Today's Cunningham (et al) News

Roll Call (subscription required) reports that federal prosecutors are seeking reams of documents from several House committees, as well as want to interview a number of Congressional staffers.

This brings up a potential new Porkbusters slogan: "Earmarks - Look What they Did for Duke Cunningham!" (substitute Alan Mollohan, Jerry Lewis, or others, as appropriate).

Justice Signals Wider Probe
May 15, 2006
By John Bresnahan,
Roll Call Staff

Federal prosecutors are seeking to interview at least nine current or former staffers on the House Intelligence, Appropriations and Armed Services committees as they widen their probe into the bribery scheme involving former Rep. Duke Cunningham (R-Calif.), according to House officials.
The U.S. Attorney’s office in San Diego is also seeking “tens of thousands of pages” of Congressional documents, some going back to 1997, related to Cunningham and government programs he may have had influence over, the officials said.

The information sought by federal prosecutors signals that the corruption probe that began with Cunningham has now clearly moved beyond the actions taken by the imprisoned former lawmaker to other Members, according to several Congressional sources. Cunningham is currently serving a 100-month sentence in federal prison for bribery, fraud and tax evasion.

The three committees, through the House general counsel’s office, have agreed to cooperate with the prosecutors’ request, although they have raised concerns about the breadth of the document search, which one source suggested could potentially “shut down the committees” because of the time demands involved in assembling all the documents that prosecutors have asked for, as well as the number of staffers sought for interviews.

In addition, a large amount of the material being sought by the investigators relates to highly classified, or “black,” programs. Cunningham served on the Defense subcommittee of the Appropriations panel, and also chaired the subcommittee on terrorism, human intelligence, analysis and counterintelligence on the Intelligence Committee. Both panels have access to such secret programs.

“The original request from [federal prosecutors] was overly broad and onerous,” said a GOP aide familiar with the issue.

...And The Los Angeles Times reported last Thursday that the Justice Department has begun looking into Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-Calif.) and his interactions with an ex-Member turned lobbyist, former Rep. Bill Lowery (R-Calif.). The U.S. Attorney’s office in Los Angeles is overseeing that portion of the federal probe.

Prosecutors are exploring the relationship between the two men, who served on the Appropriations panel for eight years together before Lowery left Congress in 1992. Specifically, investigators are looking into whether any company or organization was asked to hire Lowery’s lobbying firm before seeking help from Lewis on a federal spending program, as well as the movement of several GOP aides between Copeland Lowery Jacquez Denton & White and Lewis’ staff. Lowery and his clients have steered hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions to Lewis while winning tens of millions of dollars in appropriations earmarks.

Copeland Lowery Jacquez Denton & White also lobbied on behalf of Wilkes’ defense company, ADCS Inc., from 1998 to 2000, and then again from 2002 to 2005. The firm originally reported earning $160,000-plus in lobbying fees from ADCS, but in March 2006, after Wilkes was identified as the subject of a federal corruption probe, Copeland Lowery filed amended lobbying disclosure reports indicating that it had been paid more than $340,000 by ADCS during that period, according to documents on file with the Clerk of the House.

Wilkes and his employees, friends, relatives and business partners have donated $60,000 to Lewis’ re-election campaign and leadership political action committee, according to the San Diego Union-Tribune.

Back to the top.

Today's Mollohan News

The Times West Virginia reports on a series of land deals between and among the non-profits that Mollohan created, and his campaign supporters. Land being sold at a 30% profit the same day it was bought, etc. Mollohan has a very simple explanation: "There is no relationship between our appropriation activity and our investments and campaign contributions." Oh, well, why didn't you say so? That explains everything!

Back to the top.

Kennedy Gets His Warning Shot

His plane is hit by lightning.

Anytime something bad happens with a Kennedy, the media always asks 'is the family cursed?' Has anyone ever considered that the whole clan's entire supply of luck seems to be wasted on Ted?

Back to the top.

Will NSA Surveillance Boost President's Numbers?

Glenn covers it here.

It seems logical to me, but Newsweek's latest poll says that the NSA telephone surveillance program is not supported by the American people. I never cease to be amazed that they fail to show the methodology of the poll anywhere that you can find it.

Back to the top.

Immigration State of Play

The President is reportedly going to amp up the volume on enforcement Monday night, but stop short of endorsing the wall. The goal is to push Congress for action promptly. That jives closely with what I guessed, although Andrew McCarthy may have the best answer. Meanwhile, the Washington Post looks at the problems.

In the meantime, Captain Ed points to a Democratic study suggesting that the party can benefit politically by getting to the right of the President on immigration. And if my grandmother had wheels she'd be a wagon. Neither one is all that likely.

Back to the top.

Premature on Rowback

OK, OK - perhaps I declared the rowback a little too soon. But we know it's coming, right? I mean - the signs are already there. The Democrats have a clear track record on this: they get apoplectic about some step the administration has taken to protect national security, they talk impeachment, then they realize that they're out of the mainstream, and they soon stop making a big deal about it. They enter the silent, brooding phase, where they seethe to each other about how things will be different when they're running things (God forbid!).

Anyway, I guess I was premature in declaring a rowback. Seems that the 'impeachthewarmongeringsmirkychimpmchalliburton' crowd is looking forward to some Senate testimony next week which'll blow the lid off the whole NSA thing! It means the death of the administration - you know, like Joe Wilson, Fahrenheit 9/11, the Butler report, war hero John Kerry, that NYT report on missing Iraqi weapons, and the leak on terrorist surveillance all did.

Oh, and speaking of warrantless wartime wiretapping, the testimony that's going to bring down the Bush administration this week is from the same fellow who leaked the existence of that program: Russell Tice.

This is the excerpt from National Journal (ie, according to the poster at the link above; I'm unable to access the original NJ piece):

A former intelligence officer for the National Security Agency said Thursday he plans to tell Senate staffers next week that unlawful activity occurred at the agency under the supervision of Gen. Michael Hayden beyond what has been publicly reported, while hinting that it might have involved the illegal use of space-based satellites and systems to spy on U.S. citizens. …

[Tice] said he plans to tell the committee staffers the NSA conducted illegal and unconstitutional surveillance of U.S. citizens while he was there with the knowledge of Hayden. … “I think the people I talk to next week are going to be shocked when I tell them what I have to tell them. It’s pretty hard to believe,” Tice said. “I hope that they’ll clean up the abuses and have some oversight into these programs, which doesn’t exist right now.” …

Tice said his information is different from the Terrorist Surveillance Program that Bush acknowledged in December and from news accounts this week that the NSA has been secretly collecting phone call records of millions of Americans. “It’s an angle that you haven’t heard about yet,” he said. … He would not discuss with a reporter the details of his allegations, saying doing so would compromise classified information and put him at risk of going to jail. He said he “will not confirm or deny” if his allegations involve the illegal use of space systems and satellites.

Can we get a betting pool going on when this shifts from 'scandal that will bring down the administration' to 'Karl Rove leak designed to get Democrats to overreach?'

But while I find it amusing that the Democrats pin their hopes on supposed scandals that never materialize, this is of course not funny. Does Tice not think he's done enough damage? Once again, I have to think about the outrage on the Left at the 'outing' of Valerie Plame, and the crocodile tears over such 'intelligence leaks,' while those same folks are delighted at every leak that they think favors them.

We ARE at war. Do they not see this? We have prevented successful attacks in the last few years, but the threat is obviously still out there. They can disagree with the tactics; they can hate the Commander in Chief. But they can't treat this as some sort of game. The fact that they seem to has got to scare you.

Back to the top.

Impeach the President? Who, Us?

I guess the Democrats have figured out that promising investigations and impeachement isn't the way to excite independent voters. This is a follow-up on her comment over the weekend that their commitment to investigations might just lead to impeachment:

Democrats Won't Try To Impeach President
By Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 12, 2006; A06

Seeking to choke off a Republican rallying cry, the House's top Democrat has told colleagues that the party will not seek to impeach President Bush even if it gains control of the House in November's elections, her office said last night.

Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) told her caucus members during their weekly closed meeting Wednesday "that impeachment is off the table; she is not interested in pursuing it," spokesman Brendan Daly said.

Some House Democrats, including ranking Judiciary Committee member John Conyers Jr. of Michigan, have called for impeachment hearings into allegations that Bush misled the nation about Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction and that he violated federal law by approving warrantless wiretaps on Americans. In an interview with The Washington Post last week, Pelosi said a Democratic-controlled House would launch investigations of the administration on energy policy and other matters. She said impeachment would not be a goal of the investigations, but she added: "You never know where it leads to."

...Daly said Pelosi never considered impeachment a priority. Republicans "are in such desperate shape," he said, "we don't want to give them anything to grab on to." He said Conyers agrees with Pelosi's thinking.

I love the last quote from spokesman Daly: we never considered this 'a priority.' What does that mean? It was just one of those things we hoped we got around to? "Gay marriage - check, broad-based tax increase - check, cut defense spending - check, nationalized health care - check. Well what do you know! We have time for impeachment after all!"

I suspect that the fever swamp will have a hard time accepting this. I think impeachment talk is likely to continue to surface.


Back to the top.

Alphonso Jackson Has to Go

Did you know who Alphonso Jackson is? Well, he's probably the soon-to-be-former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. I haven't written on this yet, and Captain Ed has it covered.

Apparently Jackson was at a Dallas small business forum on April 28, and he told a story indicating that he had refused to award a contract to a firm headed by someone who told him he disliked the President:

"He had made every effort to get a contract with HUD for 10 years," Jackson said of the prospective contractor. "He made a heck of a proposal and was on the (General Services Administration) list, so we selected him. He came to see me and thank me for selecting him. Then he said something ... he said, 'I have a problem with your president.'

"I said, 'What do you mean?' He said, 'I don't like President Bush.' I thought to myself, 'Brother, you have a disconnect -- the president is elected, I was selected. You wouldn't be getting the contract unless I was sitting here. If you have a problem with the president, don't tell the secretary.'

"He didn't get the contract," Jackson continued. "Why should I reward someone who doesn't like the president, so they can use funds to try to campaign against the president? Logic says they don't get the contract. That's the way I believe."

Jackson now disputes this, and says that he the anecdote he told was fictitious - or something. His press release is not very specific. Regardless, it doesn't ring true. Why tell such a story if it's not true. (Of course, it's stupider to tell it if it IS true, but that's beside the point).

Today at his press briefing, Tony Snow reportedly said that the President "stands behind Alphonso Jackson." Well, I hope it's only to close the door behind him. If Jackson did what he said he did (and I bet it won't be too long before we hear from the contractor), then he has to go. Even if not, the administration should send the message that it takes suggestions like this seriously. A public official may not bring partisan goals into his or her government capacity. The suggestion that he did ought to be enough to cost Jackson his job.

Back to the top.

Man Bites Dog

They say a story is only news if something unusual happens. Well, former DC Mayor Marion Barry is involved in a brush with the law - and he apparently did nothing wrong.

Back to the top.

Bush to Address the Nation on Immigration

According to the Fox and the AP. How is this going to fit into the plan to woo conservatives? Is he going to give the "I was wrong" speech? Remember I've argued it's not that easy.

I don't think we'll see a dramatic substantive change here. I think the President is likely to restate his suppport for an earned legalization of some type. But I agree that he is likely to amp up the volume on enforcement, as well - possibly to include a fence. My expectation though, is that he stresses the security threat at the southern border, and the fact that it is a vulnerability in the effort to fight terror. If he's smart, he'll also announce a focus on the northern border, both because this is a problem as well, and because that will make the approach more evenhanded.

Lastly, I bet that the 'hook' for the speech is that he will stress the importance of doing something this Summer - rather than wait for a new Congress.

Back to the top.

Likely Challengers to Harris Emerge

Update: Four Republicans besides Harris filed for the Senate race. Peter Monroe and William McBride are among them.

As discussed almost ad nauseam, today at noon is Florida's filing deadline. While Florida House Speaker Allan Bense took his name out of the discussion the other day, it's looking like some other longshot challenger to Harris is likely to file today.

According to the Herald Tribune, possible candidates include State Senator Dennis Ross, Orlando lawyer William McBride and Pinellas County developer Peter Monroe. Getting into the race is probably a no-lose proposition for each of these folks, inasmuch as there has to be a fair chance that Katherine Harris throws in the towel before the primary - either because of poor polling numbers, or because of the Mitchell Wade bribery scandal that continues to loom.

Curious that a possible Republican Senate candidate shares the same name as the Democrat that Jeb Bush defeated when he was re-elected in 2002. I wonder if that's likely to help in any general election?

Back to the top.

Anonymous Holdout Saved Moussaoui

The Washington Post reports this morning that the lone juror who voted against the death penalty for Zacarias Moussaoui refused during jury 'deliberations' to identify himself, or raise any objections or arguments against the death penalty. That juror effectively cheated the 9/11 victims of justice by refusing to discuss and debate with his fellow jurors the reason(s) for voting as he did.

One Juror Between Terrorist And Death
Moussaoui Foreman Recalls Frustration
By Timothy Dwyer
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 12, 2006; A01

Only one juror stood between the death penalty and Zacarias Moussaoui and that juror frustrated his colleagues because he never explained his vote, according to the foreman of the jury that sentenced the al-Qaeda operative to life in prison last week.

The foreman, a Northern Virginia math teacher, said in an interview that the panel voted 11 to 1, 10 to 2 and 10 to 2 in favor of the death penalty on three terrorism charges for which Moussaoui was eligible for execution. A unanimous vote on any one of them would have resulted in a death sentence.

The foreman said deliberations reached a critical point on the third day, when the process nearly broke down. Frustrations built because of the repeated 11 to 1 votes on one charge without any dissenting arguments during discussions. All the ballots were anonymous, and the other jurors were relying on the discussions to identify the holdout.

"Wednesday [April 26] was a very intense day," she said. "But there was no yelling. It was as if a heavy cloud of doom had fallen over the deliberation room, and many of us realized that all our beliefs and our conclusions were being vetoed by one person. . . . We tried to discuss the pros and cons. But I would have to say that most of the arguments we heard around the deliberation table were" in favor of the death penalty.

The foreman, who said she voted for the death penalty because the government proved its case, was the second juror to be interviewed by The Washington Post since the trial ended last week. The first juror said he voted for life in prison because he thought that Moussaoui's role in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks was marginal. He said some other jurors shared his point of view, but he would not reveal the vote. Questioned again after the foreman's comments, the first juror said that he is "happy someone else came forward" and that the 12 jurors "differed in the way we interpreted the things we saw and heard." He declined to discuss the deliberations further.

The article paints a picture of a situation that must have been maddening for the other members of the jury. Ace mentions the movie "Twelve Angry Men." It's one I love, even though it's sometimes characterized as a 'liberal fantasy.' However, the juror who saved Moussaoui is essentially the opposite of the hero of Twelve Angry Men. Rather than have the courage of his convictions, and argue his point of view to his colleagues, this juror refused to say anything. And for what it's worth, his refusal to engage in argument was a disservice to Moussaoui as well - to the extent that that's possible. Knowing that the process was short-circuited gives us one more reason to hate him.

Back to the top.

Rove's Plot Leads to Fastest Rowback Ever?

There's been lots of great coverage on the blogs about the USA Today story on NSA spying. Check out Powerline or Michelle Malkin, among others, for a good analysis.

But this morning I see signs that the Democratic wave of outrage has crested, and they are headed for full rowback.

This morning I watched or listened to three different shows, where analysts ranging from extreme liberal to moderate conservative suggested that the timing of this leak is a Rove plot, designed to bait Democrats into arguing national security.

Rachel Maddow, an Air America host (whom I sometimes listen to so YOU don't have to!), said that she was stunned that the President responded so quickly to the USA Today story. The only way he could have gotten a statement out so quickly was if the WH was in on the leak! And why leak it now? Because the White House 'thinks' that national security is a winning issue for them. They 'think' that the public believes that Republicans are better than Democrats on national security. And they 'think' that if they get the American people to think seriously about the terrorist threat, they'll be more supportive of Republicans. You will be shocked to learn that she suggested that this was all thought up by Karl Rove, now that he is again focused on politics, instead of policy. She pointed out that once again, it allows Bush to talk about 9/11, and how the US has not suffered a successful terrorist attack since.

On another program, they noted that an overnight ABC/Washington Post poll shows that 63% of Americans support the program, and that by 51% support the way President Bush is protecting privacy. They suggested that more than 50 House Democrats were silly to call for an independent counsel to investigate. They said that the WH response was so quick, that it shows Tony Snow must be doing a great job, and that Snow might have been the sharp operator who said that the American people would support the program, and so the WH should defend it forcefully.

My hunch that we had entered rowback mode was confirmed when the official mouthpiece of the Democratic party aired a piece about how the NSA program is no big deal - quite trivial really - but probably was a waste of money. The segment featured an interview of author of "Chatter," who characterized this surveillance as being 'a mile wide and an inch deep,' because calls are not tapped. He said that this program is akin to the NSA looking at your monthly phone bill - who you called, and for how long. He said that analysis of millions of phone numbers led to thousands of tips, of which fewer than 10 ultimately generated phone taps.

When the host said that this sounds like a waste of money on a program that has low yield, he said that he had interviewed former NSA Director Admiral Bobby Ray Inman about the program, and that Inman pointed out that this is the nature of fighting terrorism. If you generate 100,000 tips, and catch 1 terrorist, then you may have a low yield, but it is a huge catch nonetheless.

I bet the Democrats soon realize that this is a losing issue for them, and stop talking about it.

And a minor point: if 66% of Americans say they don't mind the NSA collecting this data on them, themselves, and you still call it 'controversial,' what percentage do you have to reach before you call it 'widely-approved?'

Back to the top.

And What Exactly Does the Early Bird Get?

I just received this. What would you do?

From: Bird Flu Summit
Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2006 12:59 PM
To: [deleted]
Subject: Early Bird Discount

Just a quick email to let you know, that the early registration discount for the 2nd Birdflu summit finishes on Monday 15th May 2006.

You may register in any of the following ways:

Call us at 202-[deleted] or call me at my direct line 202-[deleted]. Or download the PDF registration form http://www.new-fields.com/birdflu2/register.pdf

Best Regards,

[deleted],

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2nd Birdflu summit is a 2-day event taking place in Washington, DC, 28-29 June 2006.
If you have any questions, or if you need a copy of the summit program before deciding to attend, Please do not hesitate to call any of us.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kindest regards,

Bird Flu Team

Is it terrible editing, or a terrible sense of humor? If you think Bird Flu is all that AND a bag of chips, sign up here.

Back to the top.

Kennedy Eliminates Ethics as an Issue?

Larry Sabato of the University of Virginia is one of America's really bright political analysts. In his most recent online column at the University of Virginia's Center for Politics, he says that Patrick Kennedy's traffic accident has taken away ethics as an issue for Congressional Democrats:

The Culture of Corruption
It's bipartisan now
Larry J. Sabato
Director, U.Va. Center for Politics
May 10, 2006

Something significant happened on the political front last week. In the midst of Donald Rumsfeld's trial by fire from hecklers and Porter Goss's forced resignation as CIA director and George W. Bush's inexorable fall in the polls, it was easy to underestimate the importance of Congressman Patrick Kennedy's latest little scandal. After all, he is a Kennedy, and at some point in the future, Kennedy scandals will cease to be news since they are so common they will be dog-bites-man and not man-bites-dog.

Yet as Kennedy flew to the Mayo Clinic for yet more drug dependency treatment, he took Democrats' hopes of running against the Republican "culture of corruption" with him.

What's that you say? It's just one little episode that will quickly fade to the back pages? Quite the contrary. This congressman with the celebrity name grabbed everyone's attention, and he reminded the public in an unforgettable way that sleaze and corruption and special favors on Capitol Hill are very much bipartisan. That's what the American people believe anyway, and now they have had it confirmed in new headlines.

As 2006 opened, things looked bright for the Democrats on the corruption front. Congressman Tom DeLay was on trial in Texas, the Vice President's chief of staff Lewis Libby had resigned upon indictment in the CIA leak imbroglio, and lobbyist Jack Abramoff was spilling the rancid beans on a host of GOP luminaries from Ralph Reed and Conrad Burns to Bob Ney and John Doolittle. Republican indictments aplenty from the ranks of congressmen and congressional aides loomed, and Karl Rove was rumored to be on the verge of joining the list via the Libby/Valerie Plame case. Democrats were salivating, much as Republicans did in the late 1980s and early 1990s when Democratic corruption cases accumulated.

...The reason Kennedy matters so much is that his scrape fits the profile of memorable scandals that will stick in the collective public consciousness. First, there is a long pattern of activity by Patrick Kennedy and many other Kennedys that has left people with the clear impression that this family considers its members to be special, operating above the rules for the rest of us mortals. (How many people did you hear say, "Like father, like son", when they heard the news?) Second, every American could put himself or herself in Patrick Kennedy's position. What would the police have done if any of us not named Kennedy had side-swiped a police car, crashed into a barricade, and appeared to be intoxicated? Few police departments operate the kind of taxi service for possible DUI suspects that apparently exists for a select upper crust on Capitol Hill. Third, the American electorate has proved resistant to the Democratic theme of corruption all along because they have never bought the premise that one party is a convention of devils and the other a chorus of angels. Dozens of Democrats and Republicans in Congress have been involved in well-publicized scandals of all types over the last few decades. Fourth, one doesn't need to be a political aficionado to know immediately that Kennedy is a Democrat.

This last point is especially damning for Democrats. Whenever any Democratic candidate this year starts to paint a dark picture of GOP misdeeds, all a Republican candidate need do is to mention Patrick Kennedy. The news media will also have to balance its corruption stories on Republicans by featuring the roll call of Democratic miscreants, led by Kennedy. Four is not a negligible number. Inevitably, specific congressmen in both parties who are linked to corruption will be targeted for their alleged sins, and they may have to pay the ultimate electoral price for them. (Kennedy won't be one. His Rhode Island constituents predictably lined up, Oprah-like, to express their sympathy for the local star and latest "victim" of the "Kennedy curse.") In a few places, Democrats may still be able to make corruption a central concern. For instance, because of Governor Bob Taft's ethics troubles that have led to his deep and broad unpopularity, it's possible that Ohio will see a statewide electoral kickback to the Democrats. But as a cutting, salient, across-the-board issue, "the culture of corruption" may be moribund nationally for 2006.

Sabato also says that that's about the only piece of good news for the GOP:

Luckily for the Democrats, just about everything else in this election year is still going their way. The Iraq War is not just divisive, but with each passing month more Americans are saying we shouldn't have gone in, and need to get out. We have either a very determined or an exceptionally stubborn President--depending on your party ID--and so far he's shown no inclination to start substantial troop withdrawals. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has become the new Robert S. McNamara of Vietnam infamy, a permanent lightning rod for criticism whose persona suggests an administration with a Pollyanna-ish view of the war and a determination to see light at the end of a tunnel that most Americans fear is shrouded in permanent darkness.

Then there are the skyrocketing, and probably enduringly higher, gasoline prices. This one factor appears to have convinced Americans, incorrectly, that the current very strong economy is teetering on the edge of another Great Depression. The continuing inability of government and private entities to regenerate the Gulf Coast after Hurricane Katrina is a running sore that generates unending and maddening horror stories.

Sabato concludes by saying that there's almost no way the Democrats can fail to gain seats in the House and Senate (and gain governorships, as well), but that whether or not they make big gains will depend on what Republicans do.

Read the whole piece.

Back to the top.

Bob Ney 'What If:' In Which I Insult Ohio

Yesterday I wondered what happens under Ohio law if a Congressman like Bob Ney quits his re-election run after the primary. Well, today we have a partial answer. Roll Call (subscription required) reports that if Bob Ney were to withdraw from his re-election race by August 19, there would be a new Republican primary to replace him. It's unclear what will happen if he were to quit the race after that date:

Confusion if Ney Gets off Ballot
May 11, 2006
By Lauren W. Whittington,
Roll Call Staff

Embattled Rep. Bob Ney (R-Ohio) is vowing he will not be indicted in connection with the Jack Abramoff influence peddling scandal — and that he will be a candidate for re-election in November.

But if he were to remove his name from the ballot this summer, it could force a special election to fill the vacancy.

Because the Ohio primaries already have taken place, state law requires another primary be called to select a new nominee if a ballot vacancy arises more than 80 days before the November election.

If Ney were to step off the ballot after Aug. 19, which is 80 days out from the Nov. 7 election, there is some discrepancy as to what would take place.

According to a spokesman for the Ohio secretary of state’s office, it would be up to local GOP leaders to fill the vacancy.

“Inside 80 days, I believe the Republican chairmen from the counties that make up the district would get together and choose a replacement,” the spokesman said.

But some Republican lawyers who have looked at the state election code say they believe it would be impossible for Ney to get off the ballot at any point inside the 80-day window.

...A special primary in the expansive 18th district would likely be a wide-open race, although there are a handful of early favorites.

Chief among them are state Sen. Joy Padgett (R) and state Sen. Jay Hottinger (R).

Padgett is fresh off campaigning as Attorney General Jim Petro’s (R) gubernatorial running mate. Petro was defeated in last week’s GOP primary.

Hottinger is a veteran politician who serves as Assistant Majority Whip in the state Senate but is term-limited and cannot run again in 2006.

Democrats nominated Dover Law Director Zack Space last week...

Ney's district occupies the open space between Columbus and Canton, and it stretches south toward the Ohio river. If I remember the area from my drive back from Columbus that time, there's nothing there.

Actually, it appears that the Almanac of American Politics largely agrees with me:

The hills of eastern Ohio are one of those obscure parts of America, seen by most Americans, if they are at all, from speeding cars on the Interstates or U.S. highways on their way to some place else. They were settled early on in our history, in the 1790s, mostly by Virginians (there was no West Virginia until 1863), and for the most part sparsely: this was hard land to clear and hard land to farm, better suited for dairy cattle than the plains that lay beyond. In some places near the Ohio River there was industrial development early on. The local clay was used to make pottery, the coal that lies near the surface was dug up, a green vitriol works was built, and a nail factory went into operation, all before 1814, and in time the area became dotted with small factory towns. Farther south there was little industrial development and the landscape has a timeless feel today. This is a part of America little affected by the flow of immigrants from Europe in 1880-1924, southern blacks in 1940-65 or Latino and Asian immigrants since 1970. The most distinctive people here are the Amish, driving their horses and buggies over covered bridges in Holmes, Tuscarawas and Wayne Counties, the largest concentration of Amish in the world.

The 18th Congressional District covers much of this hill country, from Holmes and Tuscarawas Counties in the north to Ross and Jackson Counties in the south. It includes such cities as New Rumley, the birthplace of General George Custer; Zanesville, the birthplace of writer Zane Grey and architect Cass Gilbert and home of a famous Y-shaped bridge; and Chillicothe, the first capital of Ohio, on the Scioto River, beneath Mount Logan, which is stamped on the Great Seal of the state of Ohio. Politically, much of this area was ancestrally Democratic, but in the last two decades it has become more Republican. George W. Bush won 55% of the vote here in 2000.

Well, I know some people from Ohio visit this site. Feel free to defend your territory in the comments section.

Back to the top.

Say it Ain't So, Joe - er, Walker, I Mean, Chuck!

With all the talk of earmark reform, it seems that even Walker, Texas Ranger, needs your taxpayer dollars (subscription required):

Heyee-Yah! It’s the day every celebrity lives for: meeting that biggest fan ever. Karate Champ Chuck Norris of “Walker, Texas Ranger” fame met his on Capitol Hill on Wednesday while lobbying Texas lawmakers to support his KICKSTART program for at-risk kids.

No, his biggest fan isn’t Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas), though she facilitated the meeting. Norris’ biggest fan ever is Jimmy, everybody’s favorite Senate elevator operator.

Hutchison remembered that Jimmy told her a few years ago that he loved Norris, one of Hutchison’s constituents. At that time, she got Jimmy an autographed photo of the actor. Knowing that Norris would be visiting her on Wednesday, the Senator had her staff arrange for Jimmy to come to her office to meet his hero.

They had pictures taken together, and Norris even pulled an action figure card out of his pocket and signed it for Jimmy, who has Down syndrome, to keep.

Hutchison, it should be added, is a big fan of Norris, too. In 1997, she did a cameo appearance on “Walker, Texas Ranger.” In that episode, she warned that Congress would pull funding for a fictional boot camp program for young offenders if any inmates escaped.

In real life Wednesday, a mellower Hutchison told Walker — er, Norris — that she would ask for $250,000 to $500,000 in the Labor-HHS appropriations bill for his Texas-based KICKSTART program.

Back to the top.

Gang of 14 Chickening Out?

The Hill reports on the meeting of the 'Gang of 14' to discuss the nominations of Terrence Boyle and Brett Kavanaugh. Reading tea leaves, it looks good for Kavanaugh and bad for Boyle:

Gang balks on Judge Boyle
By Jonathan Allen

The outlook for Judge Terrence Boyle, nominated to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, became cloudier yesterday as Democrats reiterated opposition to him and some Republican members of the influential Gang of 14 declined to offer support.

Asked whether President Bush should withdraw Boyle’s nomination, Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) said: “That’s for the president to decide. In the meantime, we’ll make our own decisions about what should happen.”

Democratic members of the Gang of 14, a bipartisan group of centrist senators who have served as gatekeepers on judicial nominees for the past year, plan to send a letter today to Republican and Democratic leaders asking that Boyle have a second committee hearing before his nomination is brought to the floor.

The Gang met yesterday afternoon in the offices of Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) to discuss several judicial nominations, including Brett Kavanaugh’s to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals and Boyle’s. Several members of the Gang of 14 said they would reserve judgment on Kavanaugh until after a Judiciary Committee vote on him today, but none suggested that the nomination rises to the level of “extraordinary circumstances” that they have identified as the bar for sustaining a filibuster against judicial nominations.

“There’s nothing extraordinary about him” other than his qualifications, said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a member of both the Gang of 14 and the Judiciary Committee.

...Kavanaugh navigated his way through a rare second Judiciary Committee hearing Tuesday and is expected to win a panel vote today that would clear his nomination for floor consideration.

But Democrats appear to be more focused on a possible confirmation fight over Boyle, who was nominated to the 4th Circuit. That is the same court from which Judge J. Michael Luttig announced his resignation yesterday to take a job with Boeing.

In their arguments against Boyle, Democrats cite the number of times his decisions have been overturned by higher courts.

Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) yesterday morning renewed his call to forestall a Boyle confirmation vote.

“I hope Republicans of goodwill rise up and say, ‘Enough is enough,’” Reid said. “I hope we don’t have to vote on Boyle.”

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), another member of the Gang of 14, answered with a laugh when asked whether she would like to see Boyle get a vote. Graham indicated that he would prefer to deal with one nominee at a time.

The article reports that the Senate is likely to return to judicial nominations once debate on immigration reform is concluded. That could be more than 2 weeks away, but also could come sooner.

Are the Republicans in the Gang going to agree to confirm Kavanaugh now, and then oppose Boyle later? That might hold attraction to some of them. For example, it would help Lincoln Chafee to avoid upsetting conservatives before his primary. If the Democrats in the Gang join in support of Kavanaugh, Chafee could do so as well without looking 'too conservative.' If he later joins Democrats in opposition to Boyle, he could wait to announce such a decision until after his primary. Perhaps this would be part of another deal for the Gang, in which they allow through 3 or 4 'controversial' nominees, while blocking Boyle.

This result would be unacceptable, but I fear that since making a deal 'worked' for the Gang once - earning them the thanks of liberal newsmen everywhere - they might well be inclined to do it again. Among other things, it would let them kick the can a little further down the road.

At the same time, such an outcome would hold real problems for at least 2 Republicans. It would make Frist look neutered once again, which will be a blow to any future Presidential campaign. And John McCain won't want to be perceived as once again frustrating the will of the Senate Majority to confirm conservative jurists. Both these Senators should really want an outcome where both Kavanaugh and Boyle are approved - whether with Democratic votes against a filibuster, or through the 'nuclear option.' Perhaps this is Senator McCain's golden opportunity to show his leadership skills. He ought to rally the 7 Republicans in the Gang of 14 to support Boyle and Kavanaugh.

Back to the top.

Stunner! Bense Won't Run for Senate!

Wow! The other shoe doesn't drop!

Does this mean that Goss is running?

Back to the top.

Why Immigration Isn't That Easy

Today I'm playing Devil's Advocate.

There is obviously a lot of frustration and anger, among conservatives over the President's actions on immigration. I'm not going to tell you I approve of the course pursued by the White House, but there is at least one thing to consider in all this: Mexico's Presidential election. It matters a great deal to the US.

On July 2, Mexican voters will choose a new President to succeed Vicente Fox. The three candidates are Felipe Calderon, the nominee of Fox's National Action Party (PAN), Andres Manual Lopez Obrador (or 'AMLO'), the candidate of the Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD), and Roberto Madrazo of the long-dominant Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI - one of my favorite among many silly Mexican phrases).

While it had long been thought that the election would come down to AMLO vs. Madrazo, Calderon has been rising in the polls, and now appears to have a narrow lead. Jorge Castaneda, a bright former Mexican Foreign Minister, offered a good op-ed in yesterday's LA Times, talking about why Calderon could win, and why we should care.

To the extent that it's possible to make a prediction as to which candidate would be best for US interests, it seems that the US should be rooting for Calderon. The PAN is Mexico's most conservative and pro-US party, and actually favors market solutions to economic problems. And as frustrating as it has been (particularly for conservatives) to deal with Vicente Fox, AMLO could be far worse.

As Mayor of Mexico City, AMLO was a liberal with a practical side. He clearly pursued a socialist agenda, but knew that at the end of the day, pure leftism would ruin the city. Castaneda says that as a Presidential candidate however, AMLO has been unable to separate himself from the communist and socialists who created the PRD, and who are still its prime movers. The Economist does a good job on this as well; we really don't know what AMLO would do as President. He could be another Vicente Fox, or more in the style of the old-line PRI Presidents, or another Hugo Chavez. Dick Morris clearly believes that AMLO would be a Chavez ally, and notes that AMLO's Presidential campaign appears to be receiving funds from Chavez.

Why is the White House so soft on Mexican immigration? Many analysts have cited the importance to Fox and the PAN of getting the US to agree to 'comprehensive immigration reform' (ie, an amnesty). Here are a few examples. The amnesty is critical to Fox and the PAN because remittances sent from Mexican immigrants in the US to their families in Mexico represent a huge chunk of Mexico's economy. Remittances have long been the second-largest 'sector' of Mexico's economy, but they have now reportedly surpassed oil earnings, to become the largest single part of the Mexican economy.

To the extent that AMLO really acts as a Chavez ally, it would be a disaster to American interests - not least because Mexico and Chavez's Venezuela together provide about 25% of the oil that the US imports annually. And if illegal immigration into the US has continued unabated in recent years - when Mexico has actually seen some economic growth - imagine what it will be like if the Mexican economy collapses under a leftist regime.

Want a concrete example of why a known quantity like Calderon would be better than AMLO, who might not be bad at all? Well, the US NEEDS Mexico to fix its nationalized energy sector. Right now Pemex - Mexico's state-run oil company - is in a state of collapse. This is not often recognized. It needs an infusion of funds, and private investment is the best and most likely source. Regrettably, that's not allowed under the Mexican constitution. AMLO and Madrazo are firmly committed to maintaining the status quo, and only the PAN has shown a willingness to support a constitutional amendment for private investment. If Pemex continues to decline, the US will have to turn to other sources to replace that petroleum. Also, a Pemex collapse would be a huge drag on the Mexican economy. What would the ramifications be for the US?

I am all for immigration enforcement, but I do not believe it is as easy and straightfoward as others have suggested.

Back to the top.