Failing up: Lest anyone forget, Rep. Boehner was in the thick of things in the Foley scandal

The new House Minority Leader is a dramatic example of a failure of leadership and yet he was handily elected to the top party spot in the House of Representatives.

1. He knew about the ethical problems of Congressman Mark Foley and did the absolute least he could do about it, allowing the problem to continue and to metastasize (not to mention to continue to let Foley run loose).
   
2. In the #2 leadership position in the party, he presided over a massive electoral failure for his party.
3. This failure was at least in part due to his doing nothing about number 1 and standing by while corruption ran rampant in his party and its leadership.

#2 and #3 apply to a certain extent to re-elected House Minority Whip, Rep. Blunt. And yet they both get handily promoted/retained.

What is it with Republicans? Corruption, scandal, failure, all on broad, national scales and they get promoted? Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

Republicans back racist for leadership post

Well, the Grand Old Party returned to its roots, backing Mississippi Senator Trent Lott, an unreconstructed Southern Good Old Boy to help lead their party (okay, perhaps he's marginally reconstructed, he did appear on BET). You'd think the Republicans would run screaming from an issue that handed Senate control to the Democrats (see exhibits A & B, soon to be former Senators George Felix Allen and Conrad Burns). The United States is growing as a nation and it's growing away from the culture of racism, albeit much, much too slowly, but growing away nonetheless. Embracing a person as a leader who lauded that culture, who celebrated that culture, who was a fixture of that culture, well one can only hope that mistake comes back to haunt the 25 numbnuts who voted for him, including Presidential candidate, Senator John McCain.

Tommy Thompson criticizes Bush Administration

Tommy Thompson, former governor of Wisconsin, he who accomplished so little of note when he ran Health and Human Services for President Bush's first term other than revealing to terrorists possible weaknesses in our food supply, announced that he's considering running for President (that's another nice chuckle today -frankly, Stephen Colbert has a better chance of winning the Republican primary much less the Presidency.).

But in so doing, he joins the swelling ranks of Republicans openly critical of the President (Nor does Thompson score many points for political courage, waiting until the President was on the other side of the globe before leveling the criticism.

Now it's true, the criticism is ever so slightly veiled but it's just a thin gauzy transparent veil and the dagger that Thompson is slipping in the back of the President on his way out of town is quite sharp:

"I believe the top issues for the presidential election are going to be energy and health care, and I think I have some of the best ideas in the country on both of them," he said by phone from Iowa, which holds the traditional opening contest in the presidential nominating race.

....

"I'm in an enviable position because I'm an expert [SIC] in most of those fields and can articulate a vision for America that is lacking right now," Thompson said.

Another way, apparently, that 43 is going to come to grips with being like 41: apparently he too lacks "the vision thing". It's sad - he really never is going to escape his father's shadow except in failing so much more dramatically and on a much broader scale.

Things that unintentionally make us laugh - Bush and Cheney are "one mind"

Every once in while people (including us here at the never-read except for by spam comment machines and email trolling spiders Inquirer) commit things to paper/binary code that miss their intended mark.

Here, from an article referencing the Boston Globe's recent piece wondering whether Cheney's White House influence may wane as a consequence of the Republican electoral debacle and Bush's forthcoming search for a legacy, is one from the noise-o-sphere out on the fringes of the right wing:

And, what is with the "forgetting that the vice president was there to make it a foursome"? Since when has a Vice President been considered a separate political entity, one not directly tied to the President making them, in essence, one mind?

Um (after a merry chuckle or two) since never. The question has always been, whose mind (and presidency) is it really? And, seriously, if there is actually a mind to be shared between them, I think the evidence is in on who doesn't have it.

President Bush finally makes it to Vietnam in service of his country

Fulfilling a pledge to his nation that he made more than 30 years ago, President Bush flew a mission to and did some ground reconnaissance in Vietnam this week. This man's word is iron, is it not? Okay, perhaps, not so much.

A true servant of the nation and defender of the constitution

The Honorable Russell Feingold has sadly decided not to run for President of the United States in 2008. Of the people mentioned as possible (or declared) candidates for President, I think it's fairly straightforward to argue that Feingold would have made a much better President for the people of the United States than virtually any other currently declared candidate. However, his ability to win either the primaries or the general election as a little known Senator from Wisconsin, however populist he is. So, I applaud his decision to use his time to advance progressive policy and aggressive governmental oversight as a leading progressive voice in the majority party in the US Senate for the next two years Senator. His voice will be dearly missed in the campaign but his efforts in the Senate will hopefully help guide our nation to better tomorrows.

Hotline has won the 2008 presidential election for the Democrats

How, you may be asking, did Hotline seal the victory for the Democrats mere days after the 2006 election?

Easy. In writing up ActBlue's forthcoming electoral fundraising tool, they used Stephen Colbert as an example. Although probably already likely, this sealed the likelihood that there will be a Friends of Stephen Colbert or Colbert Nation candidacy.

Then, it will only take one or two mentions by you know who and this candidacy is going to get pushed to the top of the fundraising list. If he's anywhere in the running at any point (most likely early), the media will lap this story up like mother's milk and it will be difficult for Colbert to resist featuring it again. And then, if Colbert doesn't run (which seems likely), boom the DNC gets a huge cash infusion after the 2008 nominating convention. If he does run, there's a good chance he runs in persona as a Republican which would give the Republican party fits in terms of how to deal with him.

Don't think there's anyway this could have any impact on the 2008 elections? No? If you don't believe this, there's a bridge in Hungary I could sell you. Or perhaps a mascot? Or online encyclopedia? Or a baby eagle?

Best. Idea. Ever. Thanks Hotline!

Democrats represent many more Americans than do Republicans

The inestimable Brad DeLong and other left-wing heavyweights have been busy, busy, busy answering the question I immediately asked on the morning of November 8th - exactly how sweeping a victory had we just witnessed, however obscured it might have been by partisan gerrymandering of congressional districts and constitutionally provided disproportional advantages given to small states in the Senate. We'd already been subjected to weeks of expectations gaming by the execrable of the right-wing as they desperately tried to spin their way out of the coming catastrophe for their party by trying to suggest that anything less then the Democrats winning every single available seat should be interpreted as business as usual and a failure by the Democratic Party. To them we say, thpptht.

But I digress.

Using the results of the recent election as well as information on the population by state, we can calculate the number of people represented by Democratic versus Republican Senators, dividing the population evenly when the state has a mixed party representation in the Senate.

The results using the 2004 state populations are in the table below but here's the executive summary so those of us who are information-phobic.

In sum,
Population of states represented by two Democratic Senators:

121,008,816

Population of states represented by 1 Dem and 1 Repub:

94,138,765

Population of states represented by two Republican Senators:

77,954,300

Thus, Democratic Senators are charged to represent the interests of roughly 43 million more (give or take a million, depending on the year you use for the population figures) Americans.

43,054,516 more Americans - a difference that represents 14.66% of the total population of the U.S. in 2004.

Moreover, one might additionally note that in many of the states with a mixed party representation, particularly the larger ones (including Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Missouri, Minnesota, and Colorado) the Democratic Senator has been the more recent election of the two.

That, ladies and gentleman, is what one calls a majority party.

(For your perusal, here's the table of the results, where R = two Republicans, D = 2 Democrats, and M = 1 of each and the trailing columns are the running tallies as you go down the listfor your perusal).

State	Jul-05	Jul-04	Jul-03	Senators	Running R '04	Running D '04	Running M '04
Alabama	4,557,808	4,530,182	4,500,752	R	4530182	0	0
Alaska	663,661	655,435	648,818	R	5185617	0	0
Arizona	5,939,292	5,743,834	5,580,811	R	10929451	0	0
Arkansas	2,779,154	2,752,629	2,725,714	R	13682080	0	0
California	36,132,147	35,893,799	35,484,453	D	13682080	35893799	0
Colorado	4,665,177	4,601,403	4,550,688	M	13682080	35893799	4601403
Connecticut	3,510,297	3,503,604	3,483,372	D	13682080	39397403	4601403
DC	550,521	553,523	563,384	NA	13682080	39397403	4601403
Delaware	843,524	830,364	817,491	D	13682080	40227767	4601403
Florida	17,789,864	17,397,161	17,019,068	M	13682080	40227767	21998564
Georgia	9,072,576	8,829,383	8,684,715	R	22511463	40227767	21998564
Hawaii	1,275,194	1,262,840	1,257,608	D	22511463	41490607	21998564
Idaho	1,429,096	1,393,262	1,366,332	R	23904725	41490607	21998564
Illinois	12,763,371	12,713,634	12,653,544	D	23904725	54204241	21998564
Indiana	6,271,973	6,237,569	6,195,643	M	23904725	54204241	28236133
Iowa	2,966,334	2,954,451	2,944,062	M	23904725	54204241	31190584
Kansas	2,744,687	2,735,502	2,723,507	R	26640227	54204241	31190584
Kentucky	4,173,405	4,145,922	4,117,827	R	30786149	54204241	31190584
Louisiana	4,523,628	4,515,770	4,496,334	M	30786149	54204241	35706354
Maine	1,321,505	1,317,253	1,305,728	R	32103402	54204241	35706354
Maryland	5,600,388	5,558,058	5,508,909	D	32103402	59762299	35706354
Massachusetts	6,398,743	6,416,505	6,433,422	D	32103402	66178804	35706354
Michigan	10,120,860	10,112,620	10,079,985	D	32103402	76291424	35706354
Minnesota	5,132,799	5,100,958	5,059,375	M	32103402	76291424	40807312
Mississippi	2,921,088	2,902,966	2,881,281	R	35006368	76291424	40807312
Missouri	5,800,310	5,754,618	5,704,484	M	35006368	76291424	46561930
Montana	935,670	926,865	917,621	D	35006368	77218289	46561930
Nebraska	1,758,787	1,747,214	1,739,291	M	35006368	77218289	48309144
Nevada	2,414,807	2,334,771	2,241,154	M	35006368	77218289	50643915
New Hampshire	1,309,940	1,299,500	1,287,687	R	36305868	77218289	50643915
New Jersey	8,717,925	8,698,879	8,638,396	D	36305868	85917168	50643915
New Mexico	1,928,384	1,903,289	1,874,614	M	36305868	85917168	52547204
New York	19,254,630	19,227,088	19,190,115	D	36305868	105144256	52547204
North Carolina	8,683,242	8,541,221	8,407,248	R	44847089	105144256	52547204
North Dakota	636,677	634,366	633,837	D	44847089	105778622	52547204
Ohio	11,464,042	11,459,011	11,435,798	M	44847089	105778622	64006215
Oklahoma	3,547,884	3,523,553	3,511,532	R	48370642	105778622	64006215
Oregon	3,641,056	3,594,586	3,559,596	M	48370642	105778622	67600801
Pennsylvania	12,429,616	12,406,292	12,365,455	M	48370642	105778622	80007093
Rhode Island	1,076,189	1,080,632	1,076,164	D	48370642	106859254	80007093
South Carolina	4,255,083	4,198,068	4,147,152	R	52568710	106859254	80007093
South Dakota	775,933	770,883	764,309	M	52568710	106859254	80777976
Tennessee	5,962,959	5,900,962	5,841,748	M	52568710	106859254	86678938
Texas	22,859,968	22,490,022	22,118,509	R	75058732	106859254	86678938
Utah	2,469,585	2,389,039	2,351,467	R	77447771	106859254	86678938
Vermont	623,050	621,394	619,107	D	77447771	107480648	86678938
Virginia	7,567,465	7,459,827	7,386,330	M	77447771	107480648	94138765
Washington	6,287,759	6,203,788	6,131,445	D	77447771	113684436	94138765
West Virginia	1,816,856	1,815,354	1,810,354	D	77447771	115499790	94138765
Wisconsin	5,536,201	5,509,026	5,472,299	D	77447771	121008816	94138765
Wyoming	509,294	506,529	501,242	R	77954300	121008816	94138765
Total U.S.	296,410,404	293,655,404	290,809,777	Total	77954300	121008816	94138765
				Total	125023682.5	168078198.5	(splitting M)
					Difference	43054516
					Percentage	14.66%

And while we're on the topic of desperation....

The president, the administration, and the associated Republican cronies are a still very powerful but badly wounded vicious beast. I think Victor Hugo best captured what we're in for from this gang:

There exists, at the bottom of all abasement and misfortune, a last extreme which rebels and joins battle with the forces of law and respectability in a desperate struggle, waged partly by cunning and partly by violence, at once sick and ferocious, in which it attacks the prevailing social order with the pin-pricks of vice and the hammer-blows of crime.

We know what's coming, most likely accompanied by a deluge of pre-emptive pardons to boot. God help us all.

Bush demonstrating his commitment to bipartisanship

True to his word, Bush is ushering in a new era of bipartisanship in Washington.

He pledged to see if bipartisanship can be marshalled to meet the challenges facing our nation. And, by nominating Mr. Bolton yet again, he has demonstrated, with the able assistance of the Honorable Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, that bipartisanship can in fact bring Washington together to solve our nation's biggest challenges, such as our intransigent President's neoconservative agenda and the President's inability to change his beliefs or behavior one iota based on information, facts, or what the normal among us like to call "reality".

Seriously, though. Isn't this both the definition of insanity (doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results) and an act of desperation (recklessness arising from despair).

And, also seriously, props to Senator Chafee. He's late to the party of course - but he's standing up and doing right by our nation when he could just coast in to the sunset and collect his last few paychecks. He's also substantially helping the progressive cause (as he should given his positions on the issues) by, as a Republican, framing the election in the way he has. So kudos to him. We're _all_ better off with Whitehouse in the Senate because of what it means to the nation (something that Senator Chafee and his constituents agree with) but he remains an honorable Senator trying to do right by actually heeding the will of his constituents and the nation as a whole.

Fancy that.

Fantastic new republican bamboozle - Please re-elect us so we can stop harassing you

I think at this point it's crystal clear to most people that are paying attention that the Republican party is at the center of massive, deceptive, harassing, and in some cases illegal robocall election eve blitzkrieg.

But they're taking it a step further. The last, brilliant piece of this puzzle first appeared to my knowledge in a news item on the race between Heath Shuler and Charles Taylor(the Republican incumbent) in NC-11. Shuler has been one of the targets of these robocalls (though it’s not clear to me if they were of the unrelenting variety). Taylor executes a pretty breathtaking Triple Lindy of a bamboozle, while exuding “confidence” no less.

The money quote:

Both candidates in the state's most-watched race _ the 11th District matchup between Rep. Charles Taylor and Democratic challenger Heath Shuler _ took Sunday off from public events. Democrats hope that Shuler, a former college and NFL quarterback, can knock off Taylor as part of the party's efforts to win control of the House.

A confident Taylor issued a press release Sunday afternoon saying that if re-elected, he will seek legislation to prohibit the use of automated political phone calls. He co-sponsored a similar bill in 2005.

The so-called "robocalls" have been one tool used in a campaign that has featured weeks of nasty political ads on television.

Wow. There you have it. He's confident, in large part because he's got the NRCC robocalling against Shuler. Remember these are the robocalls that are win-win - either they turn off the voter to the attacked candidate because their name gets linked to an unrelenting torrent of calls or because the person at the other end listens to the entire hit job. Then, Taylor executes the third element and argues that he should be re-elected because he'll stop the calls. Don't forget - Taylor even used Direct Strategies to the tune of other 100 grand in the last election cycle. Quite a scam he's got going there - re-elect me and I promise I'll make it illegal for me to repeatedly harass you over the phone. Lather, rinse, and repeat every two years.

This was quite a site, and despite a largely complacent press, still took some chutzpah to try and pull off. But it turns out - it wasn't anything special - it turns out it's all part of the plan. Republicans now appear to be using the barrage of robocalls that they are responsible for as a last minute campaign issue - TPM Muckraker has another example from New York today.

Is it too much to ask that reporters connect the extra dot here? Could they actually maybe point out that Taylor and/or the Republican party has been behind these calls and benefiting tremendously from them. And simply and straightforwardly ask, how can we expect you to correct this problem when you are in large part complicit if not directly responsible for the problem. In fact, an enterprising reporter might go to a couple of extra dots and show how this is pretty much the way Republicans are playing this game everywhere. Deluge and harass their constituents with robocalls. Tsk-tsk or even emit strongly worded press releases condemning the calls, while both clearly disowning them and, sadly throwing up one’s rhetorical hands at being unable to do anything other than saying the equivalent of “Well, gollllllee, I wish there was something I could do to halp you Aunt Bea”. And then promise to if re-elected (notice they already could have done something about it - how about a question on that), fix the problem. Right - that will happen. Maybe if Olbermann follows up on the robocalls.

Of course, if the press (or the law) ever catches up with any of these crooks and their shenanigans, it’s really only a matter of time before we start seeing press releases saying that it was the alcohol that made them bombard us all with their robocalls, right?

An absurd backfire or an incredibly clever variant on the robocall?

After the robocalls got shut down in Indiana because of their violations of state law, the firm changed their strategy.

Instead, they had live callers with extremely heavy accents calling Indiana voters to attack Hayhurst as "bad on immigration". This got covered in the Fort Wayne Press. Later, it got picked up by the team over at Talking Points Memo in the midst of their outstanding work unraveling what is going on with the robocalls. Later this got covered by UPI, and then picked up by Will Bunch over at Attytood.

Both TPM (or at least guest poster DK) and Attytood noted the irony of these calls. Namely that the calls attacking Hayhurst as bad on immigration were using either immigrants or outsourced calls.

I think they missed something. The clue is in both pieces - according to the Republican incumbent in the District, only one thing could be easily understood - the name of the Democratic challenger in the district, Tom Hayhurst. Except of course, that's not quite right. Two things could be understood, the other one being that the caller was not "local"

So was that call ironic or "too rich"? I'd guess not - especially given the content of the calls - it's simply too coincidental - it's the real person equivalent of the other robocalls. For the average recipient, they managed to link Tom Hayhurst to 1) either outsourcing or illegal immigration 2) an annoying political call.

It's just too much of a coincidence to believe that somehow the call clearly mentions the Democratic candidate but the rest of the call won't be understood because of, dare I say, (dare, dare) exaggerated accents (Okay, let's be honest, I wouldn't be at all surprised if they have people literally faking the accents).- leading people to hang up or not know ultimately who is responsible for the call. Boom - it's the same double whammy as with the robocalls. If they don't understand the message, it strongly links the Democrat with support for illegal immigration and/or outsourcing of American jobs overseas since it seems like he is responsible for the call, not to mention with being annoyed with a call you can't understand. If people manage to understand the message, it's still a standard hit job on the Democrat.

In fact, the M.O. is so similar that it can't be a coincidence. That is, once the information comes out - the actual Republican candidate then suddenly comes forward and decries the tactic but, alas, (with much consternation and wringing of hands) can do nothing about it. It's only missing Mehlman prevaricating on Meet the Press about independent expenditures and how he's so helpless to do anything about it. (As an aside, I can't believe that Republicans are willing to vote for a bunch of folks that so often portray themselves as a bunch of weepy, ineffectual wilting violets in the face of wrong doing, immorality, and unethical behavior, and not just on this issue of course. Aren't these guys supposed to be the tough love, hard on crime, stand-up moral values crowd?)

Anyway, people have been looking at this as absurd or ironic or just desserts for the Republicans. I think it's more likely to be another piece of the master plan for Republicans this cycle and in this case, they just had to fall back on a slightly more expensive version.
--

Ballot order in St. Louis County could effect Missouri Senate race

The ballot order for every single race in St. Louis County, Missouri, including the lead race for Senate start with the Republican candidate. The effects on voting patterns of being first isn't huge, but it's also not zero and in as close a race as this one, it could be enough. (If you don't think it matters, ask why Joe Lieberman is making such a big deal in his ads of letting people know to remember to look all the way to the bottom).

The question of course is whether someone dropped the ball or whether someone fixed this ballot. As best as I could ascertain, people who file first in MO end up first on the ballot but all those who file on the same day are randomly assigned their position. So the question is did every single Democratic candidate drop the ball and fail to file right away or did someone fix the county ballot for the Republicans (perhaps inadvertently). (A third possibility could be that the order of the party is randomized once for the entire ballot but I couldn't find any thing to support that).

Keith Olbermann comes through on the Robocalls

I was hoping he might - he seemed like the best bet to do so on cable, and he came through as always - now if only some of the morning talking heads pick this up. The details are over at Crooks and Liars

Okay - one really last thought on Poole and McKinley and Direct Strategies

McKinley and Poole are super involved players in the Republican party, and thus heavily linked to they party structure there. The folks down there are pretty P.O.ed about robocalls already - how do you think they would react if they found out that it was the leadership of their statewide party that was not only making the calls but making a profit from doing so. Not too happy, I'd imagine.

One last thought on Direct Strategies

I just had a thought - I wonder whether Dutko Worldwide is going to be very happy when they find out there local reps down in Tallahassee have been out aggravating Democratic voters all over the country for chump change and how poorly that might reflect on/impact their multimillion dollar lobbying of the soon to be Democratic Congress. I hope some people start asking them right away. Perhaps some of the new leaders of the Democratic Congress might start asking Dutko what's going on and see if we can't get Will and Van some walking papers.

Dare to dream.

Making headway on Direct Strategies

I was able to find one piece of information on Direct Strategies at Manta.com (which according to their website is either the premium source for business information or your business intelligence authority, both claims somewaht dubious as they misspelled the address of Direct Strategies). But they yielded up an important clue - the President of Direct Strategies, William McKinley.

No, not that William McKinley.

So if not that William McKinley, than who?

For starters, a somewhat regular, though not big money Republican donor (via FEC.gov)

Let's see there's:
$500 to the detestable 2004 Mel Martinez Senate campaign.
$1000 in 2001 to Charles Bass (R, NH-02)
$1000 in 2000 to Clay Shaw (R, FL-22)
$750 in 1997 to Charles Crist (then a Republican candidate for Senate)
$1000 in 1999 to Bush's Presidential Campaign
$1000 in 1999 to Tom Gallagher (a Republican Senate Candidate)
$2000 in 2003 to Daniel Webster (!), another Republican Senate Candidate
(Incidentally, how does a guy named Daniel Webster not win a Senate seat-sheesh)

But the important information in the FEC database is not the link but the employer identified repeatedly as either Poole and McKinley or Poole, McKinley, & Blosser.

Ding, ding, ding - we have a winner folks. Who are these guys, you might be wondering?

Poole, McKinley, and Blosser was a very lucrative lobbying firm in Florida. Van. B Poole: failed U.S. Senate bid in 1982, Florida Republican Party chairman, 1989-1993, minor posts in campaigns and administrations of Ford, Reagan, and Bush I. Poole's wife was appointed to head Florida's PERC by Jeb Bush. More importantly, Poole was one of Bush's Rangers in 2004. James Blosser, the third player, raised over $100K for Bush in 2000 and was a Pioneer in 2004. (Incidentally, another player there, Justin Sayfie was also a Pioneer and does link these guys back to Greenberg Traurer, the other uber-lobbying firm right next door - see below).

When they split up in 2004, that left Poole and McKinley linking up with the Dutko group, forming Dutko, Poole, & McKinley, leading to a nice photo of McKinley. And now the information is rolling: McKinley is the former chief of staff of the Martinez administration, a former Executive Director of the Republican Party of Florida, and wait for it, a consultant to both the Republican Party of Florida and the National Republican Congressional Committee. Back to Van Poole, we also find a former Florida House and Senate member, and chairman of the Republican Party of Florida.

So we've got some probable principles now - where are the offices of Dutko, Poole, and Mckinley? How about that - they just so happen to be located in the exact same exact building as Direct Strategies.

Small world.

Interesting Direct Strategies 2004 cycle convergence with beneficiary of 2006 Conquest robocalls, Charles Taylor (R-NC)

Charles Taylor (R-NC), one of the people benefiting from the Conquest robocalls against Heath Shuler in NC, spent $111,386 on "phone banking" with Direct Strategies in the 2004 election cycle. Looks like they've been around the robocall block.

Robocalls and Election Theft II - Six degrees of Jack Abramoff

I'm working on collecting more information on the second robocalling firm mentioned below, Direct Strategies.

Best information so far suggests that they are located at 106 E College Ave # 1100 , Tallahassee , FL 32301. Their website is, of course, down.

Let's see what else we can find out. I'd say the first clue would be their neighbors - who happens to be coincidentally be right next door? It's the

Guess who's right next door - it's the Tallahassee office of Greenberg Traurig.

Ah, now that's intriguing. Yep - it's that Greenberg Traurig. The Greenberg Traurig:

That represented Bush in the 2000 Florida Recount
That hired Scalia's son on election day in 2000
That has defended Diebold Systems
That employed Jack Abramoff during the height of his Indian Casino scams.

Yes, they just coincidentally happen to right next door to one of the Robocall outfits trying to steal the election.

Robocalls and Election Theft

A lot of people, particularly those folks over at Talking Points Memo have done a great job documenting the atrocities. A lot of the effort has focused on the robocalls by Conquest Communications which have clearly been a problem.

However, problematic robocalls predate the ones by Conquest that are currently getting all the attention. Indeed, one of the first clear pieces on repeated, unrelenting robocalls appearing to come from a Democratic candidate came in a piece on the Congressional race in Idaho on October 13th.

Excerpts from that piece by Jill Kuraitis of New West Boise

A torrent of complaints is pouring into the Grant for Congress campaign about harassing, annoying, computer-generated telephone calls.

“It’s not us! We, too, have been getting them and find them just as annoying as everyone else,” said campaign spokesman Don Rosebrock.

The computer-generated calls (robocalls, in political parlance) began Thursday, Oct. 12, and are continuing, apparently, across the First District.

The Grant campaign believes two versions are being used, one that begins “When you go to the polls on Nov. 7 you’ll see the name ‘Larry Grant’ on the ballot. Let me tell you a little about Larry Grant….”

snip

Rosebrock said, “One person, who identified himself as a true blue Republican, complained to the campaign about receiving four of these annoying calls within an hour on Thursday evening."

It's clearly a very similar MO as the Conquest Communications robocalls. But FEC filings indicate that Conquest isn't involved in NRCC robocalling in Idaho - a different firm is: Direct Strategies.

Below is the information from the NRCC independent expenditure filings at the FEC for the period between October 1 and October 13th (the date of the article). The IE's aginst Grant in ID-01 are there, but the people at Direct Strategies were busy, busy, busy, also apparently hitting Arcuri in NY-24, Cranley in OH-01, Space in OH-18, Murphy in PA-08, Carney in PA-10, and Burner in WA-08.

To my knowledge, no one has commented on robocalls in these districts (other than ID-01) but given the timing of the independent expenditures (they perfectly overlap with the Conquest Communications surge in IE's) and the information from ID-01, one would have to bet that there are a whole lot more disaffected, robocalled voters in these districts.

I would also note that the pattern here is suggestive - this was the NRCC's defensive strategy in places where normally they'd win but they could get swamped in a massive Democratic wave. So, they set out to attack voters who might potentially go Democratic in what normally would be relatively red district, i.e., weak Democratic voters. It wouldn't take much to turn off new/weak Democratic voters, and with the deceptive robocalls they could do it for less than 10 cents a voter. This was their floodwall against the Democratic storm surge. We'll see tomorrow whether or not they were any better at protecting against political storms than they were against natural ones.

Anyway, here are the IE's

NRCC 10/13
23. Opposes Candidate: GRANT FOR CONGRESS
Office Sought: House of Representatives, Idaho District 01
Payee: DIRECT STRATEGIES
Date Expended = 10/13/2006 Amount Expended = $5592.36
Purpose: Phone Banks

24. Opposes Candidate: GRANT FOR CONGRESS
Office Sought: House of Representatives, Idaho District 01
Payee: DIRECT STRATEGIES
Date Expended = 10/13/2006 Amount Expended = $709.86
Purpose: Phone Banks

25. Opposes Candidate: ARCURI FOR CONGRESS
Office Sought: House of Representatives, New York District 24
Payee: DIRECT STRATEGIES
Date Expended = 10/13/2006 Amount Expended = $1354.74
Purpose: Phone Banks

26. Opposes Candidate: ARCURI FOR CONGRESS
Office Sought: House of Representatives, New York District 24
Payee: DIRECT STRATEGIES
Date Expended = 10/13/2006 Amount Expended = $5476.20
Purpose: Phone Banks

27. Opposes Candidate: CRANLEY FOR CONGRESS
Office Sought: House of Representatives, Ohio District 01
Payee: DIRECT STRATEGIES
Date Expended = 10/13/2006 Amount Expended = $2410.38
Purpose: Phone Banks

28. Opposes Candidate: CRANLEY FOR CONGRESS
Office Sought: House of Representatives, Ohio District 01
Payee: DIRECT STRATEGIES
Date Expended = 10/13/2006 Amount Expended = $1004.58
Purpose: Phone Banks

29. Opposes Candidate: CRANLEY FOR CONGRESS
Office Sought: House of Representatives, Ohio District 01
Payee: DIRECT STRATEGIES
Date Expended = 10/13/2006 Amount Expended = $4587.96
Purpose: Phone Banks

30. Opposes Candidate: ZACK SPACE FOR CONGRESS COMMITTEE
Office Sought: House of Representatives, Ohio District 18
Payee: DIRECT STRATEGIES
Date Expended = 10/13/2006 Amount Expended = $1428.00
Purpose: Phone Banks

31. Opposes Candidate: ZACK SPACE FOR CONGRESS COMMITTEE
Office Sought: House of Representatives, Ohio District 18
Payee: DIRECT STRATEGIES
Date Expended = 10/13/2006 Amount Expended = $4086.42
Purpose: Phone Banks

32. Opposes Candidate: PATRICK MURPHY FOR CONGRESS
Office Sought: House of Representatives, Pennsylvania District 08
Payee: DIRECT STRATEGIES
Date Expended = 10/13/2006 Amount Expended = $4659.36
Purpose: Phone Banks

33. Opposes Candidate: CARNEY FOR CONGRESS
Office Sought: House of Representatives, Pennsylvania District 10
Payee: DIRECT STRATEGIES
Date Expended = 10/13/2006 Amount Expended = $1281.72
Purpose: Phone Banks

34. Opposes Candidate: CARNEY FOR CONGRESS
Office Sought: House of Representatives, Pennsylvania District 10
Payee: DIRECT STRATEGIES
Date Expended = 10/13/2006 Amount Expended = $3976.02
Purpose: Phone Banks

NRCC 10/12

21. Opposes Candidate: CRANLEY FOR CONGRESS
Office Sought: House of Representatives, Ohio District 01
Payee: DIRECT STRATEGIES
Date Expended = 10/12/2006 Amount Expended = $4446.60
Purpose: Phone Banks

22. Opposes Candidate: ZACK SPACE FOR CONGRESS COMMITTEE
Office Sought: House of Representatives, Ohio District 18
Payee: DIRECT STRATEGIES
Date Expended = 10/12/2006 Amount Expended = $2341.32
Purpose: Phone Banks

23. Opposes Candidate: PATRICK MURPHY FOR CONGRESS
Office Sought: House of Representatives, Pennsylvania District 08
Payee: DIRECT STRATEGIES
Date Expended = 10/12/2006 Amount Expended = $2469.72
Purpose: Phone Banks

24. Opposes Candidate: CARNEY FOR CONGRESS
Office Sought: House of Representatives, Pennsylvania District 10
Payee: DIRECT STRATEGIES
Date Expended = 10/12/2006 Amount Expended = $2629.98
Purpose: Phone Banks

25. Opposes Candidate: DARCY BURNER FOR CONGRESS
Office Sought: House of Representatives, Washington District 08
Payee: DIRECT STRATEGIES
Date Expended = 10/12/2006 Amount Expended = $2419.20
Purpose: Phone Banks

NRCC 10/11
12. Opposes Candidate: CRANLEY FOR CONGRESS
Office Sought: House of Representatives, Ohio District 01
Payee: DIRECT STRATEGIES
Date Expended = 10/11/2006 Amount Expended = $4683.00
Purpose: Phone Banks

13. Opposes Candidate: CRANLEY FOR CONGRESS
Office Sought: House of Representatives, Ohio District 01
Payee: DIRECT STRATEGIES
Date Expended = 10/11/2006 Amount Expended = $1105.68
Purpose: Phone Banks

NRCC 10/10
12. Opposes Candidate: ZACK SPACE FOR CONGRESS COMMITTEE
Office Sought: House of Representatives, Ohio District 18
Payee: DIRECT STRATEGIES
Date Expended = 10/10/2006 Amount Expended = $4013.64
Purpose: Phone Banks

NRCC 10/9
19. Opposes Candidate: ZACK SPACE FOR CONGRESS COMMITTEE
Office Sought: House of Representatives, Ohio District 18
Payee: DIRECT STRATEGIES
Date Expended = 10/09/2006 Amount Expended = $1381.62
Purpose: Phone Banks

20. Opposes Candidate: ZACK SPACE FOR CONGRESS COMMITTEE
Office Sought: House of Representatives, Ohio District 18
Payee: DIRECT STRATEGIES
Date Expended = 10/09/2006 Amount Expended = $4096.14
Purpose: Phone Banks

21. Opposes Candidate: ZACK SPACE FOR CONGRESS COMMITTEE
Office Sought: House of Representatives, Ohio District 18
Payee: DIRECT STRATEGIES
Date Expended = 10/09/2006 Amount Expended = $4207.20
Purpose: Phone Banks

22. Opposes Candidate: ZACK SPACE FOR CONGRESS COMMITTEE
Office Sought: House of Representatives, Ohio District 18
Payee: DIRECT STRATEGIES
Date Expended = 10/09/2006 Amount Expended = $1389.54
Purpose: Phone Banks

23. Opposes Candidate: PATRICK MURPHY FOR CONGRESS
Office Sought: House of Representatives, Pennsylvania District 08
Payee: DIRECT STRATEGIES
Date Expended = 10/09/2006 Amount Expended = $995.10
Purpose: Phone Banks

24. Opposes Candidate: CARNEY FOR CONGRESS
Office Sought: House of Representatives, Pennsylvania District 10
Payee: DIRECT STRATEGIES
Date Expended = 10/09/2006 Amount Expended = $1232.28
Purpose: Phone Banks

25. Opposes Candidate: CARNEY FOR CONGRESS
Office Sought: House of Representatives, Pennsylvania District 10
Payee: DIRECT STRATEGIES
Date Expended = 10/09/2006 Amount Expended = $3966.60
Purpose: Phone Banks

26. Opposes Candidate: CARNEY FOR CONGRESS
Office Sought: House of Representatives, Pennsylvania District 10
Payee: DIRECT STRATEGIES
Date Expended = 10/09/2006 Amount Expended = $1309.56
Purpose: Phone Banks

27. Opposes Candidate: DARCY BURNER FOR CONGRESS
Office Sought: House of Representatives, Washington District 08
Payee: DIRECT STRATEGIES
Date Expended = 10/09/2006 Amount Expended = $6025.92
Purpose: Phone Banks

NRCC 10/6
15. Opposes Candidate: CRANLEY FOR CONGRESS
Office Sought: House of Representatives, Ohio District 01
Payee: DIRECT STRATEGIES
Date Expended = 10/06/2006 Amount Expended = $2412.66
Purpose: Phone Banks

16. Opposes Candidate: ZACK SPACE FOR CONGRESS COMMITTEE
Office Sought: House of Representatives, Ohio District 18
Payee: DIRECT STRATEGIES
Date Expended = 10/06/2006 Amount Expended = $2328.12
Purpose: Phone Banks

17. Opposes Candidate: CARNEY FOR CONGRESS
Office Sought: House of Representatives, Pennsylvania District 10
Payee: DIRECT STRATEGIES
Date Expended = 10/06/2006 Amount Expended = $2584.56
Purpose: Phone Banks

NRCC 10/5
2. Opposes Candidate: CRANLEY FOR CONGRESS
Office Sought: House of Representatives, Ohio District 01
Payee: DIRECT STRATEGIES
Date Expended = 10/05/2006 Amount Expended = $4694.46
Purpose: Phone Banks

Flip, Flip, Flop - Bush criticizes his policy on Strategic Petroleum Reserve policy - "Bad public policy", "risk to national security"

Whenever I read a news story about our current president changing his position (and it's so often your head spins), I'm always struck by the completely unprincipled positions he takes. He's going to do what he decides to do, on who knows what basis, to be honest, and then makes something up to justify it.

Just to document the latest atrocity, here's Bush on "deferring deposits" to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve today:

Bush said the nation's strategic petroleum reserve had enough fuel to guard against any major supply disruption over the next few months.

"So, by deferring deposits until the fall, we'll leave a little more oil on the market. Every little bit helps," he said.

Here's Bush in 2000, (behind the Times Select wall) critizing Clinton/Gore for using the SPR for "short-term political gain" - as opposed to just using it until the critical fall 2006 election to desperately clutch to power to avoid the beginning of the cascade of investigations, indictments, convictions, impeachments, and in all likelihood in either case, pardons. Here's a link to evote on the same topic in 2000. You'll note that Bush notable calls the behavior he's now engaging in as "bad public policy" and a risk to national security.

I think the Bush admininstration will be remembered as the Froggy Presidency. Who's Froggy? A character in a set of children's books whose movement is frequently onomotopeized (hmm - never used that as a verb - expressed using onomotopeia) as "Flop, flop, flop."

Bush, similarly, moves politically with Flip, Flip, and with every boneheaded policy he's ever implemented and ultimately his presidency, Flop.

President Bush reverses policy on providing commanders what they request

Today, in a public statement President Bush apparently finally put to rest a policy of providing military commanders with everything they requested to win the Global War on Terror and the War in Iraq.

Responding to the increasing calls by the upper echelons of the US Military arguing for the resignation and/or firing of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfield as an ongoing obstacle to progress in the war in Iraq , President Bush flatly refused, backing Rumsfield strongly.

Senior administration officials quickly denied that this reflected any substantive change in the longstanding administration policy with respect to supporting our military and satisfying all the requests of the leaders of our brave men and women on the front lines.

To which most astute Americans said, "Duh."

The Great Mistake (and the Curse of Paris)

This was a post I started in April regarding a feature on the San Francisco Earthquake that, well isn't quite topical anymore, but given the Curse of Paris and the catastrophe that is still unfolding in the Paris of the Ninth Century and the lingering aftermath in the Paris of the South is certainly still relevant.

.....
The promos running on Salon for “The Great Quake” make the series look quite compelling and I'd watch it had I the appropriate channel. However, it was the copy that goes with the show that, well, gave me pause.

Key excerpts:

One hundred years ago, San Francisco suddenly awoke to the destructive power of a 7.9-magnitude earthquake. It was the beginning of 74 hours that would see 26 aftershocks, one of the worst urban fires in American history and drastic measures to save the largest city on the Pacific coast. What's worse, the stunned people of San Francisco put their faith and trust in a corrupt mayor who had been more interested in lining his pockets than preparing the city for a disaster of this scale.

The Great Quake brings to life in high definition this epic story of heroic survival, the terror of catastrophe and political manipulation. Based on personal testimonies of survivors and drawing on present-day experts, The Great Quake depicts the calamity that tore San Francisco apart at the seams. This world premiere event transports viewers back 100 years to what was the largest and most influential city on the Pacific coast, often referred to as "The Paris of the West."

1) First, “Paris of the …” That phrase sounds familiar. That's right, the “ Paris of the South". Corrupt politicians? Check and check. Lining their pockets - hmm, check. Unprepared for catastrophe. Double, dog check. What's that about those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

2) Incidentally, it's, um, apparently not so great to be “the Paris of” someplace. See also, “Paris of the Antilles”, the “Paris of the East”, the “Paris of the Middle East”, the “Paris of the Orient” or the “Paris of the Midwest”. Most telling however is what has happened to “ Paris of the Ninth Century”. Seriously, I’d be packing up the moving trucks if I were Buenos Aires, Tromso, Kansas City, Shanghai, Bucharest, Asheville or Carrboro in North Carolina, or even Deep River, ONT (though I think there alternative nickname might provide some protection)

But back to the synopsis:

The Great Quake also details how the city was betrayed by its inept and corrupt mayor, Eugene Schmitz. Rushing to rebuild San Francisco and his tarnished image, Mayor Schmitz was seemingly driven by the fear that money and business would desert a withering city proven vulnerable to earthquakes.

A massive campaign of deceit was orchestrated to conceal the true nature of the tragedy. The Great Quake reveals how photographs were retouched to downplay the destruction caused by the quake. City officials referred to the event as the "Great Fire" rather than the "great earthquake." The official death toll was underestimated at less than 500, even though experts now state that the number of dead reached well into the thousands. And the deception continued even further. The lessons of that tragic April day in 1906 were deliberately and successfully buried.

Unfortunately, the lessons from the Great Quake of 1906 have not been fully learned. A significantly weaker earthquake struck the city in 1989, and many buildings fell as a result of some of the same construction flaws that were a factor in the 1906 devastation.

The Great Quake takes a close look at the lessons learned from these and other great catastrophes brought on by natural disasters. Is our government prepared to take an active role in preparing our cities for emergencies, or will the burden of survival again lie with the common person?

Betrayal by a public figure, campaign of deceit to conceal the full nature of the tragedy, rebuilding a tarnished image, failing to learn from and even concealing the lessons of the tragedy…. Plus ça change, plus la méme chose. The answers, tragically, to the final questions would probably depend on the current leadership. Let's see, who is president again? Ah, then the answers would be, "Sadly, No", and then almost certainly yes.