-time politico, you may have seen it coming: Standing between progressives and fundamental health care reform is a 30-year Senate veteran with a reputation cemented long ago as a deal-maker -- or less charitably, as a sellout.

So, yes?

As chairman of the Finance Committee he's weathered his share of controversies.

Yes, I'm guessing?

"It's a parade of lobbyists going in and out of that office every day," says a Senate aide.

Well, I'm going to have to hear more about the "parade." Were there frisbee dogs?

Take a quick glance at the website Open Secrets and you can find over a half dozen insurance and pharmaceutical industry lobbyists who were once Baucus staffers.

So, there were frisbee dogs!

Anyway, yes. They do. I mean, duh.

DEADLINES Chuck Grassley and Chris Dodd are apparently getting a little sketchy on whether health care reform is going to get done before August's end.

DEALBREAKING ON HEALTH CARE REFORM POLITICO'S Carrie Budoff Brown reports that Joe Biden's been wheeling and dealing behind the scenes, lining up support for health care reform from a trio of hospital associations.

Vice President Joe Biden is expected to announce Wednesday that three major hospital associations have agreed to provide $160 billion in savings to pay for a health care overhaul, according to sources close to the negotiations.

The timing of the announcement is aimed at sustaining momentum for health reform as Democratic congressional leaders embark on a critical five-week period in which they hope to pass bills out of the Senate and House by the August recess.

But the rub:

The deal would be less than what President Barack Obama proposed last month when he outlined more than $200 billion in hospital payment cuts to help pay for his bill.

TANGLED WEB Aaron Kiersch at OpenSecrets sizes up the connections between current and former lawmakers and current and former staffers and current and even-more-current lobbyists and, basically it's like OCEAN'S 11 and 12 crossed with an orgy, or something. Don't worry, though! There's TONS OF BIPARTISANSHIP!

Although some business interests are cooperating with the White House and congressional Democrats on aspects of health care reform, the medical community largely opposes President Barack Obama's plan for a government-run health insurance option. And as the Obama administration's calls for a public option grow louder, industry groups are fighting back by retaining additional lobbyists, who include some of Washington's most experienced power brokers.

Former Senate leaders Bob Dole (R-Kan.) and Tom Daschle (D-S.D.), as well as one-time House leaders Richard Armey (R-Texas) and Richard Gephardt(D-Mo.), work for lobbying firms retained by health product companies or have lobbied directly for them. Former Rep. Billy Tauzin (R-La.) is president and CEO of the Pharmaceutical Researchers and Manufacturers of America (PhARMA), a trade association that represents many of the industry's largest companies and spent $7 million on lobbying in the 1st Quarter of 2009.

Ex-staffers may not match these former lawmakers' star power, but their connections to current players are still in high demand. The Post notes that nearly half of the 350 insiders previously worked for key committees and lawmakers, including Sens. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa)--the Senate Finance Committee's chairman and ranking member, respectively.

Ezra Klein, naturally, has a terrifying graphic to go along with this.

LOBBYIST ON LOBBYIST ACTION Here's Wal-Mart vs. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, by the numbers. THE VERY LARGE NUMBERS.

JUSTICE DEPARTMENT DEMANDS The U.S. Justice Department is swimming in potential violations of the Lobbying Disclosure Act.

The Secretary of the Senate has sent 1,713 potential violations of the Lobbying Disclosure Act this calendar year to the Justice Department's U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, according to the U.S. Senate Office of Public Records website.

The cumulative number of potential violations sent by the Senate to Justice is 5,596 since January 1996 January 2008, the site says.The office was required, under the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act, to publicly update the number of potential violations that it has sent to the U.S. Attorney's office twice a year. (HLOGA was passed and signed into law in 2007, amending the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995)

National Journal notes: "As of March 2008, investigations of lobbying disclosure violations had only resulted in three instances of fines levied on registrants."

TWITTER LOBBYISTS? OH HAI. Twitter is going to ruin lobbyists are going to ruin Twitter, just like you could have predicted.
Read more: Health Care Reform, Environmental Policy, Bank Reform, Lobbying, Business News

Was The CIA Hiding Cheney's "Executive Assassination Ring"?

2009-07-09T14:45:40Z

The revelation from seven Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee that they were misled about a critical CIA program has sparked a debate that touches on the most sensitive areas of national security policy. What program, exactly, was being kept secret?

No one is answering the question, citing the sensitivities that come when discussing classified intelligence matters. But in various conversations with sources on and off the Hill, two general theories have emerged. The first is that the CIA was keeping quiet about the use of waterboarding on terrorist suspects. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said she was misled by the intelligence agency on that very subject. It's also the story told to the Huffington Post by a source with knowledge of the letter the seven House Democrats penned to CIA chief Leon Panetta, in which they complained about being misled.

But the dates don't line up. In their letter, the lawmakers note that members of Congress were "misled" for "a number of years, from 2001 to this week." Pelosi, however, contended that the CIA lied to her about the use of harsh interrogation techniques during the fall of 2002.

And in a conversation with the Huffington Post, Rep. Anna Eshoo, (D-Calif.), one of the letter's signatories, said that Panetta "stopped the program the day after he was informed." Waterboarding was ended as a practice during the Bush years.

So what are the "significant actions" that these seven lawmakers insist were kept from Congress? Another theory being bandied about concerns an "executive assassination ring" that was allegedly set up and answered to former Vice President Dick Cheney. The New Yorker's Seymour Hersh, building off earlier reporting from the New York Times, dropped news of the possibility that such a ring existed in a March 2009 discussion sponsored by the University of Minnesota.

"It is a special wing of our special operations community that is set up independently," Hersh said. "They do not report to anybody, except in the Bush-Cheney days, they reported directly to the Cheney office. They did not report to the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff or to Mr. [Robert] Gates, the secretary of defense. They reported directly to him. ...

"Congress has no oversight of it," he added. "It's an executive assassination ring essentially, and it's been going on and on and on. Just today in the Times there was a story that its leaders, a three star admiral named [William H.] McRaven, ordered a stop to it because there were so many collateral deaths. Under President Bush's authority, they've been going into countries, not talking to the ambassador or the CIA station chief, and finding people on a list and executing them and leaving. That's been going on, in the name of all of us."

Asked if this was the basis of her letter to Panetta, Eshoo said she could not discuss what was a "highly classified program." She did, however, note that when Panetta told House Intelligence Committee members what it was that had been kept secret, "the whole committee was stunned, even Republicans." A Republican committee member told Who Runs Gov's Greg Sargent it was something they hadn't heard before.

Panetta himself was kept in the dark about the program -- whatever it was -- having only been told about the classified activity on June 23. "His own top leadership didn't even brief him that this program existed," said Eshoo.

The day after he found out, on June 24, the CIA header briefed members of Congress about the matter. Two days later, on June 26, the seven lawmakers wrote Panetta asking him to publicly correct an earlier statement he had made, in which he declared that it was not the CIA's "policy or practice to mislead Congress."

Asked why it took two weeks for that letter to Panetta to become public (news of the letter broke on Tuesday evening) Eshoo said it was simply a matter of clearance.

"I was informed by one of the committee lawyers that the letter should be classified and so it was sent to him classified," the California Democrat replied. "The lawyers made a determination recently that it did not need to be classified so we made it public."

Had she received a response from the CIA? "We have not," Eshoo said.

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

Down, Not Out: Unemployed And Happier Than Ever

2009-07-09T14:10:35Z

Dixie Redfearn of Nevada City, Calif. wrote the Huffington Post to say her 30-year journalism career ended when she lost her job more than four months ago. "I'm 61 -- still too young for Social Security -- and could not afford COBRA, even at 65 percent off," she wrote. "My husband is a retired teacher. I have had cancer twice and am now uninsured."

But Redfearn isn't fazed, even though her job search has been futile. She wrote that she's relaxed 1,000 percent, gardened to her heart's content, read two or three books every week, and stepped up her fitness time. "In fact," she wrote, "I may be happier than I've ever been."

The Huffington Post called her up and asked her if she really is that happy.

I think I am. I'm at a good place in my life. I've done a lot of things. My husband and I have four children and nine grandchildren. Not having really had a significant break from work ever, it took about three months to sort of detox from the daily grind.

At the three-month point I sort of felt like, lighter. Emotionally, physically, mentally lighter. I felt like I'd made peace with everything. I was kind of in a group. A lot of my friends who were retired, the first thing they did when they were retired, they cleaned every closet in the house. I did that. We all have too much stuff.

How much unemployment insurance do you have left?

It currently says on my check 52 weeks from March. I think I probably will get an extension just because of the way the economy seems. I don't see anything looking up. Do you?

Not really. Do you worry at all?

I don't worry. Isn't that weird? I feel like maybe I should. We've scaled back a little bit.

What about health insurance?

Why am I not worried about not having health insurance? I just feel like it's going to be OK. When I had health insurance I was paying a little over $200 every two-week paycheck and my copays for prescriptions were $30. When you don't have insurance, places like KMart and Wal-Mart and Target all offer generic medicine at a hugely reduced price. I'm getting a prescription for less than my copay was when I was paying all these hundreds of dollars for insurance.

Don't you ever just know that things are going to be OK? When you've had children and grandchildren and illness you just have a different perspective on life. I just feel really OK.

You said you had cancer twice. What happened?

1994 was a bad year. My husband's stepfather died and I was diagnosed with a malignant melanoma in January, malignant breast cancer in July. And then in the midst of all that, there was a water surge and our house flooded. I came home from work and I could hear water running. The second story collapsed onto the first story. One of our son's in law was managing a hotel not too far from where we lived, so we stayed there. Meanwhile, I was on chemo, sick, and bald. The melanoma -- I had two surgeries and felt like they got clear margins. The breast cancer was a Stage II and it spread to my lymph nodes. You don't ever beat breast cancer. They'll say you're cancer free if it's been five years, but breast cancer can come back anytime. It usually comes back in the brain or bones.

But you're not concerned.

No, I'm not.

HuffPost readers: Found the bright side of unemployment? Or are you in a tough spot without a clue what to do? Either way, we want to hear about it -- email arthur@huffingtonpost.com.

Rep. John Fleming Asks His Colleagues To 'Put Their Money Where Their Mouth Is' On Health Care

2009-07-09T12:55:23Z

Louisiana Rep. John Fleming (R) has put up a guest post at TownHall, in which he professes to be "amazed at the number of bureaucrats in this House who are quick to claim a government-run health care plan is the reform this country needs." I'm not sure why he's so amazed by this. The public option is astoundingly popular with the American people. I'm rather amazed that so many of the people's representatives, on both sides of the aisle, seem to be ignorant of this.

That said, Fleming makes a good point here:

In response to this, I have offered a resolution that will offer members of Congress an opportunity to put their money where their mouth is, and urge their colleagues who vote for legislation creating a government-run health care plan to lead by example and enroll themselves in the same public plan.

Under the current draft of the Democrat health care legislation, members of Congress are curiously exempt from the government-run health care option, keeping their existing health plans and services on Capitol Hill. If Members of Congress believe so strongly that government-run health care is the best solution for hard working American families, I think it only fitting that Americans see them lead the way. Public servants should always be accountable and responsible for what they are advocating, and I challenge the American people to demand this from their representatives.

I can definitely see the merits in this. Legislators should lead by example, and it would be comforting to see some of them throwing in their lot with the American people.

But turnabout is fair play, isn't it? If public servants should "always be accountable and responsible for what they are advocating," then those who believe that the current health care system and health insurance models truly are "the best in the world," should jolly well forswear the insurance plan they receive from the taxpayers and join the rest of us in the world of private insurance. There are over 1,000 options from which to choose!

See, to my mind, one of the problems we face as Congress crafts these policies for the rest of us, is that Congresscritters are a terribly overcoddled class of people. Their needs are provided for by us, and they've added a ton of advantages that all but assure their re-election. And even on the rare occurrence where they lose their jobs, there's a whole panoply of welfare awaiting them in the worlds of lobbying and corporate boards and think tanks. Unlike most U.S. citizens, they live in what can accurately be described as a consequence-free environment, and I think the country would be far better off if our elected officials and their families were the first to be drafted in war, and the last to be insured in health.

So, this Fleming fellow's call for his colleagues to demonstrate some stern stuff moves me, powerfully! Here's my email, you private insurance fans in Congress! Please drop me a line and tell me all about how you're going to give up your Congressional benefits and enroll in private insurance. You public option supporters should do the same! Let me know, and I shall very proudly publicize your commitment to the world.

Representative Fleming, why don't you start?

[H/T: Sahil Kapur]

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

Wyden Urges Dems To Keep Trying For Bipartisan Approach To Health Care

2009-07-09T12:34:18Z

One of the key Democratic senators whose vote remains up for grabs when it comes to health care reform urged his colleagues to continue to push for a bipartisan bill, even as party leadership said it was time to give up on recuriting GOP support.

In an interview this week with the Huffington Post, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) maintained that there was still "great interest in the Finance Committee for a bipartisan bill on both sides of the aisle" and he urged lawmakers to continue to pursue a collaborative path. He would not comment directly on news that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had urged the Committee's Chairman, Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) to drop efforts to attract Republican support. But he also didn't hide his own preferences.

"I'm committed to the priority that the president laid out," said Wyden. "I think the president got it right. He said 'I want to get it done this year' and he also indicated that his first choice is to have a bipartisan bill because he recognizes that a bipartisan bill allows the country to come together."

Asked whether he would support cloture on health care legislation that he would ultimately oppose -- so as to preempt a Republican filibuster -- Wyden was noncommittal.

"I'm going to just say that I think the president's right and I'm supportive of what the president said in terms of both a timetable and in dong something bipartisan," he said.

While Democrats both inside and outside of government say they expect Wyden ultimately to support the health care legislation put forth by the party, his most recent round of comments are likely to cause anxiety among progressives. The senator is one of a handful of Democrats whose thoughts on key components of reform have been difficult to pin down. On a public plan for insurance coverage, for instance, Wyden maintained that while he supports the concept, he could not commit to backing a bill because of one singular component.

"You just can't give a simple yes or no answer to that, because real health reform is so much bigger than its individual parts," he said. "And the reason I say that is that real reform means containing costs. Now the reason I'm open to a public option is that a public option is one way that could contain costs. But throughout my comments about health reform, I've never said I'm going to vote for health reform because of one component."

This type of wait-till-the-final-product approach extends to the legislation currently being crafted by the various committees in the Senate. Wyden sits on the Finance Committee, which has stalled in its efforts to produce a bill -- they are still, as The New Republic reports, trying to figure out ways to pay for reform. The HELP Committee is further along, marking up a bill that includes a somewhat limited public option and could extend coverage to 97 percent of all Americans. But Wyden said that he was worried with the legislation's potential costs.

"The $600 billion didn't involve the Medicaid additions," he said, "and it went to $1.2 trillion with that. I don't know if you've heard me outline this but I think the way the public starts this topic is by saying, 'Hey guys, you're spending enough on healthcare but you're not spending it in the right places.' And I think a big part of what health reform is all about unpacking ... showing that you can spend it more efficiently. You got to, I think, first show that you're going to squeeze more of the excessive and inefficiently spent dollars out of the system before you come up with a $1.2 trillion bill. Remember the $1.2 trillion is on top of the $2.5 trillion that's being spent now."

For all the consternation such remarks are likely to cause, Wyden does hold a unique distinction within the Democratic Party. His proposal for health care reform -- the Healthy Americans Act -- actually has public, bipartisan support, including the cosponsorship of Utah Republican, Sen. Bob Bennett. The bill, which would effectively do away with the employer-based system and replace it with state-run pools of different health care coverage, has supporters on the Hill and (at least privately) in the White House. It achieves 100 percent coverage without a massive government expansion.

But strategists intimately involved in the reform battle say there is no chance that Wyden's proposal will make its way to the president's desk. "Absolutely no chance whatsoever," said one Democratic strategist. "None. Zip."

That, however, hasn't diminished Wyden's efforts to move the debate in his direction. He noted with pride that over the course of 18 months, he and Peter Orszag -- then the head of the Congressional Budget Office and now the director of the White House Office of Management and Budget -- have tried out "various iterations" of new legislation that would be both efficient and effective. Recently, he added, another senator had come on board as a cosponsor -- Sen. Ted Kaufman (D-Del.) -- which brings the number of lawmakers to14. Wyden even hints that his legislation has the president's support, too -- at least philosophically.

"[Obama] invited me to the White House a bit ago and made it clear that he had certain core principles that were very important to him. But he was very open and very flexible on the ways in which to deal with it. And I kidded him a little bit. I brought my copy of the Audacity of Hope and I showed him the section that describes giving people health care choices like (those available to) members of Congress and affordability," Wyden recalled. "I said, 'Mr. President, in the book it sounds like what you're for is the Healthy Americans Act.'"

As Wyden sees it, the key focus of the debate should remain on controlling costs in the private market, ensuring that consumers can keep their doctors regardless of what plan they enter, modernizing the medical system and providing incentives and subsidies for individuals to purchase insurance. To boil it down to an up or down vote on specific proposals, like a public option, he says, is to do a disservice to the health care debate.

"As I try to say, when I get asked about one of the individual components, it's very hard to give a yes or no answer, as much as people would like it," Wyden explains. "Real health reform is bigger than the sum of its parts."

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

Sean Hannity's Pattern Of Selective Editing Documented (VIDEO)

2009-07-09T12:06:22Z

Seems like only yesterday I was talking about the way Sean Hannity cooks up some news, for his teevee show. It goes a little something like this:

1. President Barack Obama gives an interview to Major Garrett, where he mentions the role played by Lech Walesa in bringing about the end of the Cold War.

2. Sean Hannity cuts out the part where Obama mentions Lech Walesa, and airs the bowdlerized interview.

3. Sean Hannity yells about how Obama never mentioned Walesa, and yammers, "You may want to consider hitting the history books."

4. THERE ARE NEVER, EVER, EVER ANY CONSEQUENCES FOR PLAYING FOX VIEWERS FOR FOOLS.

That's about right! Anyway, yesterday, I mentioned how, in addition to the selective editing of the Garrett interview, Hannity had also worked the same bit of video prestidigitation with Obama's speech in Cairo, allowing the Fox News host to accuse the President of "giving 9/11 sympathizers a voice on the world stage." Jon Stewart, among others, very easily demonstrated the Hannity's falseness. But you know what? I forgot another classic example of Hannity's slippery splicing: Obama's speech in Europe! Luckily, Media Matters For America did up one of their delightful mashup videos, depicting this example:

[WATCH]

Is it fair to call these practices a "trend"? Actually, yes. And you haven't heard the half of it!

MORE:
Hannity makes a habit of distorting quotes to smear progressives [Media Matters]

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

Most Payday Borrowers Take On More Loans In A Hurry: Study

2009-07-09T11:15:38Z

Payday loans are touted as a useful financial product for middle-class households that just need a little help making ends meet in the short term. But critics have long held that the costly short-term loans burn a hole in those households' finances, which can immediately necessitate another loan, and another, and another, trapping the borrower in a cycle of debt.

A new study by the Center for Responsible Lending shows exactly how fast this loan "churning" happens. Eighty percent of people who take out a payday loan take out more than one per year, according to the study, and nearly nine out of ten of those repeat borrowers take out their next loan before their next payday. Half do it within one day of paying off the previous loan.

More than $20 billion of the $27 billion in annual payday loan volume -- 76 percent -- is a product of this churning, according to the study.

"If you look at payday loans in general, the industry looks like it has booming demand, like lots of people need these loans even if they have high cost," said Leslie Parrish, co-author of the report, in an interview with the Huffington Post. "What our findings show is three quarters of that volume is artificially generated."

Steven Schlein, a spokesman for the Community Financial Services Association of America, a trade group for the payday lending industry, brushed off the study.

The Center for Responsible Lending "has a history of misusing the regulator data," wrote Schlein in an email to the Huffington Post. "In fact, none of its studies ever hold up after review by competent statisticians or researchers. Of course, they don't care because they get the media attention and then move on."

Schlein pointed the Huffington Post to past criticisms of CRL reports by regulatory services company Veritec Solutions.

To get a payday loan, borrowers sign over their next paycheck in exchange for an advance usually worth a few hundred dollars, with a typical fee of $15 per $100 loaned. Because of the two-week repayment deadline, the annual percentage rate (APR) of interest on such a loan approaches 400 percent.

Payday lending is illegal in 15 states that have instituted APR caps of 36 percent or less. Consumer advocates want a nationwide cap set at 36 percent, per a bill introduced by Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.). Lenders are already prohibited from charging members of the military more than 36 percent interest, a cap President Obama has said he would like expanded to included all Americans.

"It would incentivize [payday lenders] to make loans over a longer term," said Parrish. "Payday lenders could still charge $15 per $100 borrowed and that would go a long way for allowing people to fully repay their debt."

Here's a chart from the report that breaks down how quickly payday borrowers return for more:

Parrish said the loan churning costs households $3.5 billion a year in fees.

"You can imagine what kind of opportunities are lost," she said. "Especially right now when more people are living paycheck to paycheck, that's a huge loss for these households."

UPDATE 5:15 PM: CFSA board chair Lynn DeVault weighs in with an official response to the Center for Responsible Lending's study:

Center for Responsible Lending cannot seem to look at data and apply a common sense analysis. Let's be clear about the demand for payday advances. Consumers find themselves with an urgent need to pay a bill before payday. They survey their choices--payday advances, bank or credit union loans, overdraft protection, title loans, borrowing from family members, pawnshops or credit card advances. They also carefully weigh how much each will cost them in simple dollars and cents. Many choose a payday loan.

Now we agree with Center for Responsible Lending that sometimes one payday advance is not enough. The financial hit the consumer took--a car repair, a hospital bill, a utility bill payment--might not be resolved. But after a payday advance, consumers still have all the other options. The fact they many choose another payday advance is evidence that we offer a strong alternative to the other services.

We offer consumers a solution to short-term financial problems. Center for Responsible Lending offers them sympathy and moral support.

Washington Post Uses The Word 'Torture' On Front Page

2009-07-09T09:58:46Z

I received something of a shock whilst riding into the office on the subway this morning: There, on the front page of the Washington Post, above the fold, bold as love, sat the word, "TORTURE." What was going on? I thought Dan Froomkin worked for us now!

As it turns out, there was a perfectly reasonable explanation. The story, by Steve Fainaru and William Booth is titled, "Mexico Accused of Torture in Drug War." Get it? MEXICO. The article goes on to describe accusations that have been hurled at the Mexican army as they pursue drug traffickers and the "cartels that continue to terrorize much of the country."

In Puerto Las Ollas, a mountain village of 50 people in the southern state of Guerrero, residents recounted how soldiers seeking information last month stuck needles under the fingernails of a disabled 37-year-old farmer, jabbed a knife into the back of his 13-year-old nephew, fired on a pastor, and stole food, milk, clothing and medication.

In Tijuana, across the border from San Diego, two dozen policemen who were arrested on drug charges in March alleged that, to extract confessions, soldiers beat them, held plastic bags over their heads until some lost consciousness, strapped their feet to a ceiling while dunking their heads in water and applied electric shocks, according to court documents, letters and interviews with their relatives and defense lawyers.

Obviously, there are questions:

1. These cartels are clearly defined as agents who "terrorize," and who are clearly causing a national security crisis in Mexico, and, by extension, the United States. And yet, the article seems to be slanted in such a way that it makes the Mexican authorities look like "the bad guys." What gives?

2. Despite the fact that the United States has clearly set a global precedent that allows authorities to take broad and often unsavory measures in legitimate pursuit of national security, and that this precedent has given rise to the term "enhanced interrogation techniques" to describe the actions taken in these cases, there is no mention of "enhanced interrogation techniques" anywhere in the article. There is a mention of "harsh measures," but it hardly balances out the 12 uses of the word "torture."

3. Among the accusers are "human rights groups." However, nowhere in the article are these groups properly identified as being from "the left" or "leftist." Without this identification, it's difficult for the reader to appreciate how much a part of the political fringe the opponents of torture are, something that comes standard issue in torture discussions about the United States.

It's very hard to fathom what happened to the journalism in this article. But if I had to hazard a guess, I imagine that the word "torture" was used because, unlike the Americans who invented or supported or deployed "enhanced interrogation techniques," there was very little chance that any of these Mexicans were ever going to find themselves in the awkward position of having to ask, "Why, Ms. Weymouth, this Malbec is delicious, what year is it?"

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

"Pullin' a Palin" Now In The Urban Dictionary

2009-07-09T09:55:10Z

Sarah Palin continues to be a dynamic cultural figure as much as a political one. The Alaska Governor, who announced her impending resignation from office last week, is now the inspiration for a new piece of slang. The phrase, "Pullin' a Palin," is currently defined by urbandictionary.com as:

1. Quitting when the going gets tough; abandoning the responsibility entrusted to you by your neighbors for book advances and to make money on the lecture circuit.

2. Bizarre move that will damn ambitions for higher office.

"I bet when people saw Jade they were convinced that David Caruso was pullin' a Palin."

The entry was filed by the user "No One Likes a Quitter" on Wednesday and actually represents the second Palin-related phrase on the site. "Pull a Palin," which was entered after the 2008 vice presidential debate, is defined by Urban Dictionary as: "To avoid answering questions directly because you don't know the answer, or you don't want the person to [whom you are] talking to knowing the real answer, and talking about another subject you do know something about, or something to flatter or distract the other person, instead."

This type of small-bore snark is good fodder for the partisans. For sober-minded Palin supporters, the worry has to be that the soon-to-be-former governor will be permanently defined as the butt of the political joke.

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

Panetta Acknowledged CIA Misled On Interrogation Policy: Dem Lawmakers

2009-07-08T20:41:17Z

CIA Director Leon Panetta told lawmakers in a recent briefing that the intelligence agency he heads misled Congress on "significant actions" for a "number of years," a group of Democrats revealed on Wednesday.

In a letter written to Panetta on June 26 by seven Democratic members of the House Intelligence Committee, the CIA chief is urged to "publicly correct" an earlier statement he made in which he insisted that it was not agency policy to mislead Congress.

As the letter details, Panetta apparently acknowledged in an earlier briefing that this statement was not, in fact, true.

"Recently you testified that you have determined that top CIA officials have concealed significant actions from all Members of Congress, and misled Members for a number of years from 2001 to this week," the Democratic lawmakers write. "This is similar to other deceptions of which we are aware from other recent periods."

cialetter -

The letter does not explain what those "significant actions" were. But a source with knowledge of the dispute says it concerns Bush administration interrogation policies. Panetta briefed the Intelligence Committee about these and other matters two days before the letter was written, as well as other dates.

Early reports on the matter said that the letter was signed by six Democratic lawmakers: Anna Eshoo, D-Calif., John Tierney, D-Mass., Rush Holt, D-N.J., Mike Thompson, D-Calif., Alcee Hastings, D-Fla. and Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill. (These are the members who signed the above document). A source with direct knowledge of the letter's content says that Rep. Adam Smith D-Wash., has also added his name to the letter.

The note was made public just hours after Congressional Quarterly reported that the chairman of the House Intelligence committee, Rep. Silvestre Reyes, D-Texas, also stated that the CIA had "affirmatively lied" to his committee.

The CIA, in a statement from spokesman George Little, pushed back on these dual allegations.

"It is not the policy or practice of the CIA to mislead Congress," Little said. "This Agency and this Director believe it is vital to keep the Congress fully and currently informed. Director Panetta's actions back that up. As the letter from these six representatives notes, it was the CIA itself that took the initiative to notify the oversight committees."

Nevertheless, the late-evening stories provide a boost to earlier claims from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that she was drastically misled by the CIA when it was briefing members about the Bush administration's enhanced interrogation techniques. They also threaten to rip open the debate on whether Congress should revamp the process of how it is briefed on covert intelligence. The Obama White House on Wednesday said it would veto any legislative effort to change the current structure of the briefings, which limits the session to only the "Gang of Eight" lawmakers. Pelosi and her allies want to give the Intelligence Committee the authority to determine who is briefed on the critical intelligence.

Bill Clinton: Obama Will Succeed Where I Failed On Health Care

2009-07-08T19:32:40Z

President Bill Clinton, who during his administration spearheaded the last effort to overhaul the health care system, predicted on Wednesday that President Barack Obama will ultimately succeed where he failed.

In a speech before the progressive youth group, Campus Progress, the 42nd President said that he suspects Obama will "get a health care reform bill" because of three distinct reasons.

"The filibuster won't be an option," Clinton said, "the small business community won't be as against any plan we got now, and frankly the economy is in such a mess that you've got a little more budget flexibility."

The former president also made it known that he fully backs a government-run option for health insurance coverage as a means of lowering costs and adding competition to the private sector.

"I'm for the public option because I think there needs to be some competition here," said Clinton. "Yes, I favor a public health option, Yes, I favor the efforts the administration has made to get the drug companies, the hospitals, and everybody else, to chip in and give up some of their projected future increases based on rampant inflation. And yes, I favor organizing a society so that old people stay healthier and young people don't get diabetes. Otherwise we will pass this health care plan and five years from now we will be back to the drawing board."

The remarks come at a time when the debate over health care, and a public option in particular, is moving towards a crucial juncture. Clinton, perhaps more than any other pol, can understand the tenuousness of the current debate. Despite having widespread public support for a health care overhaul, his process fell apart amidst disunity within the Democratic Party and distrust of his White House's approach.

Sixteen years later, he displayed a calm confidence that health care reform will be passed. Twice in his speech, Clinton referenced the fact that Democrats in the Senate now have the 60 votes needed to stem off a filibuster attempt by Republicans.

As for the other features of health care reform, Clinton kept his remarks - which were delivered without notes and lasted nearly an hour - relatively broad. He did, however, offer his support for the legislation being outlined by the Senate Health Education Labor and Pensions Committee, which is one of several potential measures that Congress wil consider.

"I believe that the last plan the Senate is talking about is basically quite good," Clinton said. "It won't get us to universal. It would insure about 97 percent of the people and it would be done under the president's budget allocation for health care."

Clinton's speech to the crowd of mostly college-aged attendees touched on a wide variety of topics beyond health care -- from his work in Haiti to his admiration for Amazon's Kindle. In between he managed to sneak in a few jabs at the media, which he insisted only reports on him when he slips up verbally, and the GOP.

Taking the stage to a roaring applause, Clinton said that he found current Republican complaints about Obama's economic policies, specifically the stimulus package, to be "fastidious" and "hilarious."

"The members of the other party say they are not for the stimulus, or health care reform, or fighting climate change because it costs money and they really would hate to put that debt on our grandchildren," he said. "In the last eight years I saw the surplus I left, which would have taken you out of debt, even with the 2001 recession, by 2013... I saw it blown away and the debt doubled. And in the 12 years before I became president they quadrupled the debt."

"These same people," he added, "it didn't bother them a bit to put a burden on our grandchildren to pay for a millionaire's tax cut. But if we are helping some poor person go to work, or helping some young person go to college, that is unacceptable... I'm not saying we don't have to worry about the debt. We do. It is a problem. But it is a problem that will have to be addressed after the economy grows again and we start generating revenues."

Consumer Watchdog Takes On Google As Lawmakers Mull Data Privacy Regulation

2009-07-08T17:48:04Z

Consumer Watchdog -- which, as the name implies is a consumer watchdog organization -- is raising alarms over privacy concerns that have been brought to the fore as online search company Google engages in wheeling and dealing before the House Communications and Consumer Protection Subcommittee.

At issue is legislation that might affect Google's practice of "behavioral advertising," the process by which Google serves ads to users based upon personal information gleaned from individual users' browsing habits, which many deem invasive. Potentially, lawmakers could inhibit Google's ambitions in this area by making it possible for users to opt out of Google's meticulous tracking. Worse for the online giant is the possibility that users will have to opt in in order to be tracked in the first place. At the very least, Google might find itself subjected to a "Do Not Google" list, similar to the "Do Not Call" lists that have been applied to the telemarketing industry.

In their press release, Consumer Watchdog notes that their concerns have become magnified with the announcement that Google will be introducing their own operating system:

The question has grown more urgent with Google's announcement Wednesday that it will release a new operating system that moves currently computer-based functions to its proprietary Internet "cloud," said Consumer Watchdog. Congress is considering forcing Google to adopt an opt-in model where users must actively allow Google to collect browsing history and user data.

"The Justice Department should be worried when Google tries to obfuscate its data tracking capacity and reach rather than disclose all of it," said Judy Dugan, research director of Consumer Watchdog. "Congress should demand that Google stop tracking Americans' online behavior without their prior permission."

[...]

Google's new operating system could also comb users' stored documents for information on those "interest categories." The depth of this potential data collection is not mentioned in the Google spin document. ...Instead, it boasts repeatedly of Google's commitment to transparency and "user friendliness" in delivering the lucrative advertising.

In an interview with the Huffington Post, Jamie Court, president of the Consumer Watchdog, was explicit in his concerns: "No one knows more about Americans than Google...The FBI doesn't know as much about us as Google. That has to worry Congress as much as it should worry Americans as they learn about it." Regarding the proposed operating system, Court says, "People just don't get it that your documents are at Google, not on your computer," making those items subject to the same processes that power Google's "behavioral advertising."

To emphasize their point, Consumer Watchdog has obtained a confidential "spin document," thanks to "an anonymous industry insider who has previously provided other Google spin documents." In the first place, yes: "Confidential" "spin documents" on transparency and privacy are awesome monuments to irony. And the document in question, Consumer Watchdog believes, is "associated with a June 18 Congressional hearing that questioned online "behavioral advertising." What makes this better however, is that Consumer Watchdog has done their own "satirical annotation" of this "spin document." And the annotated document is full of fun Google facts, like the byzantine click odyssey one must go on to opt out of being served Google Ads! And the four hours of videos you need to watch to get briefed on privacy!

But the important part of the satiric annotation are the questions for lawmakers that are helpfully provided:

1. Why isn't Google's behavioral advertising opt-in rather than opt-out?

2. Why not prominently include a link allowing users to permanently opt-out of Google tracking?

3. 2008: Google says it has no plans to use behavioral advertising... [that] it doesn't work. What changed?

4. Is Google's behavioral advertising really about delivering more interesting ads or is it about expanding its data collection and targeting activities?

And, just for emphasis, they direct people to this video, by the hilarious comedy group The Big Honkin':

[WATCH]

READ THE ORIGINAL GOOGLE "SPIN DOCUMENT," HERE.

READ THE SATIRIC ANNOTATION, HERE.

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

Fox News Host: Americans "Keep Marrying Other Species" (VIDEO)

2009-07-08T17:38:49Z

OH NOES! What happened on Fox and Friends today, people? According to Gawker, the bright and shiny lights have once again dazzled Fox & Friends host Brian Kilmeade (the Brown-Haired Guy) into pure befuddlement, and this subsequently caused a series of idiot words to pour forth from his cakehole. And no one thought to stop him or force his head into a bucket of water because this is exactly how Roger Ailes drew it up on the whiteboard! I suppose it must be said: Maybe Morning Joe's Starbucks sponsorship should be accepted as a reward for having some sort of social conscience.

Jesus, this Brown-Haired Guy. He is like a murder of idiot crows, stuffed into an anthropomorphic flesh bag, that somehow successfully filled out a W-4 form and wandered onto a soundstage where he was adopted as a pet. From time to time, he produces words, and today, as his colleagues attempted to discuss a study that suggested that couples who enjoy long marriages showed a reduced tendency to develop Alzheimer's disease, he came up with these insane, vaguely racial ramblings:

BROWN HAIRED GUY: We keep marrying other species and other ethnics--

GRETCHEN CARLSON: Are you sure you are not suffering from some of the causes of dementia right now?

BROWN HAIRED GUY: The problem is the Swedes have pure genes. They marry other Swedes, that's the rule. Finns marry other Finns; they have a pure society. In America we marry everybody. We will marry Italians and Irish.

DAVE BRIGGS: This study does not apply?

BROWN HAIRED GUY: Does not apply to us.

[pause]

DAVE BRIGGS: Huh.

[WATCH, via Salon.com]

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

Sean Hannity Caught Selectively Editing Obama Speeches, Again (VIDEO)

2009-07-08T15:42:41Z

Whenever President Barack Obama goes abroad, cameras follow him, and record the things he says to people. Just as often, it seems, Fox's Sean Hannity takes the recordings made by those cameras and starts splicing and resplicing up a storm, in order to make it seem that Obama said a bunch of things that he didn't say. And then, armed with his cut-up, bowdlerized junk, Hannity plays his audience for fools.

Let's take Obama's trip to Russia, for example. Obama sat for an interview with Fox's White House Correspondent, Major Garrett. Hannity presented their exchange over Garrett's first question, like so:

HANNITY'S CUT:

GARRETT: In your speech this morning, you said the Cold War reached its conclusion because of the actions of many nations over many years. Mr. President, are the Russian sensitivities so fragile that you can't say the Cold War was won, the West won it, and it was led by a combination of Democratic and Republican American presidents?

OBAMA: There were a whole bunch of people throughout Eastern Europe who showed enormous courage, and I think that it is very important in this part of the world to acknowledge the degree to which people struggled for their own freedom. We don't have to diminish other people in order to recognize our role in that history.

Hannity, predictably, produced an outraged bleat:

HANNITY: Unbelievable. Now, that's interesting, because Lech Walesa, the leader of the Polish Solidarity Movement, said this about the end of the Cold War; he said, quote: "We in Poland took him, Ronald Reagan, so personally. Why? Because we owe him our liberty. Now this can't be said often enough by people who lived under oppression for half a century." Mr. President, if I were you, you may want to consider hitting the history books maybe before your next foreign trip.

[WATCH]

Yeah! Burn! Shouldn't Barack Obama be able to demonstrate knowledge of Lech Walesa and the contributions of American presidents in bringing about the end of the Cold War? HE SO TOTALLY SHOULD! The thing is, in reality, HE TOTALLY DID. Here's Fox News' own transcript of the interview:

REALITY:

GARRETT: In your speech this morning, you said the Cold War reached its conclusion because of the actions of many nations over many years. Mr. President, are the Russian sensitivities so fragile that you can't say the Cold War was won? The West won it? And it was led by a combination of Democratic and Republican American presidents?

OBAMA: Well, listen, the -- I think that you just cut out Lech Walesa and the Poles. You just cut out Havel and the Czechs. There were a whole bunch of people throughout Eastern Europe who showed enormous courage. And I think that it is very important in this part of the world to acknowledge the degree to which people struggled for their own freedom. I'm very proud of the traditions of Democratic and Republican presidents to lift the Iron Curtain. But, you know, we don't have to diminish other people in order to recognize our role in that history.

This is definitely not the first time this has happened! After Obama delivered his speech in Cairo, Hannity and his punk-ass scissors were all snippety-snip on the events of the real world, too. In the wake of that speech, Hannity asserted that Obama had "given 9/11 sympathizers a voice on the world stage." But again, it was a nifty bit of selective editing, which Jon Stewart and his Daily Show researchers famously called Hannity out on, not that Hannity ever has to face consequences!

HANNITY'S CUT:

OBAMA: I'm aware that there's still some who would question, or even justify the offense of 9/11.

REALITY:

OBAMA: I'm aware that there's still some who would question, or even justify the offense of 9/11. But let us be clear. Al Qaeda killed nearly three thousand people on that day. The victims were innocent men, women and children from America and many other nations who had done nothing to harm anybody. And yet Al Qaeda chose to ruthlessly murder these people, claimed credit for the attack, and even now states their determination to kill on a massive scale. They have affiliates in many countries and are trying to expand their reach. These are not opinions to be debated; these are facts to be dealt with.

Naturally, it's not surprising at all to learn that the world we live in is a far fouler place after Sean Hannity has had his way with it.

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

Rep. Patrick Murphy, Iraq Vet, Takes Charge of DADT Fight

2009-07-08T14:39:33Z

So, look back at the presidential campaign when President Barack Obama promised to do away with the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" regulation, which forces everyone in the armed service to pretend that there are no gays and lesbians serving our nation with distinction. From time to time, the regulation even requires the military to discharge perfectly capable soldiers from their duties. Since the campaign, however, Obama has been tenacious in his passivity, opting to not take direct action to end the regulation, preferring to let Congress decide the matter. I wonder what James Pietrangelo II, who was discharged from the Army under DADT, thinks about all of this?

"He's a coward, a bigot and a pathological liar...This is a guy who spent more time picking out his dog, Bo, and playing with him on the White House lawn than he has working for equality for gay people...If there were millions of black people as second-class citizens, or millions of Jews or Irish, he would have acted immediately."

That about sums it up! Luckily for Pietrangelo, someone has decided to take lead on this issue: Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-Penn.). Brandon Friedman, over at VetVoice, has an email that Murphy sent out to supporters this morning:

In less than an hour [10:00 AM], we will officially announce that I am taking over as the chief sponsor for The Military Readiness Enhancement Act -- the bill that will finally repeal the policy known as "Don't Ask,Don't Tell." I have been speaking out against for many years against "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" -- first as an ROTC cadet, then as a professor at West Point, and later as a candidate and a congressman. To now take the lead on such an important piece of legislation is an honor and a privilege beyond words.

This is going to be a busy day full of meetings and interviews. We'll even be launching a new website dedicated to this issue: LetThemServe.com. But before it all got started I wanted to thank you for giving me the opportunity to stand up and fight for the values we all believe in. I couldn't do this without you, and I'll never forget that.

Friedman writes: "Given that the troops have been harmed by this law, it's good to see a soldier leading the way on the repeal."

I just think it's good to see anyone leading the way on this.

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

Marion Barry Threw Girlfriend Out Of Hotel Room For Refusing Oral Sex

2009-07-08T12:43:31Z

Sweet sassy molassey! Mike DeBonis of the Washington City Paper has WON THE AFTERNOON with this epic slice of awesomeness, in which he reveals many lengthy voicemails that former D.C. Mayor/current D.C. Councilmember Marion Barry left for his paramour-slash-Independence Day stalking victim, and they are a magical delight in these troubled times.

If you missed this story, over the holiday weekend, Barry was picked up by the U.S. Park Police, who are tasked with protecting residents and guests of the District of Columbia from Barry at all times. Barry was cited for misdemeanor stalking, after the police were called to the scene by his stalkee, political consultant and Barry ex-girlfriend Donna Watts-Brighthaupt. According to reports, Barry had hoped to "cross the sex line" with Watts-Brighthaupt on a trip to Rehoboth Beach, which is Washington, DC's version of Argentina.

DeBonis has fantastic details of the Barry/Watts-Brighthaupt relationship, and the ebbs and flows of their zany passions for one another:

Throughout, the telenovela dynamic was constant, with the two regularly fighting, only to make up within days or hours, sometimes minutes. The tussles happened in private and in public -- in an incident recounted to LL by an independent source, a verbal scuffle between the two in Vegas erupted into blows, right in the lobby of the Paris hotel. "She told me she put a shellacking on him," [ex-husband Delonta] Brighthaupt says.

Go here, with all deliberate haste, to enjoy these vocal samples that will all hopefully find their way onto Wale's next mixtape. DeBonis thoughtfully provides transcripts, which, I'm sure you will agree, force all of us to revisit the soulful and poetic love-notes of South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford, who clearly should be respected for the relative restraint he showed while deploying his stimulus package. While they are all sublime, this clip is going to be everyone's personal favorite:

Recorded argument between Watts-Brighthaupt and Barry: Watts-Brighthaupt: Why you saying he fuck me like you did?...Why you sayin' he has my credit fucked up, and you know. I think you telling your friends, sayin' I want a man who fucked me up, fucked my credit up, got me to lose my house and she keep goin' back to that man...You want me to think I'm crazy...All I'm trying to saying is I forgive. You put me out in Denver cause I wouldn't suck your dick. You put me out in Denver! You made me have to fuck your ass up in the middle of a [unintelligible]. We were like fuckin' Tina and Ike Turner. And I forgive. Alright you just wastin my damn time?...I can't believe this....you always... you don't think about other people's time. You're inconsiderate...

This should have absolutely been the Washington DC commemorative quarter, obviously.

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

House Finance Committee Members Took $62.9 Million From Industry Interests

2009-07-08T12:29:40Z

Members of the House Financial Services Committee, which is playing a critical role in restructuring the nation's reeling financial, banking and housing sectors, have received nearly $63 million in campaign contributions from the industries they oversee.

A new analysis of campaign finance data by Public Campaign Action Fund, which provided an advance preview to the Huffington Post, shows that financial, insurance and real estate interests donated a combined $62.9 million to the 71 members of the House Financial Services Committee.

The hefty donations reflect the extent to which key companies and individuals of the financial sector have attempted to exert their influence on legislative debates even before the recent economic collapse. For good-government groups, the findings also raise a bevy of questions over just how neutral lawmakers have been in crafting solutions toward getting the financial markets and Wall Street on more stable footing.

"Wall Street and their allies on Capitol Hill should not write the rules that govern the financial, banking, and housing industries," said David Donnelly, national campaigns directory for Public Campaign Action Fund, in a prepared statement. "Their years of influence peddling, big money campaign contributions, and unaccountable rampant greed got us into this mess."

"Americans know that campaign contributions matter," Donnelly added. "Members of Congress will be held accountable for whether they side with Wall Street and the big banks or if they side with the rest of us to restore some stability and responsibility to the marketplace."

In its release, Public Campaign Action Fund notes that more than half a dozen trade organizations from these same industries were currently gearing up to defeat the creation of a Consumer Financial Protection Agency -- a key component of the Obama administration's attempt to overhaul regulatory reform. With major policy overhauls like these set to be considered by Congress, campaign donations have, not surprisingly, ticked up. In the first quarter of 2009 alone, the financial, insurance and real estate industries donated $2.25 million to House Financial Service Committee members.

The top two recipients of contributions among committee members are Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.), who received $3.62 million and Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D-Pa.), who took in $3.12 million.

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

Investigators Smuggled Bomb Parts Into Ten Federal Buildings

2009-07-08T12:23:05Z

Sarabeth at 1115.org draws attention to this downright scary story from CNN, detailing how investigators, sent to test security protocols at all sorts of federal buildings, were able to smuggle bomb parts into these facilities, put them together, and just walk all over the place, carrying bombs, just for the thrill of it!

The investigators then assembled the bombs in restrooms and freely entered numerous government offices while carrying the devices in briefcases, the report said.

The buildings contained offices of several federal lawmakers as well as agencies within the departments of State, Justice and Homeland Security, which is responsible for safeguarding federal office buildings.

This is almost as bad as that time that "God" smuggled a "Hurricane Katrina" into the United States, using this subterfuge called "meteorology."

Anyway, what the investigators did was bonkers:

In a videotape obtained by CNN, a covert GAO inspector places a bag containing bomb components on an X-ray machine conveyor belt and then walks through a magnetometer at an unidentified federal building. Unlike some covert tests that use simulated explosives, the GAO used actual bomb components in the test and publicly available information "to identify a type of device that a terrorist could use" to damage a building.

"The (improvised explosive device) was made up of two parts -- a liquid explosive and a low-yield detonator -- and included a variety of materials not typically brought into a federal facility by an employee or the public," the report says. Investigators obtained the components at local stores and over the Internet for less than $150, the report says.

After the components were smuggled into the building and assembled, the GAO says, it took steps to ensure the device would not explode. But to demonstrate the device's destructive power, the GAO videotaped the detonation of several devices at a remote site.

Also, it turns out that the guards hired to protect these facilities are similarly incompetent at protecting our nation's most vital resource -- babies:

The GAO also released a photograph of a guard asleep at his post and detailed an instance in which a woman placed an infant in a carrier on an X-ray machine while retrieving identification. Because the guard was not paying attention and the machine's safety features had been disabled, the infant was sent through the X-ray machine, according to the report.

This news precedes a GAO report that will be released into the wilds of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Hey! Roland Burris is on this committee! I feel safer already!

Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.), who chairs the committee, said that the results of these tests were "simply unacceptable." Ranking minority member Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) suggested that the tests revealed "a disturbing pattern by the Federal Protective Service of poor training, lapsed documentation, lax management, inconsistent enforcement of security standards and little rigor."

Then there's this part:

In one case, the GAO report says, a guard was caught using government computers to manage a for-profit adult Web site.

So, that's what Collins means when she says there was a "little rigor."

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

Senators Buck Obama, Urge Progressives To Keep Targeting Dems On Health Care

2009-07-08T10:59:37Z

Two Senators said on Tuesday that they disagreed with President Obama's backchannel complaints that progressive advocacy groups ought to stop targeting Democrats on health care.

Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), who has been a target of the ads himself, said he was perfectly fine with progressive organizations airing television spots critical of him in his own state.

"Folks are using that wonderful First Amendment to be heard," said the Oregon Democrat, whose refusal to commit to voting for a public health insurance option has caused great frustration among health care reform advocates.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), whose progressive tilt has made him a champion of many such activists, was much harsher. Asked about Obama's remarks, in which the president reportedly bemoaned the ads run by a variety of left-leaning organizations, Sanders whacked the president for trying to stifle the same groups that got him elected.

"My own view is that constitution of this country provides the right of the people to get actively involved in the political process and express their point of view," the Senator told the Huffington Post. "Barack Obama would not have been elected as president of the United States without the active support of many of those people.

"I hear from people every single day who are very upset that single payer has not been given a real hearing or a real open acceptance in terms of at least being part of the debate," Sanders added. "So there's that reality. But to suggest that the people who helped elect Barack Obama, the strong grassroots activists who are fighting for working people and fighting for the environment should not be actively involved in this process, in demanding that at the very least every United States Senator in the Democratic Caucus agree to stop a Republican filibuster, I think if that message is coming from the White House it's an unfortunate message. It's a wrong message. We should encourage people to participate in the process."

The Washington Post was first to report that Obama was sour on the ad campaigns being run against moderate Democrats by groups like MoveOn, Democracy for America, and the Progressive Change Campaign Committee.

"We shouldn't be focusing resources on each other," the president reportedly said on a call to six top Democrats in the House and Senate. "We ought to be focused on winning this debate."

In the subsequent days, representatives from several of the organizations involved pledged to keep targeting Dems, regardless of the president's wishes. MoveOn, on Tuesday, urged its members to call the White House to register their disagreement with Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel's favorable comments about a public option with a trigger.

There are, of course, multiple layers to the debate over the role progressive advocacy groups play in regards to ensuring Democratic unity on health care. Publicly, no member of Congress will back the president's sentiments, lest they give the impression of being too sensitive for public office. But in private, the White House undoubtedly gains some favor for trying to deflect the heat off.

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

George Allen To Pen Treatise On "The Triumph Of Character"

2009-07-08T10:22:18Z

Via Wonkette comes the news that former Virginia senator and mutterer of racist exotica George Allen is going to be writing a book, and that book is going to be titled The Triumph Of Character. This, naturally, raises the question: What does George Allen know about character and/or triumph and/or writing books? Who knows? But with every GOP contender for 2012 quitting his job or taking off on foreign sexcapades or being named "Haley Barbour," the time is not right for George Allen to Establish A Narrative(TM) and bring his Bold, New Ideas(TM) to the political conversation.

But what a narrative! Wonkette has the publisher's description of the book, which I'm recommending for next year's online blog-book craze "Extremely Finite Summer":

In The Triumph of Character, Allen brings together two all-American passions--politics and sports--and reveals what Washington could learn from the enduring principles found in athletic competition and team sports. Having spent the better part of his life with one foot in both the world of sports and the world of politics, Allen will draw parallels and contrasts between the two arenas. Using his own engaging and entertaining personal stories, Allen will illustrate how "characters with character" in the meritocracy of sports can provide principled, competitive examples of the ways to surmount challenges facing America.

Politico's Ben Smith makes note of the way the book will put Allen's "football...prowess at UVA" to good use, but I think I'd better point out that in terms of UVA Football, "prowess" is a relative term.

As near as I can tell, Allen was the quarterback of the UVA football team in 1972 and 1973, very much before the time frame known by UVA Students as the "George Welsh Era," which is also known as "The Era Where UVA Stopped Sucking Out Loud, Tremendously, At Football." The Cavaliers posted 4-7 records during Allen's time there, which actually were some boom years for Virginia, if we're talking about the 1970s. That said, this was back during the time that Virginia fans used to celebrate each, rare, first down by getting blinding drunk and then puking all over each other, for weeks and weeks, just the way founder Thomas Jefferson intended.

Anyway, I can't wait for the "Macaca" chapter, because remember, this book is about the triumph of character, people.

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

Read more: Gop 2012, Books, Macaca, George Allen, Politics News

Thomas Frank On WaPo Salons: 'A Moment Of Rare, Piquant Hypocrisy'

2009-07-08T09:59:35Z

Over at the Wall Street Journal, Thomas Frank has weighed in on the way the Washington Post attempted to launch a massive "Hey, Lobbyists, Let's All Get Together At Katherine Weymouth's House And Just Gamely Explore Our Body Cavities For A Few Hours, For Many Tens Of Thousands Of Dollars" Campaign, to boost their sagging profits and to reclaim some degree of relevance among Beltway influence-makers. Frank should give the issue a new bit buoyancy, by refreshing the issue thusly:

Even in Washington, it's unusual to see an actual price tag placed on a chance to "alter the debate," as the Post's flier tastefully put it. Stranger still is it to see the city's scourge of public corruption -- the Post broke the Watergate story and the Walter Reed scandal, among others -- seemingly offering its own good offices for hire.

It was a moment of rare, piquant hypocrisy. Let us take it slow and savor every drop.

To begin with, just think of the functions of righteousness that the Post effectively put up on the block. Here was journalism's zealous guardian of professional rectitude with its hand apparently out for a little bit of baksheesh. Here was the definer of the capital's consensus, the policer of its ideological boundaries, seemingly offering to adjust its vast reserves of Washington wisdom for you if the price was right.

Mr. Frank for the win, if only because I spent an hour searching for a term that captured the precise feel of this arrangement, and was unable to come up with "baksheesh." Let's recognize real game when we see it.

Nevertheless, the real service of Frank's piece is the way he bottom-lines the Post's shift from Beltway business-as-usual to the entire new dimension of whoring that some factotum in the bowels of the paper's "business division" just dreamed up, adding a Google Map to Katherine Weymouth's house:

The Post's own confused relationship with power is also often summarized by reference to dinner parties, in this case the ones given by Ms. Weymouth's grandmother, Katharine Graham. "The great men of Washington, up until the Nixon administration, came regularly to Mrs. Graham's dinner parties, the best ticket in town, and as they socialized over good food and wine, the adversarial role diminished," wrote David Halberstam in his 1979 book, "The Powers That Be." "They were close, they were friends, these were not just men of power, they were men of good will, events were seen as they wanted them seen."

All that was missing, apparently, was a price tag.

Oh well, when the subscription price goes up again, I'm sure we'll all lament the way these soirees could have cheapened the newspaper for everybody.

MORE:
When Newspapers Peddle Influence [Wall Street Journal]

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]