Call It A Comeback
Emanuel’s job is to primarily raise money for the DCCC and he has no serious challenger, but I thought this was fun to contrast with everyone else:
Raised the Period:259260.00
Raised this Cycle:410510.00
On Hand 1168677.73
And he spent $170,000
Total she broke the $100,000 mark. For the quarter: $63064.72, On Hand $43460.34
To give you an idea, Melissa Bean hadn’t started any serious fundraising by this part in the cycle in 2003. She had abotu $600 on hand after some disbursements. The key will be to leverage the early money into larger donors–once you show people you are serious and can raise money, more money can follow.
The second key point is the salience:
The leak investigation is seen as a meaningful issue: About three-quarters call it a serious matter, and just over four in 10 see it as “very” serious. These are down slightly, however, by five and six points respectively, from their level in September 2003.
Fifty-three percent are following the issue closely ? a fairly broad level of attention. Those paying close attention (who include about as many Republicans as Democrats) are more likely than others to call it very serious, to say the White House is not cooperating, to say Rove should be fired if he leaked, and to say Miller is doing the right thing.
Now whether 53% really are following it closely is one thing, but 53% of people think it’s important enough to say they are is very significant.
Of the many GOP talking points out there on the Rove Affair, one of the most bizarre is that Karl Rove didn’t do anything wrong because he confirmed information a reporter asked him about. This is usually confused with the other odd notion that no classified information was leaked which begs the question of how did a CIA referral end up at Justice if that wasn’t the case.
From the ethical perspective, being non-chalant about any CIA employee’s status is stupid since the CIA has fairly firm rules about identifying employees. Deferring to the agency is just good sense. When it comes to a matter of national security, you err on the side of caution.
This is a pretty basic issue. Someone with clearance just doesn’t answer such a question. That Karl Rove did it once would be one thing–let’s assume honest mistakes occur, but we also know after Cooper he told Chris Matthews Wilson’s wife was fair game. Before Cooper he apparently gave the same type of statement to Novak. That’s not an off the kuff mistake.
Question 19: If information that a signer of the SF 312 knows to have been classified appears in a public source, for example, in a newspaper article, may the signer assume that the information has been declassified and disseminate it elsewhere?
Answer: No. Information remains classified until it has been officially declassified. Its disclosure in a public source does not declassify the information. Of course, merely quoting the public source in the abstract is not a second unauthorized disclosure. However, before disseminating the information elsewhere or confirming the accuracy of what appears in the public source, the signer of the SF 312 must confirm through an authorized official that the information has, in fact, been declassified. If it has not, further dissemination of the information or confirmation of its accuracy is also an unauthorized disclosure.
From a legal perspective, it’s also fairly clear issue. Think Progress points out the relevant issues for anyone with a security clearance. You don’t just have the responsibility to not be a source for classified information, you have an affirmative responsibility to not confirm even information that is in the public sphere it is still classified and the burden is on the individual with clearance to find out before responding.
More at:
Seeing the Forest
DCCC’s Stakeholder
Bill Scher at the Huffington Post
Bill Scher at Liberal Oasis
Swing State Project
Because I was reading too many reports, I screwed up the McSweeney post here
McSweeney raised $305,000 straight up and then contributed $37,000 of his own cash. My mistake and my apologies. And thanks to the person who pointed out my stupid mistake. That person was nice enough to not point out I also misspelled McSweeney’s name in that post. I’ve been doing a lot of that recently.
I’ll finish up the FEC reports and do some analysis at some point on Monday–though it’s going to be a busy day.
Just how long until he goes up in flames?
A Gidwitz family company manages a hellhole of an apartment complex in downtown Joliet. Gidwitz also partially owns the building. Congressman Jerry Weller, a fellow Republican, recently told the Daily Southtown that the property is an “unsafe, unhealthy, crime- and drug-ridden, outdated public housing project.” Weller has been working with Joliet to shut the place down and turn it into a mixed-income development.
Gidwitz is a well-known philanthropist, and he seems defensive when questioned by the media about the project, claiming that he is trying to do good for the poor of Joliet. But the place is obviously a mess, and Gidwitz admitted to the Daily Southtown recently that he hasn’t even bothered to visit the apartment complex “in a long time.”
With the Joliet paper, local ministers and prominent civic leaders condemning the building as a rat hole ? enough to fill hours of negative TV ads with amazingly frank and damaging quotes ? you would have thought that Gidwitz would have dumped the dump long before he decided to run for governor. But that would have been the easy way out, not to mention the politically smart thing to do.
Instead, Gidwitz, like Hull and Ryan before him, believes he can go his own way. Perhaps he’s hoping that his money will extricate himself from this mess. Money solves a lot of problems in this life, but as Hull and Ryan discovered last year, all the money in the world can’t buy an unknown candidate out of big-time media trouble.
Seriously, what should the pool look like on when Gidwitz drops out? Not that I have any prizes to give out other than bragging rights, but we need to get one going here, before he finds himself on the verge of tears about how politics isn’t accepting of such a simple millionaire.
We see the first attack on him by Pat Roberts and when Tim Russert asks Mehlman if he’ll respect the decision by the Special Prosecutor, Ken seems to have to find a lot of words to not say yes. Remember, Just Say Yes
Russert: You say you have tremendous confidence in Pat Fitzgerald.
Mehlman: I do.
Russert: If in fact he indicts White House officials, will you accept that indictment and not fight it?
Mehlman: Uh, first of all, I’m the chairman of the Republican National Committee. I’m not an attorney for anybody. Uh, the fact is, uh, I look forward to his getting to the bottom of this. I can’t speak for.
Russert: But, but if he indicts White House officials, will you pledge today because you have tremendous confidence in him that you will not criticize his decision?
Mehlman: Uh, again, I’m not going to speculate. I have tremendous confidence in him. I look to him to get to the bottom of this. Whatever he does, I can assure you people are going to follow and are going to look to abide by, but —
Podesta: Say yes
Mehlman: I think it would be inappropriate for me as the RNC chairman to say what legal strategy people may take in the future.
Russert: But if you have tremendous confidence in him, then you will accept and respect his decision?
Mehlman: I look forward to hearing what he has to say and I intend to respect what he has to say, but again I’m not going to speculate on what he might do.
For extra fun, check out Bob Schieffer making the point that, Presidents usually find it quite easy to get to the bottom of these things when they want to.
So, how about it Illinois Republicans? Care to speak up and back up Fitzgerald? Or was that only when he was convenient?
Everyone’s complaining about the Governor and stem cells so it seems that all those stories about power washing aren’t front and center.
The point? If anyone is curious as to why the Governor all of a sudden cared about embryonic stem cell research after letting Hynes and Cross hang out to dry for the session, it was a pretty effective means of changing the story to one where partisans complain about process and the average voter hears that stem cell research has been approved. Opponents sputter about the way it was done while he gets a campaign commercial. “When the politicians refused to fund life saving treatments, Rod Blagojevich changed the way business is done in Illinois and found the funds…”
I have concerns about the way he did this, but if you look at the political considerations, it’s damn obvious why he did it and it was a slick move. The Governor’s obvious problem is that he’s a little too slick and that can eventually catch up to you.
While I still think he’s in trouble, he’s a remarkably cagey politician. If his numbers stay low for too long, that becomes a problem because people’s perception is hardened around his problems, but a move like this is smart politics, if bad process.
But this one at Talking Points Memo is far more interesting
Four former CIA agents submitted a statement on Capitol Hill in October of 2003.
Clearly some in the Bush Administration do not understand the requirement to protect and shield national security assets. Based on published information we can only conclude that partisan politics by people in the Bush Administration overrode the moral and legal obligations to protect clandestine officers and security assets.
Beyond supporting Mrs. Wilson with our moral support and prayers we want to send a clear message to the political operatives responsible for this. You are a traitor and you are our enemy. You should lose your job and probably should go to jail for blowing the cover of a clandestine intelligence officer.
You have set a sickening precedent. You have warned all U.S. intelligence officers that you may be compromised if you are providing information the White House does not like. A precedent, as one colleague pointed out during our brief appearances, allows you to build out a case based on previous legal actions and court decisions. It’s a slippery slope if it lowers the bar.
Ambassador Wilson’s political affiliations are irrelevant. Political differences serve as the basis for the give and take of representative government. What is relevant is the damage caused by the exposure that Ambassador Wilson’s wife as a political act intended to undermine Wilson’s view.
It is shameful on one level that the White House uses the news media, its own leaks, and junior Congressmen from Georgia, among others, to levy attacks on Ambassador Wilson. Moreover they discount what he has to say, his value in the Niger investigation, and suggest his wife’s cover is of little value because she was “a low-level CIA employee”. If Wilson’s comments or analysis have no merit, why does the White House feel the need to launch such a coordinated attack? Why drag his wife into it?
Not only have the Bush Administration leakers damaged the career of our friend but they have put many other people potentially in harm’s way. If left unpunished this outing has lowered the bar for official behavior. Further, who in their right mind would ever agree to become a spy for the United States? If we won’t protect our own officers how can we reassure foreigners that we will safeguard them? Better human intelligence could prevent any number of terror incidents in the future, but we are unlikely to get foreign recruits to supply it if their safety cannot be somewhat assured. If more cases like Mrs. Wilson’s occur, assurances of CIA protection will mean nothing to potential spies
I guess this is what Ed Meese meant when he said the Adults are Back in Charge.
Cooper’s article is here. I believe you have to subscribe.
ArchPundit