The Next Hurrah

The Politics Of Iraq

by DemFromCT

What's the difference between doing what's right and doing what's expedient? Sometimes the answer is "passing legislation". That uncomfortable fact isn't a 'free pass for Congress' in any sense. If they can't handle tough public votes (cough - David Vitter) they should quit (well, he may have to, anyway) or be replaced. But this NY Times story captures the dilemma we have been discussing all week:

While Mr. Bush almost certainly commands less loyalty than at any other time of his presidency, the White House has kept enough Republicans from siding with Democrats to keep legislation from reaching the 60-vote threshold needed to pass legislation in the Senate — not to mention the 67 votes needed to override a veto. At the same time, Democrats have often produced legislation that is viewed as hard for some Republicans to endorse.

"I think the trouble in this Senate is that too many of us — I try not to be one of them, but I do occasionally — are pandering to the base on both sides of the aisle," said Senator George V. Voinovich, Republican of Ohio. "As a result of that, we don’t do the things that we should do."

Take, for example, a vote in the House late on Thursday evening in which only four Republicans joined Democrats in passing a plan calling for a troop withdrawal to begin within 120 days, with a deadline of removing most troops — except an unspecified number needed for a limited mission — by April 1. Democratic officials had hoped to lure away more Republicans to create momentum for when a similar measure is considered next week in the Senate.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California dismissed questions about the vote margin, telling reporters, "It was a very solid Democratic vote."

But given their narrow majority in Congress, Democrats alone cannot force the administration to change its strategy in Iraq. A senior Democratic official, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss internal strategy, said Friday that "Democratic leaders want to end the war, but they also know that it’s important to highlight the differences with Republicans."

Toothless legislation attracts votes, but doesn't get the job done. Legislation with teeth doesn't attract a consensus or a working majority (at this time) because there isn't one in Congress.

However, this misses a major issue which the members of Congress are going to hear about, and in spades, when they go back home for recess. The simple fact is that the public is way ahead of the politicians. The urgency to adjust the status quo outweighs the loyalty to the base, and far outweighs loyalty to an unpopular President, that GOP congress critters feel. The country thinks Congress is dithering. Explaining it away as "I have to keep my shrinking Republican base happy, even though they are unrealistic about the war because Fox News, Joe Lieberman and I don't tell the truth about what's happening there" is not going to fly. One of those political "bases" is now 70% of the country. The other needs to be told by people they trust (and it's not us) that's there's Bush's view of Iraq and then there's reality. That's the only way the GOP will be comfortable voting to scale down and change the mission. They're desperately looking for figleafs when what they need to be looking for is courage.

That's bitter medicine, and whether it's the right wing talking heads and the online pundits or the politicians themselves, only a few (Hagel, Snowe, Luger) are actually doing what needs to be done (voting along with Democrats now and/or preparing their base for when they do). Sure, the votes aren't there yet, but everyone in Washington in this kabuki show knows that's coming. The trouble is that delaying the inevitable just means more unnecessary deaths. Hiding behind the excuse that "well, Democrats aren't being inclusive" or "it's all about politics, and it's my vote in September that will be remembered, not my vote in July" is just more wishful thinking.

The Iraq War is the worst foreign policy blunder in a generation. It's the GOP's war, and it's Bush's war. If they don't face up to that reality, and at least start preparing their base for the inevitable, they run the risk that 2008 will turn out to be 2006 on steroids. And, you know, it couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of ideologues.

Bad Boy, No Recess

By Mimikatz

During the school year, I help out at a local elementary school, working with kids who have difficulty with math.  Among the 4th and 5th graders, there are always boys who cannot walk across the room without throwing their weight around, poking other boys and pulling girls' pigtails.  They disrupt every group they are in.  One remedy?  No recess.  (The next step is calling their parents.)

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is like those bad boys.  Many people do not know that it is due to him that the Senate has accomplished virtually nothing, while the House has passed over 400 pieces of legislation.   Even bills that have been passed by a majority of both houses cannot become law because Bad Boy McConnell will not allow a vote on sending them to a conference committee.  We all know that McConnell would not allow a vote on the Webb-Hagel Amendemnt, leading Majority Leader Harry Reid to file a cloture motion that needed 60 votes.  Since the Dems had only 56 votes, debate could not be closed off and there was no vote on the substance of  Webb-Hagel.  McConnell promises the same on Levin-Reed and Feingold-Reid.  But this obstruction has also meant:

Senate Republicans blocked funding for the intelligence community  (National Journal Congress Daily, 4/18/07), …denying our country the tools to fight the war on terror. (DPC Report)

Senate Republicans blocked a vote on reforming the Medicare Prescription Drug plan“ (Boston Globe, 4/19/07) and denied seniors lower prescription drug prices. (DPC Report)

Senate Republicans blocked raising the minimum wage (New York Times, 1/25/07) delaying a much needed raise for hard-working Americans. (DPC Report)

Senate Republicans are blocking the appointment of conferees on the 9/11 Commission Recommendations (DPC Report)  leaving the United States vulnerable to terrorist threats.  (Washington Times, 3/14/07)

Senate Republicans are blocking the appointment of conferees on ethics reform  (DPC Report)  halting progress on the “most significant ethics reform since Watergate.” (Washington Post, 1/19/07)

Senate Republicans are blocking a bill to bring transparency to campaign fundraising  (The Washington Post, 05/09/07) denying the American people the right to know who funds Senate campaigns.  (Washington Post, 5/9/07)

Senate Republicans blocked a vote on holding Attorney General Gonzales accountable (Reuters, 06/11/07)  refusing to hold the Attorney General accountable. 

Senate Republicans blocked legislation to make forming unions easier  (Associated Press, 06/15/07)  siding with corporations against average American workers.  (DPC Report)

The details are here.

So what's the solution?  As Digby has said so many times, this is not your father's Republican Party.  These folks play for short-term advantage, and they play for keeps.  The Senate cannot just keep rolling over in the face of these obstructionist tactics.  Here are two suggestions.  I've made them before, but they should be repeated until the message sinks in.

(1)  No recess.  If the GOP won't allow votes, then they aren't doing their jobs.  Majority Leader Reid should stop caving and calling cloture votes.  Instead, he should allow debate to continue, indefinitely if necessary, starting with the amendments to the Defense Authorization Bill.   Force the GOPers to stand at the podium and defend a war that 70% of the people oppose.  Let the Dems catalogue the horrors--the dead, the severely wounded, the impaired, those returning to society with serious problems and substandard or no mental health care, Walter Reed, all of it.  Until there is an up or down vote on the amendments. 

(2)  No vote.  If the Dem caucus is too wedded to its vacation, here's Steve Soto's idea over at  The Left Coaster.  If McConnell continues to stonewall, then debate something else.  My idea--the bill the House just passed to make college more affordable.   But don't vote on the Defense Bill until after the Senate has had a chance to go home and talk to the voters (the parents in my analogy) one more time. 

While I like the no recess idea, not the least because it would prevent any more recess appointments, the latter idea has merit as well.  In fact, since Bush keeps pushing the upcoming Petraeus Report in September as so important, why vote on the Defense Bill until we know what the strategy will be?  What sense does it make?   Wait until Petraeus makes his report, since that's evidently the thing that matters.  The President will scream because he doesn't have his money, but this is Congress' only real weapon, the one thing that McConnell can't obstruct.  They have to appropriate the money, or Bush can't spend it, and they should extract some mighty big concessions for doing so.  Because it is McConnell who is obstructing and because the public is so solidly against the war and Bush's approval is below freezing, the Dems do not risk looking like Newt Gingrich in 1996. They have the public on their side; Bush does not.  McConnell has given them the weapon, and Reid should use it. 

Finally, we can all pitch in together and Ditch Mitch just like they sent Tom Daschle packing.

Why Lefty Bloggers Should Always Get to Fly First Class

by emptywheel

As I've explained before, I used to consult for a big automotive company, working primarily in Asia (the job got moved to Asia earlier this year). I flew several times a year to Asia. So for the past several years, I've been an "Elite Level" flyer for Northwest. Which means I get bumped up to First Class pretty consistently.

Back in February, during my first trip home from the Libby trial, I ran into an attractive (in a frat boy way) but too-heavy man sitting across the aisle from me in First Class. He seemed to be as interested that I was reading Lawrence Walsh's Firewall (on Iran-Contra) as I was in reading his folders full of "articles from Staffers" on "Islamists." It was even more fun when I got out my computer and started doing a blog post on the trial. After all, Mike Rogers (whom I lated recognized this to be) had been challenged in '06 by Jim Marcinkowski, one of Valerie Wilson's friends from her CIA cohort.

It happened again, today. I was sitting in the first row of the plane. The nice gentlemanly man on the aisle was already there--I ended up shoving his briefcase to the side so I could fit my bloggy laptop-sack next to his Congressional bag. He said he wanted to get to his bag during the flight, so we rearranged nicely. And then I sat down. As the other passengers came in, I heard someone say "hi" to the Congressman. At which point I started kicking myself for not knowing the Republican Congressman from MI by face (apparently, only the Republicans are still taking 2.5 day weeks--I've only ever seen Mrs. Dingell in my middle-of-the-week flights, not any Democratic Congressmen). The Congressman got pretty attentive to what I was doing (and today, I actually looked like a DFH blogger), particularly once I pulled out The Wrong Stuff--the book on Duke Cunningham I'm hosting FDL book salon for on Sunday. Luckily, the flight attendant was very superb at his job, and he called us both by name as he asked us for our drink orders (I had white wine, and "Mr. Knollenberg" had a half-glass of water, no ice.), so I could figure out who I was sitting next to. Meanwhile, I think Knollenberg decided not to pull out his KoolAid Republican work to review on the flight. While he may already know everything bad about Duke Cunningham, his former colleague, I'm sure we don't know everything about Joe Knollenberg.

Anyway, sorry for the completely random post. If you care, Knollenberg likes peanuts, but not pretzels or chips. And he doesn't like to drink a lot of water on plane rides. And he's kind of fussy about little pieces of trash floating around in his space--though that may have been exacerbated by the fact that he had to sit next to a DFH blogger reading (and taking extensive notes) a book on Republican corruption. Though I should say, he was very polite (as was Mike Rogers) and pulled my bag down from the overhead.

I'm sure I was having a lot more fun with the experience than he was, anyway. There's something to be said for making a Republican Congressman's flight back to DC a little more stressful by attentively studying Republican corruption while sitting right next to him in First Class.

[Editorial note: this was blogged using Jane's new network card, which means we should be liveblogging in real time from the Conyers hearing tomorrow.]

The Influence Block

by Kagro X

The Hill reported yesterday that certain Republicans were hinting that they might support criminal contempt charges against "administration" officials who refuse to comply with Congressional subpoenas.

Sen. John Cornyn (Texas), vice chairman of the GOP conference, told The Hill on Friday that he thinks Republican cooperation with a criminal contempt finding will be required.

“It’s just a formal process that sets up a legal challenge,” Cornyn said. “We’ve got to cut out some of the politics and get this to the courts.”

One Senate GOP aide, requesting anonymity, agreed that Republicans might approve a contempt finding as a procedural step. Should the White House continue to resist the subpoenas, only one of the two chambers has to approve a criminal citation before the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia can empanel a grand jury.

Great, right? Not only is it a sign of some conscience among Republicans, but it represents the long-awaited separation between Hill GOPers and Bush. Maybe. Maybe not.

The Next Four-Branch Presidency

by emptywheel

Since Fred Thompson got into the Presidential race in a big way, I've increasingly been getting this creepy feeling. I keep thinking: when was the last time we had a charismatic (if ugly, in this case) candidate who knows nothing about policy and is even less interested in taking a stand on policy, who seems to be hiring the right advisors, but who himself, still seems to be Bush league. Yeah--I'm getting a weird Bush feeling from Thompson.

Add in the fact that he might easily prevent Al Gore from winning the Presidency (again) by ensuring a Tennessee win.

Most importantly, though, I have imagined that Thompson is the GOP's best chance to replicate the un-American structure of the Bush Presidency, where all the major decisions appear to be made in the margins, by Cheney, all the while Cheney protects himself by invoking his creative theories of being a fourth branch of government. You see, I'm really beginning to believe that Thompson is in so that those committed to continuing the basic policies of the Bush Administration can do so, once again behind the facade of a puppet president.

And then I read this:

Politico's Mike Allen told NPR that Fred Thompson has a notable foreign policy advisor: first daughter of the OVP, Liz Cheney.

Reality Hits the Grand Old Party

by DemFromCT

As noted by Al Hunt for Bloomberg:

Private conversations with Republicans throughout America reveal doom and gloom about a politically paralyzed presidency and party. The on-the-record observations are almost as bleak. "There's a lot of nervousness up here," says U.S. Representative Ray LaHood of Illinois. "It's a very difficult time for Republicans." LaHood was one of 11 House Republicans who met with President George W. Bush this past week to tell him the party was in political peril. "Unfortunately, the big issues will not be dealt with between now and the next election," says Governor Mark Sanford of South Carolina. "The country doesn't believe George W. Bush, it doesn't trust him, and with 19 months to go it's only going to get worse,'' predicts Ed Rollins, a Republican strategist who ran Ronald Reagan's 1984 presidential campaign. There is nothing the president can do to get his (poll) numbers back up."

That's about right. While Republicans and the commentariat are willing to talk about the geo-strategic disaster known as Iraq and its political effects, few are openly willing to talk about the political disaster known as George W Bush. That's not foreign territory for Democrats, of course, but the press still thinks that what a majority (conservatives) of a minority (Republicans) thinks counts much more than what the majority of Congress or the general public thinks. Maybe that's changing. Maybe. Here, Fred Barnes acknowledges reality while (as all depressed conservatives do) pining for Reagan.

CAN PRESIDENT BUSH RECOVER? It matters enormously in the 2008 election--particularly in the presidential race--whether he does or not. Either way, recovery or no recovery, the president will have a powerful impact on the outcome. If he fails to lift himself out of the political doldrums, his successor in the White House is likely to be a Democrat. But should he pull off a strong finishing kick, as President Reagan did in 1988, the prospects of another Republican president will improve significantly.

The unattainable prescription for success matters much less than the open admission that Bush is a political disaster for the GOP.

For the president to recover, more than signs of success in Iraq are required. He must counter the conventional wisdom that America is failing in the Middle East and losing influence elsewhere. This may necessitate a tough, new direction in his foreign and national security policy, which now looks weak.

IOW, for the President to recover, he has to turn into a completely different person than the one who has occupied the WH since 2000. If there were substance to this comment, he (and we) wouldn't be where we are today. Hunt, and not Barnes, has it right.

A new embarrassment or scandal -- Alberto Gonzales, Paul Wolfowitz, Karl Rove -- seems to surface daily; the only good news for the White House is that occasionally these stories overshadow the bad news coming out of Iraq. Bush is reviled around much of the world, has precious little political capital at home, and seems surrounded by hacks or the forgettable and faceless. Strikingly, perhaps the two most important members of the Cabinet -- Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson -- have little history with the president, and their greatest leverage is the havoc that would be wrought if they left. Each has served in the administration for less than a year. For a year and a half, there have been various rationalizations for Bush's second-term presidential problems, and guarantees that a solution is at hand. Josh Bolten, who replaced Andy Card as chief of staff, was supposed to refocus the administration; after Rove escaped the shadow of a special prosecutor, he and the president were going to be re-energized; when Don Rumsfeld, the face of the Iraq debacle, was fired, there was supposed to be a new start. No More Fixes Now, the dwindling band of Bush supporters have run out of fixes and are resigned to the contemporary assessments. Like Harry Truman, the patron saint of unpopular American politicians, Bush will be vindicated by history, they say.

What America needs is recognition of the problem and a concerted bipartisan effort (including Republicans) to minimize the damage done, rather than a pretense that 'being like Reagan and Truman' will make everything okay in the morning. Running hard right in the primaries won't get you there, folks. If Republicans and conservatives are serious about this, they'll call for the firing of Alberto Gonzales. If that doesn't happen (and I doubt it will), all these Rx for Success notes to Bush and the GOP are just so much wasted bandwidth that won't stop a GOP debacle in 2008.

The Off the Record Club Strikes Again

by emptywheel

Since details of the Off the Record Club were revealed during the Scooter Libby trial, I've been meaning to make an inventory of known citations of OTR Club members. Well, I've never done so--but this particular instance bears note. I've added editorial comments that I believe should be assumed in cases where an OTR Club member is quoted in the press.

“He’s been hurt,” said Charlie Black, a Republican strategist [and OTR Club member] who regularly consults with the White House[, particularly Karl Rove, to help manage scandals]. “It’s hard to do that job without having full credibility with the Hill, which he doesn’t have presently.”

But Mr. Black added: “The president wants him in the job and never thought he did anything wrong, and has made that plain to everybody. And therefore, everybody else in the administration is in line with that. [Karl Rove is going along, for now, but he's working with OTR Club members to make it harder for Gonzales to stay.]”

A Republican strategist familiar with Mr. Rove’s thinking said [Black went on to say] that Mr. Rove, the president’s chief political adviser, “believes it’s in the best interest of the president for Gonzales on his own to resign.” But, this person [Black] said, Mr. Rove and other like-minded aides have concluded that “there’s nothing they can do — it’s about the relationship between Gonzales and the president.”

The strategist would speak only on condition of anonymity because his discussions with White House officials were confidential [and because OTR Club rules dictate club members remain off the record].

One critical factor for Mr. Gonzales is what the chief of staff, Joshua B. Bolten, thinks. Republicans close to the White House say [Black and other OTR Club members say] Mr. Bolten has kept his opinion to himself. But they note that he has changed Mr. Bush’s mind on a personnel matter before, in the case of Harriet E. Miers, the former White House counsel who, like Mr. Gonzales, was a close Bush ally from Texas.

When Mr. Bolten became chief of staff last April [and Gonzales had just ceded control of personnel matters to Miers' liaison, Monica Goodling, Bolten] pressed for Ms. Miers to leave, but was overruled by Mr. Bush. But when Democrats took control of Congress, Mr. Bolten tried again, making the argument that the president needed someone aggressive to fend off subpoena requests [and already panicking over the burgeoning USA Scandal]. This time, he prevailed, and Ms. Miers left at the end of January.

Rudy's WTC Problem

by DemFromCT

It isn't just that Rudy Giuliani is out of step with the pro-life Republican Party. It isn't just that Bernard Kerik and Rudy's poor judgment at his consulting firm are giving him ethical headaches. It's that the 9/11 legacy that Rudy is riding to the White House (he thinks) is more mixed than he would like the country to know about. That's especially true with the health issues that resulted at the WTC from the EPA prematurely declaring "the air's fine (link from 2004), just go to work and clean it up"(link from 2006). That's all part of Rudy's legacy, as the NY Times points out this morning.

Anyone who watched Rudolph W. Giuliani preside over ground zero in the days after 9/11 glimpsed elements of his strength: decisiveness, determination, self-confidence. Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld at ground zero three days after the World Trade Center collapsed. Those qualities were also on display over the months he directed the cleanup of the collapsed World Trade Center. But today, with evidence that thousands of people who worked at ground zero have become sick, many regard Mr. Giuliani’s triumph of leadership as having come with a human cost.

Christie Todd Whitman belongs in that group (she was head of EPA). And everyone was being pushed by the WH. But it turns out that Rudy had his own issues here. Thousands of people (that's thousands) have become sick because of decisions made on his watch.

An examination of Mr. Giuliani’s handling of the extraordinary recovery operation during his last months in office shows that he seized control and largely limited the influence of experienced federal agencies. In doing that, according to some experts and many of those who worked in the trade center’s ruins, Mr. Giuliani might have allowed his sense of purpose to trump caution in the rush to prove that his city was not crippled by the attack.

New Yorkers have long memories and were not as enamored of America's Mayor as the press corps sometimes makes them out to be. Rudy had his moments in the first few days, but subsequent executive decisions are apparently going to hurt thousands of good people.

City officials and a range of medical experts are now convinced that the dust and toxic materials in the air around the site were a menace. More than 2,000 New York City firefighters have been treated for serious respiratory problems. Seventy percent of nearly 10,000 recovery workers screened at Mount Sinai Medical Center have trouble breathing. City officials estimate that health care costs related to the air at ground zero have already run into the hundreds of millions of dollars, and no one knows whether other illnesses, like cancers, will emerge. The question of who, if anyone, is to blame for not adequately protecting the workers could finally be decided in United States District Court in Manhattan, where thousands of firefighters, police officers and other recovery workers are suing the city for negligence.

Whatever happens in the Republican primaries (and Rudy's skeletons are doing an awful lot of rattling), the truth about who really "supports the troops" isn't limited to George Bush. Our frontline troops were the health care workers and first responders (including law enforcement and fire fighters) who responded heroically to the tragedy at the WTC. And, it seems, America's Workers were shafted by America's Mayor as much as by Whitman's EPA. This court case is going to turn out to be rather interesting as far as politics go, but ask any of the first responders (or their spouses) and they'll tell you they'd rather have their health back than win a court case. Too late for that. And, maybe, too bad for Rudy, if it exhibits in a very public way the stubbornness and poor judgment that is as much a part of his legacy as Mayor as the response on 9/11.

Is the GOP Ready For A Free Thinker?

by DemFromCT

Poor Rudy. His flip-flops on the abortion question to appease the religious right in his party (and they all do it, from Romney to McCain to Bush 41 to Reagan) have gotten him in a bit of hot water with his adoring public.

His current posture has left past political allies and abortion rights supporters dismayed over what they regard as his backsliding. At the same time, he has hardly endeared himself to conservative activists who disagree with his overall support for abortion rights.

"I'm ashamed of him," said Fran Reiter, who was New York's deputy mayor for economic development and planning during Giuliani's first administration and was his 1997 reelection campaign manager. Reiter, a strong advocate of abortion rights, added: "I feel a certain betrayal."

Giuliani adviser Jim Dyke countered by saying, "His position doesn't fit into a sound bite or on a bumper sticker." Yesterday's speech, he added, was designed "to let people have a clear understanding of where he stands and what this pro-choice Republican would mean as president."

But there's a problem for Dyke's candidate. Guiliani's party is both intolerant and unforgiving on the issue of choice (sparking this warning from the WSJ). In fact, the contretemps over choice is not going away, and it's even threatening to obscure Rudy's ethical lapses and poor judgment when it comes to Bernie Kerik,  OxyContin,  and the kind of sleazy politics that the GOP never really has a problem with (but the public does).

Charlie Cook, for one, has never thought Rudy had much of a shot at the GOP ticket, because of structural issues like the pro-choice one.

"I'll win the Tour de France before Rudy Giuliani wins the Republican nomination."

The thing is, all the GOP candidates have structural issues, including McCain's bonding with the unpopular Bush on the unpopular war. That's why the party faithful are so depressed, and into pretending that Fred Thompson is presidential material (he'll be the guest speaker at the Prescott Bush Awards Dinner in CT, so he gets to persuade New Englanders the way he did Orange County Californians).  But politics being what it is, we can only watch one painful train wreck at a time before we look away.

Swapping One Crook for Another

by emptywheel

Roll Call reported yesterday that John Boehner's idea of imposing new ethical discipline is to replace one crook with another. He has named Ken Calvert to replace John Doolittle on the Appropriations Committee. As Think Progress points out, Calvert is wallowing in the same kind of dung as Doolittle is:

Made huge personal profits off his own earmark. Calvert pushed through an earmark to secure over $9 miilion for freeway and commercial development near property he owned in California. After the development of the area, Calvert sold his property for a 79 percent profit.

Personal firm received commission from earmark. “In another deal, a group of investors bought property a few blocks from the site of a proposed interchange, for $975,000. Within six months, after the earmark for the interchange was appropriated, the parcel of land sold for $1.45 million. Rep. Calvert’s firm received a commission on the sale.”

Rewarded K Street firm under investigation with pork projects. The Copeland Lowery lobbying firm is currently “enmeshed in a federal investigation of Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA).” “Rep. Calvert has helped pass through at least 13 earmarks sought by Copeland Lowery in 2005, adding up to over $91 million.” The lobbying firm has been Calvert’s largest campaign contributor.

Traveled to Saudi Arabia with convicted Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham (R-CA) in 2004. They were accompanied by Thomas Kontogiannis, an alleged co-conspirator in the Cunningham controversy.

What more do you want? Ties to Lewis' corrupt Copeland Lowery firm and ties to Kontogiannis, almost surely to be the next contestant in the Wilkes-Foggo-Cunningham game of Wheel of Fortune.

Clearly, someone sees a need to keep a friendly face in Doolittle's seat on the Appropriations Committee. But what I've increasingly been wondering is, are they also keeping a friendly Californian face in his seat?
I keep thinking back to the CA GOP's concerted efforts to attack Carol Lam for her purportedly low immigration convictions. And I keep wondering whether there's a scheme that involves all, or most, of the CA GOP. One that would merit some really bad PR in the choice of Doolittle's replacement.