March 2007

Obama and Ethics Legislations

One of the interesting aspects of the campaign is that people keep claiming that Obama doesn’t have a record, but even in Illinois he worked on several decent proposals for tougher ethics in state government–one which many wish would have happened is public financing of judicial elections which he got through the Senate with Republican cosponsors only to be killed in–the Illinois House.  Dan Vock did a really good run down on Obama in general and ethics in particular in last months Illinois Issues.

“Any time a politician at the federal level is willing to take a leadership role [on ethics], they undoubtedly open themselves up to charges of hypocrisy,” says Meredith McGehee, policy director of the Campaign Legal Center, a Washington, D.C.-based group that promotes stringent campaign finance and ethics laws.

In fact, she notes, McCain survived a brush with a savings-and-loan scandal in the late 1980s. But the scare convinced McCain of the need for ethics reforms, a cause that’s raised his profile across the country.

Like McCain, Obama has made ethics reform a central part of his political career. Two years into his first term in the U.S. Senate, he has had limited opportunities to leave a mark at the federal level, especially as a member of the minority party. But he has worked with Republicans on new good-government laws. He co-sponsored one, signed in September, that will create a federal spending database so Web users can track all grants, loans and awards greater than $25,000. He also pushed to limit the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s authority to award open-ended, no-bid contracts in the wake of major disasters — a reaction to post-Katrina abuses.

More to the point, last year Senate Democrats tapped Obama as the chief negotiator for their caucus in talks over post-Abramoff ethics reforms, though those negotiations faltered.

Ethics reform was one of Obama’s signature issues in Springfield, as well. Beyond the Gift Ban Act, he helped push Democratic Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s 2003 ethics reforms. The gift ban law, the first broad ethics reform in Illinois since the Watergate era, prohibited politicians from using campaign funds for personal use, barred fundraising on state property, established ethics commissions, curtailed fundraisers in Springfield during legislative sessions and mandated online reporting of campaign finances. The 2003 ethics package created independent inspectors general with subpoena powers to look into abuses by legislators, statewide officeholders and their employees. It further clamped down on the types of gifts lawmakers can receive and prohibited lobbyists and their spouses from sitting on state boards and commissions.

Obama also touted publicly financed judicial campaigns, an idea that was approved by the Illinois Senate but languished in the House.

The Continuing Travails of the Illinois Circular Firing Squad Team

Aaron Chambers writes one of the best articles on the current state of the GOP I’ve seen in the new Illinois Issues.

With the quote of perhaps the year:

“My favorite conversation with Jack Roeser was about the second year I was governor when he came in and said, ‘We should be more like George Ryan,'” Edgar says. “Of course he turned on George Ryan — not because of the ethics issue but because George turned out to be more liberal than he thought he was going to be.”

There’s a lot in the article and I’ll revisit it, but it’s a must read.

Oops, Bush Administration Pointed Out That Clinton Was Different

Kyle Sampson, Gonzalez’s Chief-of-Staff explains in an e-mail to Harriet Miers.  Rove attempted to say that the replacements were sort of like finally getting around to replacing holdovers. Not true.

 The only case involving hold overs is the acting US Attorney in Guam in 2002.  The acting US Attorney had been acting for 12 years–since the Bush I administration.  Making someone permanent makes perfectly good sense in such a case, but it oddly came one week after the acting US Attorney for 12 years reported he was opening an investigation into Abramoff.  Of the seven that are at the center of the controversy right now, all were Bush appointees.

Lying Liars

The best bit of hubris coming out of the US Attorney firings is the notion that Bill Clinton did the same thing by firing 93 US Attorneys upon taking office. Except it isn’t analogous at all and it’s an outright lie.
Every administration of a different party than it’s predecessors replaces the US Attorneys and in Bush I, many changes were made.

From before Reagan’s Inauguration:

Copyright 1980 The New York Times Company
The New York Times

November 28, 1980, Friday, Late City Final Edition

SECTION: Section B; Page 11, Column 1; National Desk

LENGTH: 956 words

HEADLINE: DECISION BY REAGAN IS AWAITED ON U.S. ATTORNEYS WHO ARE DEMOCRATS

BYLINE: Special to the New York Times

DATELINE: WASHINGTON, Nov. 27
Many Federal prosecutors, former prosecutors and Justice Department officials say they hope that Ronald Reagan will depart from custom by allowing incumbent United States Attorneys to complete their terms.

Of all the Government officials subject to replacement by the new President, few are in so delicate or ambiguous a position as these 94 Presidentially appointed prosecutors, who try cases involving Federal laws throughout the country. They are supposed to be strictly nonpolitical in their work, though in many cases they were appointed as a result of political patronage.

They have four-year terms, but serve at the pleasure of the President. The law says that ”each United States Attorney is subject to removal by the President.” It does not say that removal may be ”only for good cause,” as some statutes provide.

Those who hope that Mr. Reagan will let the incumbents finish their terms said that such a move would enhance the lawyers’ status as professionals. He might also avoid the fights that caused embarrassment to President Carter when he removed several Republican prosecutors against their will, most notably David W. Marston, in Philadelphia.

Aides to Mr. Reagan said last week that they had not set a policy, but would be inclined to review separately the qualifications of each United States Attorney.

Merit Over Partisanship

In some large metropolitan districts, merit has begun to overtake partisan politics as a major factor in the selection and retention of United States Attorneys. Senators in about eight states, including New York, have set up merit selection commissions to screen candidates.

The terms of 52 of the 94 prosecutors expire in 1981. Another 15 terms will be up in 1982. In addition, Federal District Courts have appointed United States Attorneys to fill vacancies in 12 districts. The President could appoint new people to those positions at any time. All nominees would be subject to Senate confirmation.

The decision to retain incumbent United States Attorneys depends at least as much on senators, because Senators of the President’s party have usually had the dominant voice in choosing Federal prosecutors.

Going back in time, one can find the same thing asked in 1977 and in 1989, Jack Danforth began a panel to nominate new US Attorneys for Missouri at the request of the Bush Administration. George W. Bush retained a few, but not many.

From the DOJ Web site:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

AGMONDAY, MARCH 14, 2001

(202) 514-2007WWW.USDOJ.GOV

TDD (202) 514-1888

WHITE HOUSE AND JUSTICE DEPARTMENT

BEGIN U.S. ATTORNEY TRANSITION

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Continuing the practice of new administrations, President Bush and the Department of Justice have begun the transition process for most of the 93 United States Attorneys. Attorney General Ashcroft said, "We are committed to making this an orderly transition to ensure effective, professional law enforcement that reflects the President 's priorities."

In January of this year, nearly all presidential appointees from the previous administration offered their resignations. Two Justice Department exceptions were the United States Attorneys and United States Marshals.

Prior to the beginning of this transition process, nearly one-third of the United States Attorneys had already submitted their resignations. The White House and the Department of Justice have begun to schedule transition dates for most of the remaining United States Attorneys to occur prior to June of this year. President Bush will make announcements regarding his nominations to the Senate of new United States Attorneys as that information becomes available. Pending confirmation of the President's nominees, the Attorney General will make appointments of Interim United States Attorneys for a period of 120 days (28USC546). Upon the expiration of that appointment, the authority rests with the United States District Court (28USC546(d)).

The only difference in what Clinton did in 1993 was that he set out clear expectations on the first day in office. Other administrations let the question languish and created a lot of confusion. Carter in particular got a lot of flack after promising merit would only matter, but then replacing nearly all of the US Attorneys with Democrats.
Firing 8 US Attorneys during a Presidential term is unprecedented. The Congressional Research Service found 3 similar cases between 1981 and 2006. Comparing the purge of 8 US Attorneys in the middle of term to the replacement of US Attorneys at the beginning of a President’s term is so incredibly obtuse those making the argument can only be said to be lying.

A perfect example of this was Audrey Fleissig who was replaced by Ron Gruender in the Eastern District of Missouri in 2001.  She only took office in September of 2000 yet was still replaced.

In addition to being a lie, this is a basic point of American democracy that is taught in Polisci 101.  Those promoting the comparison should be ashamed of themselves.

Today’s Tosser

Phil Gingrey

Yesterday at the House Armed Services Committee hearing on veterans care, Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA) attempted to stand out from the rest of Congress and argue that the conditions in Building 18 weren’t that bad. Instead of criticizing the cockroach infestation, he said, “I was glad to know that those cockroaches were belly up. It suggested to me that at least someone was spraying for them.” He also tried to blame the soldiers for the conditions, stating, “And, of course, if you leave food around in a motel room or a dorm room at a college, you’re going to get some mice show up at some point in time.

Stacking the Deck for Private Programs

Never an administration to keep kooks out of the bureaucracy or to allow reality intrude upon programs, the Bush administration had a Phonics only moron heading up the Reading First program and they made it so the scientifically supported programs were essentially all programs from private companies. There’s a reason for this–whole language often requires teachers that are better trained to improvise. Because teacher quality especially in urban districts varies, phonics programs requiring heavily paced programs tend to be easier to demonstrate as working.  And so the private companies do better, but Districts doing well with whole language or whole language/phonics fusions are being pushed away from such programs.

It’s been clear for some time that neither program is the best for all students and most progressive educators have blended the approaches to provide different students the tools to succeed.  The administration hired a faith based believer in phonics to spread the one true gospel, however, and now everyone else is paying for it.

Wounded Illinois Vets Wait Longer for Less

Durbin has been beating this drum for years and Obama joined him starting in 2004.

The essential problem is VA Secretary Jim Nichols is a giant boob.  

While there is a cottage industry in trying to make jokes about government health care, the VA has been remarkable at delivering health care, the VHA Hospitals in recent years have been outstanding at delivering care.  My father had his knee replaced there and several other issues taken care of and he received top notch care.

The only time they don’t work is when people try and prove they can’t work or don’t fund them.

Hitting the Right Tone

Given we’ve been treated to some rather lame stories on Obama’s parking tickets and stock purchases, Lynn Sweet offers the best critique of the way the campaign handles fundraisers.

This sort of selective release of information about even what city Obama is visiting on a certain day raises questions about the credibility of Obama’s claim that “we are going to transform the political process.” Obama putting the kibosh on reports of his fund-raising travels is politics-as-usual. Not wrong. But not different.

That’s a really good take on it.

She also has a good take on the stock situation and the parking tickets based on things like facts which have been lacking in many of the reports.  It also provides an interesting glimpse into how the campaign is doing it’s own oppo on Obama-something all campaigns should do.

Meanwhile, Obama’s research team — aware that every part of his life is under a microscope — turned up unpaid parking tickets from his days as a Harvard law student. In January, an Obama representative paid $400 in fines and penalties, according to the Somerville News.

What’s fascinating about the trust issue is here:

The ‘quasi-blind’ trust: “Now obviously the thing didn’t work the way I wanted it to,” Obama said.

The Senate Ethics manual has detailed rules about blind trusts and qualified blind trusts. Obama did not want to sign on to either of those options because he did not want to wash his hands of the responsibility of investments made in his name, attorney Robert Bauer said.

Because the off-the-shelf trusts were not satisfactory, “We tried to see if we could jigger it to make it work better,” Obama said. He signed papers on May 31, 2005, for the custom trust designed to shield him from knowing how his money was invested — but let him respond to media inquiries about potential conflicts. Obama realized his system was not working when he received some sort of shareholder letter in fall 2005.

Katten Muchin Rosenman attorney Michael Hartz in Chicago drew up the papers for and was the trustee of the “Freedom Trust.” Bauer said this particular kind of trust did not require any clearance from the Senate Ethics Committee because he did not ask to be relieved from any reporting rule. Bill Allison, a senior fellow at the Sunlight Foundation, said that if any kind of blind trust was created, “you should have the Ethics Committee sign off on it.”

The trust was revoked on Dec. 31, 2005. Obama put his money in cash and mutual funds.

Essentially, Obama wanted to be held to higher standards of reporting and tried to develop a trust that required him to report everything he owned in terms of conflict-of-interest reporting, but kept him largely in the dark.  On second though, I’m sure he sees the essential problem here, but for all of the gnashing of teeth, if had followed the rules as they allow, he wouldn’t have been as accountable.  While I think the fact based story that pointed out his purchase was legitimate, the dark overtones are hardly warranted since he followed all of the Senate rules and stopped the trust when it didn’t work as well as he liked.  That’s what we should want from our politicians.

Now, as a married man, I would have hated to explain to my wife that I owed $400 in unpaid parking tickets….
One of the interesting things about Jared Abbruzzese’s contributions isn’t so much that he gave primarily to Republicans (not solely as some reports suggested), but he donated $2000 to Renew America, Alan Keyes’ PAC.  It was 1997, but still quite amusing.  He gave money to other Dems including Ed Markey and Ernest Hollings.

Actually, Obama and I agree

From the Sun-Times March 31, 2001

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Chicago), who voted against O’Malley’s abortion bills, predicted they would be struck down by a federal court if they became state law.

“Whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or other elements of the Constitution, we’re saying they are persons entitled to the kinds of protections provided to a child, a 9-month-old child delivered to term,” he said. “That determination then essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place.”

There’s a meme going around that the line Obama used referring to the notion that fatherhood doesn’t stop at conception means he thinks a fertilized egg is a human being worthy of the same rights because how can you be a father otherwise?

For those familiar with basic biological concepts it’s not that hard. Conception seldom takes place right after sex so Barack is using conception as a figure of speech for sex. However, despite his clear views on the subject, those trying to have a gotcha moment are all over the internet.

Daily Dolt

Roger Ailes is Funny:

There’s a long tradition of news organizations, national and local, sometimes together, sponsoring presidential and other candidate debates. The organizations and the panelists have been the objects of a lot of advice and even pressure as to how these debates should be conducted and what questions should be asked. This pressure has been successfully resisted, but it’s being tried again this year with the added wrinkle that candidates are being asked to boycott debates because certain groups wants to approve the sponsoring organizations. This pressure must be resisted as it has been in the past. Any candidate for high office of either party who believes he can blacklist any news organization is making a terrible mistake about journalists. And any candidate of either party who cannot answer direct, simple, even tough questions from any journalist runs a real risk of losing the voters.

There’s also a tradition that a news organization doesn’t issue talking points that mimic a political party’s talking points.  Fox doesn’t seem to have a problem with that.

The reality is there is no reason for Democrats to go on Fox News. It is a right wing propaganda machine with news coverage dictated by ideological concerns.  What good is it for a Democrat to go on there? So they can have these jokes made:

And it is true that Barack Obama is on the move. I don’t know if it’s true that President Bush called Musharraf and said, ‘Why can’t we catch this guy?’

Hysterical given Fox News never retracted nor apologized for the ‘madrassa story’.