Jason Linkins is a Political Reporter at the Huffington Post, covering media and politics. He's based in Washington, DC. Previously, he wrote for HuffPo's Eat The Press, and has also contributed to DCist and Wonkette.
For a long while, the inspiring tale of Mark Sanford's Latin American jaunt on or near "the sex line" had gripped America with its romantic melodrama. You can read more about it in the forthcoming Tropic Of Capricorn 2: Buenos Aires Nights, by Henry Miller. But as much as the heart wants more from the Mark Sanford story, like "positions explored" and "quantity of white zinfandel consumed," it's now time for the body to get really interested in this whole John Ensign affair story.
So, the dilly: John Ensign, Nevada Senator, copped to having an affair with Cynthia Hampton, who was for a time on his campaign staff. The television media got all worked up about it, saying things like, "This is bad news for Ensign, one of the GOP's presidential contenders." And people like me replied, "Wait! John Ensign is a presidential contender?" later adding, "Seriously, you can't possibly think this guy was ever going to be a presidential contender." And Ensign was thought to be working out all his difficulties with some group called the "C Street Foundation," which describes itself as a "Bible study group" but is actually some sort of detox facility for Congresspersons who are way into sexcapades.
That's when the even shinier Mark Sanford story hit the news, along with Sarah Palin's "Oration On The Verbal Frappe Currently Coursing Out Of My Mouth In Alaska, Because I Have No Political Advisers Who Are Worth A Good God Damn." And Marion Barry straight up stalked a lady, in DC, because he is crazypants. But now: Ensign!
Driving Ensign back into the news are escalating exchanges between Hampton's husband and Ensign's allies over who got paid how much and for what, why, and when. It's all crazy confusing, the sex-scandal equivalent of the Purple Ticket Inauguration fiasco, but I think we have a handle on it:
-- Yesterday, Hampton's husband said that Hampton was paid $25,000 in severance when she left Ensign's campaign.
-- Ensign's camp disclosed that Ensign's parents had actually paid out $96,000 to the Hamptons. But not because anyone wanted this affair kept a secret! No, no! Ensign's parents "decided to make the gifts out of concern for the well-being of long-time family friends during a difficult time," and these monies were "consistent with a pattern of generosity by the Ensign family to the Hamptons and others." So, TOTALLY NOT some kind of end-run around ethics requirements at all! What grown up senator wouldn't want his mom and dad giving large sums of monies to random friends, anyway?
-- Doug Hampton continued to make claims that he and Ensign were negotiating further payments, in the "millions of dollars." Ensign's camp, all the while, has insisted that Doug Hampton was making "exorbitant demands for cash and other financial benefits." Doug Hampton also released letter between Ensign and Cindy Hampton, and granted TV interviews that further stirred the pot.
-- Then, Doug Hampton said that Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn was present, with Doug Hampton, at some sort of "meeting"/intervention to cure Ensign of his sexlexia and give the Hamptons all manner of scrilla for their trouble. In an interview, Hampton said, "These men were the ones that said, 'What we need to do is get Doug Hampton's home paid for, and we need to get Doug Hampton some money. We need to get his family to Colorado.'" Colorado being on the other side of the "sex line."
"John Ensign hasn't put me in a tough position at all," said Coburn, a housemate of Ensign's at a Capitol Hill home owned by a Christian fellowship. "The person that's deceiving now is Doug. And you all need to go do the investigation now on that side of it and quit asking us and ask what's the motivation here."
-- And Coburn, naturally blamed the media for all of this: "You've got two families that are back together and you guys are going to help tear them apart. What do you think their kids are thinking about what you're writing right now? You're helping tear apart two families that are back together -- you need to quit."
Republican Sen. John Cornyn of Texas said of Ensign's situation: "It's not good." Cornyn took over for Ensign after the 2008 elections as head of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, which is charged with getting Republicans elected. Cornyn said he has heard no talk of Ensign stepping down.
And, on top of that, there are "raw feelings cited" among Ensign supporters, which underscores the point: LUBE IS IMPORTANT. There: not afraid to be servicey!
Also today, a Washington ethics group today called for a Department of Justice criminal investigation into whether Ensign gave his mistress considerably more than $25,000 in severance pay that may have gone unreported.
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) said it has called on Attorney General Eric Holder to order a criminal investigation after Doug Hampton disclosed the severance payment in an interview Wednesday.
"As despicable as Sen. Ensign's conduct has been, it now appears it also may have been criminal," said Melanie Sloan, executive director of CREW. "The Department of Justice has a responsibility to ensure that all Americans - even high level political officials - are held accountable for their actions."
So there you have it! Seems like only weeks ago that Mark Sanford had eclipsed Ensign's scandal as the more interesting one. Now, Sanford's coming off looking better, because of the increasing perception that his was something of a heartfelt, romantic struggle. There's poetry and love letters and flowery exhortations and garment-rending. Meanwhile, all the parties in the Ensign case, mucking about over money, are driving the story in a tawdrier and less-relatable direction. That said, as a citizen roaming the streets tonight, the only one you should really worry about encountering is Marion Barry.
MSNBC's Joe Scarborough has made it a regular habit to catch the vapors on air after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi criticized the Central Intelligence Agency. Now he's lamenting that Nancy Pelosi, "a friend of mine from Congress" has "caught a lot of grief" for that criticism. The big takeaway? Starbucks apparently has a Rohypnol Frappuccino.
I carry no brief for Pelosi, and Pelosi could indeed be misrepresenting what CIA actually briefed to her, even though the additional questions about its briefing schedule are numerous. But if Scarborough had bothered reading, say, an acclaimed history of the CIA, he would immediately see that it's extremely well documented that the CIA has often misled Congress about sensitive intelligence programs. Basic due diligence, unfortunately, would get in the way of his preferred storyline, so don't expect anything like this latest self-induced humiliation to prompt an on-air reflection of the way "Morning Joe" operates. The unaccountable ability of some cable TV hosts to just pretend to their audiences like they know what they're talking about is really staggering.
In the first place, I remember how inane it was that anyone in the media was shocked to hear someone suggest that the CIA had been less than truthful. There's a long and proud and bipartisan history of that, and yet somehow Pelosi ended up as an unprecedented and shocking agency critic.
But secondly, there's this whole issue of "TV hosts... pretend[ing] to their audiences like they know what they're talking about." Spencer Ackerman, for example, has been to Iraq, he's been to Afghanistan, he's interviewed David Petraeus, he's up on all the current writing, knows all the major players, and attends every picayune foreign policy conference and congressional hearing that comes along. To the best of knowledge, he's never, ever been zinged by Zbigniew Brzezinski. He's precisely the sort of person that Scarborough could bring onto his show to present insight and information from a highly informed perspective. Yet, to Scarborough, Ackerman is just a Cheeto-eating, basement-dwelling blogger, with no credibility. Oh well, Spencer's not the one literally contradicting himself on cable teevee.
Apparently, the powerful General Motors company has the luxury of limiting the demographic groups to which they must appeal, because after posting several gay-themed Camaro advertisements to YouTube, said advertisements have now been pulled. (It seems that these spots might have also been some sort of Transformers: Revenge Of The Fallen tie-in, which would probably make sense to me if I'd seen the movie, which I haven't because of repeated warnings that it will turn my brain to paste.)
General Motors has ordered all videos created for their Chevrolet "Gay Day at the Movies" promotion be removed from You Tube. The videos, which featured amateur footage of two "go go boys" washing a Camaro, were deemed inappropriate by GM.
"The video was not appropriate and not in good taste," said GM spokesman Dave Barthmuss. The videos were seen as a bad representation for the company by GM executives said Barthmuss.
Also widely seen as giving General Motors a "bad representation": the cars manufactured by General Motors.
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!
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.
UPDATE, from my exasperated father, who writes:
It will be interesting to see who buys this shit but we may never know. Some people never learn. BUT! If you offer it at a price and a rate, somebody can be found to speculate on anything, and if you sell it to somebody connected or to someone who is "too big to fail"...well we have already proven that we can handle the "moral hazard" argument. Here we go again. Look at the names associated with all this. And the one you have to wonder about the most is the rating's agency, Moody's. They must feel like they are invisible and bullet-proof because they certainly have escaped real scrutiny in all of this that has just passed. And! They are paid by the issuers to give them a rating on this shit. Not much independence there!
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."
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.
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?
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-TELLINGVia 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.
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."
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 SMOKINGFrom 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.
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
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?
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."
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
FAQQUESTION: "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?
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 LOBBYINGThe 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 SALONSThe 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.
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.
FROM THE HUFF POST BLOGSHuff 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.
PAT ROBERTS IS SCAMMING YOUSunlight 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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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 WEBAaron 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.
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."
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.
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:
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?"
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.
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':
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.
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.
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."
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.
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...
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."
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.
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.
Make HuffPost Your HomePage
Get Email Alerts
July 10, 2009