The Next Hurrah

Why Rove Resigned? To Grant the Administration Immunity

by emptywheel

There have been a flurry of stories depicting the degree to which the Bush Administration has politicized ... everything. McClatchy described how Treasury and Commerce were making decisions based on the political value for the Republican party. And today, the WaPo describes how Interior and Labor were doing the same. And based on interviews and documents, the WaPo describes the whole process as more systematic than anything before.

But Rove, who announced last week that he is resigning from the White House at the end of August, pursued the goal far more systematically than his predecessors, according to interviews and documents reviewed by The Washington Post, enlisting political appointees at every level of government in a permanent campaign that was an integral part of his strategy to establish Republican electoral dominance.

[snip]

Investigators, however, said the scale of Rove's effort is far broader than previously revealed; they say that Rove's team gave more than 100 such briefings during the seven years of the Bush administration. The political sessions touched nearly all of the Cabinet departments and a handful of smaller agencies that often had major roles in providing grants, such as the White House office of drug policy and the State Department's Agency for International Development.

Well, so what? What are you going to do about it?

See, for the most part, we're talking about civil Hatch Act violations. And the punishment for civil Hatch Act violations? To be fired from your job. Shall we review the names of those most involved in leading this process?

• Karl Rove
• Sara Taylor
• Scott Jennings
• Barry Jackson
• Ken Mehlman
• Susan Ralston

Rove, Taylor, Mehlman, and Ralston are gone, and Jackson is rumored to be leaving. Add in Monica Goodling, who only admitted to her massive Hatch Act violations after she resigned. So how are you going to hold the White House responsible for its massive Hatch Act violations, if the people involved have already mooted the only punishment available?

FWIW, with the David Iglesias firing and cover-up, the Administration has strayed into criminal Hatch Act violations, which carry a criminal penalty (if we can find anyone who would actually charge them for it). And there may be more examples where you could make the case. But most of what the recent flurry of reporting talks about? By resigning, Rove basically made the Administration immune from any punishment for it.

Fighting Over The Independent Voter

by DemFromCT

Come election time, one of our favorite things to do is argue over discuss how best to reach the independent voter, and whether it matters if we do.

In 2004, there seemed fewer of them than in 2006, but in fact, they always exist and roughly speaking, range from 20 to 33% of the electorate truly in play depending on the year. This WaPo-Henry J Kaiser-Harvard poll puts some further data behind the discussion:

Wood, Welch and McClure all describe themselves as political independents. Wood is a classic swing voter, while Welch and McClure generally side with one party. They represent two of the five types of independents revealed in a new, in-depth study by The Washington Post in collaboration with the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation and Harvard University.

The study is a comprehensive examination of a broad segment of the electorate -- about three in 10 voters call themselves independents -- that is poised to play the role of political power broker in 2008. Independents split their votes between President Bush and Kerry in 2004 but shifted decisively to the Democrats in 2006, providing critical support in the Democratic takeover of the House and the Senate.

The new survey underscores the Republican Party's problems heading into 2008. Fueled by dissatisfaction with the president and opposition to the Iraq war, independents continue to lean heavily toward the Democrats. Two-thirds said the war is not worth fighting, three in five said they think the United States cannot stabilize Iraq, and three in five believed that the campaign against terrorism can succeed without a clear victory in Iraq.

From the article:

Fifty years ago, independents accounted for about a quarter of all adults. Today, that proportion is between three in 10 and four in 10, depending on the survey. In most states that have party registration, independents or those who decline to state a party preference are the fastest-growing segment of voters, according to Curtis Gans, director of the Center for the Study of the American Electorate.

Independents mirror the population in terms of age, income and education. But they are disproportionately male. A majority of independents are men, while a majority of Democrats are women and the GOP is typically divided evenly between men and women.

Independents also are more secular than the overall electorate. Four in 10 in the new study would like to see religion have less influence on politics and public life than it does now. Almost a fifth say they have no religion.

One of the discussion points going forward will be how best to reach this collection of voters (the approach to the disguised partisan will likely not work with the disengaged or disillusioned) and how not to alienate everyone else in the process.

If it were easy, we'd always win.

Why Pick Gillespie to Replace Bartlett?

by emptywheel

Aside from the fact that he is currently overseeing the slow collapse of VA's GOP party? After all if Ed Gillespie does--as rumors suggest--take over where Dan Bartlett left off, then the VA GOP might have a much better shot at retaining John Warner's seat after he retires.

But I'd like to ask a different question. Why bring back a guy who, when the Republicans were about to get caught for illegally tampering with an election, played the fix-it and firewall role perfectly (well, kinda). I'm speaking, of course, about the New Hampshire phone-jamming scandal, in which Gillespie took all responsibility for the decision to pay James Tobin's legal bills, even though it's fairly clear the White House (the same White House that Tobin had called repeatedly during his phone-jamming operation) bought off on the decision too.

So here's the whole story as Gillespie tells it. He made an arbitrary decision that the RNC would cover Tobin's legal bills. Why? Because "it's the custom, not written anywhere, that you covered your people." - (N.B. according to Ken Mehlman, the RNC has since revoked this honorable, unwritten custom: "consulting contracts now explicitly declare that independent contractors must be prepared to pay their own legal costs in civil and criminal cases.") Having made that decision, he then informed someone at the White House, he can't remember who, that he was going to abide by this unwritten rule. But this was just a heads up, a courtesy, not a dialogue. It was non-negotiable.

Of course, Gillespie's forgetful stance looked dorky when he took it last May. But now that Tobin's conviction got thrown out because of the flawed language the NH USA used in the jury instructions, it looks downright brilliant. The GOP, caught red-handed trying to disrupt an election, is now off mostly scott-free. And those high ranking Republicans who were taking Tobin's calls to the White House as he decided what to do with his phone jamming scandal--people like Ken Mehlman? Off scott-free, too.

Heffelfinger, Native Americans, and Voting Rights

by emptywheel

I haven't read all the coverage on Goodling's confirmation of the reason behind Thomas Heffelfinger's appearance on the firing list. But I've read a lot, and I'm really amazed by the coverage of the interchange. Goodling's response to Ellison's question about the reasons for Heffelfinger's appearance on the list, Goodling said:

GOODLING:There were some concerns that he spent an extraordinary amount of time as the leader of the Native American Subcommittee of the AGAC and put -- clearly, people thought that that was important work, but I think there was some concern...

Goodling doesn't specify what the problem with Heffelfinger's NAIS involvement might be, so it could be any of several issues, including:

• Resource issues
• Gaming issues
• Abramoff issues
• Sovereignty issues
• Cobell lawsuit
• Voting rights
• Violent crime

Yet all the reporting I've seen has portrayed this as a matter of Heffelfinger's work against violent crime in the Native American community. To be fair, it is partly Heffelfinger's fault:

When I hear some bureaucrat in Washington say I was working too hard to fight violent crime in Indian Country, I'm outraged

Still, did no one hear Ellison's follow-up?

Can The Polls Get Any Worse?

From the new NBC/WSJ poll:

Public support for Republicans' control of the U.S. Congress has eroded to its lowest point since the party took over 12 years ago. And with just 19 days until the midterm elections, both President George W. Bush and his party are in worse shape with voters than Democrats were in the October before they lost their House and Senate majorities in 1994.

A new Wall Street Journal/NBC News Poll shows that voters' approval of Congress has fallen to 16% from 20% since early September, while disapproval has risen to 75% from 65%. That 16% approval statistically matches Congress's lowest point in the 17 years the Journal and NBC have polled, set in April 1992 at the height of a congressional scandal involving members' overdrafts from their House bank.

Every new story, be it about Ney, Cunningham, Hastert, how bad the Iraq civil war is going, or  simply newest poll discussion is another day of not focusing on GOP talking points, none of which people really care about. How much money has the GOP spent on "terra and taxes" commercials and what good have they done?

By 52% to 37%, voters say they want Democrats rather than Republicans to control Congress after the Nov. 7 election. That wide 15-point Democratic advantage is another record in the history of the Journal/NBC poll.

Also, the result marks the first time that voters' preference for one party has exceeded 50%. In October 1994, just before voters ousted Democrats' majorities, they said they preferred a Republican-controlled Congress by a six-point margin, 44% to 38%. Back then, voters were split over President Bill Clinton, with 46% approving of his performance and 45% disapproving. Mr. Bush's job-approval rating, which had crept up to 42% in early September, has fallen back to 38%. A 57% majority disapproves of his performance.

There's trouble there for the GOP, and all the fake confidence ginned up by the WH can't hide the sweat behind closed doors.

Let the warnings about complacency, false assumptions and overconfidence ring out. After all, polls don't win elections, field and money does. But while we debate those things, the polls continue to set records in terms of rejection of the GOP and their agenda and performance. As a famous President once said,

"There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee -- that says, fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again."

The country feels the same way.

Hyperpartisanship Started With Newt

...and continued with DeLay, only to be refined by Bush and Rove. In this window of reflectiveness, as we take a breath and work for a new Congress, it's worth remembering what brought the extended post-WW II era of bipartisanship to a screeching halt. In this interview about their book, The Broken Branch: How Congress Is Failing America and How to Get It Back on Track, Norm Orenstein and Thomas Mann expound:

Is the current Congress demonstrably more partisan than those in the past? Why does it matter?

MANN: Partisanship particularly increased after the 1994 elections and then the appearance of the first unified Republican government since the 1950s. Now it is tribal warfare. The consequences are deadly serious. Party and ideology routinely trump institutional interests and responsibilities. Regular order -- the set of rules, norms and traditions designed to ensure a fair and transparent process -- was the first casualty. The results: No serious deliberation. No meaningful oversight of the executive. A culture of corruption. And grievously flawed policy formulation and implementation.

Congress has been rocked by the Foley scandal. Was the House GOP leadership's response an example of reflexive partisanship? Are there larger lessons to learn from it?

ORNSTEIN: Part of the response to Foley was undoubtedly human nature -- lawmakers wanting to take Foley at his word that he wouldn't write any more improper e-mails. But it is hard to look at the responses of the collective majority leadership, including Speaker Dennis Hastert, GOP campaign chair Tom Reynolds and Page Board chair John Shimkus, without putting them into a context that makes it more damning. The entire leadership team made sure that there was no significant ethics or lobbying reform in this Congress. They knew their majority was hanging in the balance, that the Duke Cunningham-Jack Abramoff-Tom DeLay scandal problem had not coalesced into an electoral catastrophe. The last thing they wanted was another embarrassing scandal. There is a lot to suggest that there was a systematic state of denial here, and an indifference to the possibility of a bigger problem that Foley might represent.

From the impeachment of Bill Clinton (which many R incumbents in the House voted for) to the Hastert policy of only considering bills acceptable to the "majority of the majority", to Frist's considering of the Nuclear Option of changing the rules aboput filibusters, the House and Senate have become a "my party before my Country" institution, and it started in 1994. You'll hear, as I have, "well, if the Dems get in, it'll be just be the same". Actually, no. The Democratic Party, less authoritarian and centralized, isn't capable of doing what the Republicans have done in institutionalizing both corruption (through the K Street project and Abramoff) and discipline (Will Rogers is still correct - we don't belong to an organized party, we're Democrats).

You'll start to hear, I'm sure, Newt nosalgia as he revs up to run for President, especially if the GOP loses the House. Don't be fooled. Newt's legagy is to destroy comity in the name of a GOP majority. It's a lesson Hastert and Frist have learned well, and it's a major reason why neither will be around as leader in January. They'll have to explain why they hate America, but they'll never get a pass from us on the topic of what they did to Congress when they were in office. This is an important topic for those of us as concerned about governance after the election as winning (not something that concerns the current crop of Republicans, apparently). But first, we have to throw the bums out.

War, Casualties And Public Opinion: Interview With William A. Boettcher III and Michael D. Cobb

by DemFromCT

We've been writing over the last few weeks about the effects of Bush's popularity on the midterms, and the effects of Iraq, Katrina and the war on terror on Bush's popularity. One recurring theme about Iraq is the concept, supported by Gens. Abizaid and Pace, and (early war supporter) Ken Pollack, is that we have to consider the term "civil war" as part of the Iraq narrative.

The debate is over: By any definition, Iraq is in a state of civil war. Indeed, the only thing standing between Iraq and a descent into total Bosnia-like devastation is 135,000 U.S. troops -- and even they are merely slowing the fall. The internecine conflict could easily spiral into one that threatens not only Iraq but also its neighbors throughout the oil-rich Persian Gulf region with instability, turmoil and war.

However, discussion of what to do next in Iraq and how to discuss new approaches and directions, an approach favored by Democrats, is being delayed by resistance from the Bush White House, who prefer to stay the course and not have Administration policy questioned. This facet of political reality was addressed in a fascinating op-ed written a few weeks ago in North Carolina's News & Observer.

The Bush administration's justification for continued operations in Iraq -- that it has become the central front in the global war on terrorism -- leaves almost no rhetorical space for an effective counterargument (the opposition party has been labeled the "Defeatocrats" and is said to be working on behalf of "al-Qaeda types"). As long as the enterprise in Iraq is deemed central to American national security, the only alternative to continued military operations is to "let the terrorists win."

William A. Boettcher is an associate professor and Michael D. Cobb is an assistant professor in the School of Public and International Affairs at N.C. State University, and have a major interest in public opinion and public perception.

The authors predicted the Rumsfeld defense of Bush policy in this paragraph:

Attempts to reframe the American involvement in Iraq will inevitably generate an aggressive rhetorical response. Accusations of abandoning the Iraqi people, surrendering to the terrorists and enabling a humanitarian catastrophe will be leveled from critics on the left and the right. A successful reframing of the Iraq war must be combined with a disengagement strategy that addresses these concerns, but realistically acknowledges that public support for the war is waning and the Bush administration does not appear inclined to commit the resources needed to turn things around.

Note that a survey recently done by the professors on the American public's perception of Iraq, the costs of war, and the likelihood of future support is expected to be released next week (and we will cover it here). I had the opportunity to discuss this with Professors Boettcher and Cobb. What follows comes from that discussion and subsequent emails.

Professors Boettcher and Cobb:

In an editorial we wrote several weeks ago in the Raleigh, NC News and Observer, we partially explained our belief that perceptions about the mission objectives in Iraq are fluid, and opponents of the war can make more persuasive withdrawal arguments by framing the goal of staying in Iraq as preventing a civil war.  We said this because past experience shows that Americans’ casualty tolerance for largely humanitarian missions is substantially lower than for restraining a threatening adversary.  DemFromCT read our editorial; we talked, and he was kind enough to give us the opportunity to answer some of his questions about casualties and framing effects on public opinion about Iraq.

Conventional wisdom holds that Americans get ‘weak in the knees’ and withdraw their support for military interventions as soon as casualties occur; or, at least as casualties increase, so too does American opposition to war.  We think that the core of this argument is wrong for several reasons, but neither are we persuaded by recent research suggesting that Americans are tolerant of substantial casualties so long as they believe in the prospects for success.

Presidential Approval and The Midterms

by DemFromCT

What's the big deal about presidential approval? So what if Bush is at 36 (NY Times/CBS) or 42 (Gallup and CNN) or whatever?

Check this graph made by Kossack dmsilev in this post from May explaining why Bush's dismal poll numbers matter (data is here by superibble):

"There is, however, a historical correlation between presidential approval ratings and midterm Congressional election results (at least at the House level).  This site compiles historical presidential approval ratings dating back to 1937, when Gallup first started doing the poll."

While not predicting a 40 seat drop for R's this year (the landscape is different with redistricting and the professional marketing of the GOP vs the amateur Dems), the graph clearly shows the historical precedent for low approval correlating with loss of House seats in a midterm.

Don't be fooled by a claim of 42% being a rebound for Bush. These are historically low levels of approval even if they're not outliers. Speaking of Prof. Franklin (previous link), he also summarizes the historical data at Political Arithmetik from a post dated 11/05.

For example, compare the decline prior to the 1992 elections in President George H. W. Bush's approval with those of President George W. Bush. The elder Bush is a clear example of "free fall", the sharpest and largest approval drop since President Nixon's in 1973-74. President George W. Bush's decline more closely resembles the long-term decline of Jimmy Carter's approval than it does the free fall of either the elder President Bush or President Nixon.

People have made up their mind about Bush. What he now has is a thick ceiling and a thin floor in the polls. Dems will never trust him again, and indies have their doubts. Republicans will hug him like a life preserver, which won't stop them from abandoning him if it looks like they might drown.

Sistersara's Long Thoughtout plan for Public Financing of Elections.

By Sara

Over at Josh Marshall's Coffee House Nathan Newman has results of polling on the matter of public financing of elections.  Very interesting stats actually.  Took some notes and it goes like this -- 74% of all respondants support Public Finance, 80% of all Dem's, 65% of Republicans, and 78% of Independents so support.  Of some interest is why -- and the items polled were "think likely" 82%, "good idea as a matter of leveling the playing field" - 79% and controling the power of special interests -- 77%.  Very interesting.  So what we need is a plan, and for 20 years I have been thinking about one, so here goes. 

Let me begin my plan with Section 8, Article I of the Constitution, which gives to Congress the power to coin money.  "To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of Weights and Measures." -- message clear, Congress can create coin of the realm.  I begin here.

Congress needs to create E-$ -- that is Election Dollars.  On January 1 of each even numbered year, each registered voter in the states shall have placed in an electronic account under the supervision of the Secretary of State of the States, a distribution of E$ -- equal by state, and equal by citizen registered voter.  (My thinking is 30 dollars in a Presidential year, 20 if you have a senate race plus a CD, and only 10 in a non presidential year with no senate seat in contest.)  Voters with E$ would be allowed to contribute only to candidates for whom they could actually vote.  The ability of voters to begin to distribute E$ from their accounts would begin as of Midnight, Jan 1 of each even numbered year.  Citizens who register to vote after Jan 1 would be pro-rated. 

E$ would be convertable to US$ either when a candidate exits a race, or at the end of the contest -- Primary or General Election.  All staff, vendors, services involved in an election campaign could only be paid in E$.  Qualified financial institutions would be allowed to advance conversions (so long as they are disclosed) on bond provided in E$.  But E$ would not be currency for any transaction other than campaign related activity.  No other currency could be used for Campaign expenses or costs. 

Now my idea is that every registered voter would have the power to distribute the same amount of money as of Jan 1 of even numbered years -- and anyone who wanted to be a candidate would have to organize to acquire those dollars -- not with big dollar fundraisers, but with on the ground organization.  Door Knockers with Blackberries or lap-tops at New Years parties -- do the sports bars during the bowl games and parades, and all the rest.  I would allow for allocation slips to be submitted at the post office for those voters not electronically connected -- but the point would be any candidate with an interest could deploy organization to raise E$ funds.  Secretaries of State would be required to post daily results on an easily accessable web-site.  Any candidate who drops out would rebate E$ funds to contributors accounts, pro-rated given legitimate expenses. 

I would allow for small contributions of regular US$ to state political parties so long as expenses are for party operations and for the whole ticket, and not any particular candidate.  By Party Operations, I mean all the costs of facilitating a caucus, a primary, a GOTV operation (Phone Banks for the whole ticket), and other local administrative party costs. 

Based on the ratio of E$ each candidate receives, they would be allocated Radio and TV time in local media markets.  But half of the TV and Radio time would have to pay for debates among and between candidates.  Radio and TV would be allowed to do public service candidate access programs, so long as all active candidates are included. 

At the conclusion of the election, (November, even numbered years) all vendors and staff could convert E$ to US $.  All transactions would be transparent. 

My system depends on something required in the Help America Vote Law, and that is interactive but state wide voter registeration rolls.  Perfecting these means this system of individually and equally directed funding could work. 

So what do I want to accomplish? -- first off, end the role of all special interests who cannot actually organize voters in the matter of financing a political campaign.  Much is heard about the poor labor union member who doesn't want his union dues going to support a party or candidate he does not love -- but nothing is said about the financial institutions (Yer bank or credit card firm) that pay the freight of Washington Lobby work for "their" interests no matter or not whether they are in line with depositors or creditors interests.  This totally solves that problem.  The Lobby ceases to be a player. 

If a Union or a Financial Institution want to make the case to voters -- fine, go right ahead.  But the decision is in the hands of the folk able to contribute E$. 

But the most important value of this system is the necessity of politicians and political parties to organize locally -- to remain representative of the people who did, or might elect them, to actually construct the means to ask voters for their E$. 

I think in most uneven years most potential candidates and parties would put much effort into voter registration -- so as to get ready for Jan 1 of the Even Numbered years.  That's all to the good.  Can you imagine a financial incentive to expand the voter base?  What a revolution. 

Now my plan is for the most part, totally electronic -- and thus it is pretty cheap.  But it also has other implications.  Since I would not distribute E$ till Jan 1 of election years, no money primary in the big $$$$ sense of that.  But I would make the primary and caucus national delegate selection window fairly short -- perhaps April 1 to June 15, and I would require these contests be scheduled by time zone, with each four years the first becoming last, and with Alaska and Hawaii being put into the underpopulated Mountain Time zone.  However I would also have a "first of April" small state contest -- New Hampshire, Iowa, maybe Idaho, Deleware and Rhode Island.  The point being if you have under a certain small number of electorial votes, you can choose to go first, and out of your time zone contest.  Thus we would retain the feature of Retail Politics.  (As a Minnesotan, I like the view of Pol's trying to navigate snow drifts in New Hampshire.)  (We have bigger ones.)

Since the days when the Parties forced the League of Women Voters off the stage in the Presidential debates, I have been thinking about how a citizens organization could impose a come-back.  The Stats in the Nathan Newman article on TPM Cafe suggest now is the time. 

 

The $3 Million Crank Phone Call Just Got More Expensive

by emptywheel

I pointed out a few weeks ago that there is simply no way the GOP would spend $3 million to defend the NH phone jammers unless there was more to it than just a third rate crank phone call.

Does that seem rather like overkill to you? $3 million dollars for an offense--telephone harassment--with a maximum sentence of two years?

Yeah, seems like overkill to me too.

Well, I suspect GOP efforts to cover-up the "more to it" part got more expensive last week. Via TPMmuck, the NH Dems want to depose the people mentioned in the criminal trial with ties higher up the food chain. People like Ed Gillespie, former GOP chair, and the guy who got approval from the White House before he invested that $3 million in covering up the "more to it" part.

Unfortunately, the civil trial takes place too late (November) to have a substantive effect on the election. But as I suggested several weeks ago (and as Karl's presence in NH last week might support), once we tie these state-based cases involving election fraud directly to the national Republican party, we will make progress in demonstrating the fundamental corruption at the core of the conservative movement.