[Posted 04/08 04:21 PM]

The Washington Post’s Dan Froomkin wrote about Beltway Buzz in his column today. I’ve never wanted to make a big deal out of this, but I was the first blogger to attend a White House briefing.

Garrett Graff over at Media Bistro has received a lot of praise from liberal publications for being first. Frankly, I’m not interested in seeking attention from the mainstream media like some bloggers out there. But William Beutler over at the Washington Canard tipped Froomkin to the truth. And since getting to the truth behind conventional wisdom is sort of what Beltway Buzz is all about, I’ll go ahead and play shameless self-promoter for a day. Here’s Froomkin’s write-up:

First Blogger

It has come to my attention that Garrett M. Graff, the much-celebrated "first blogger in the White House," was, technically speaking, the "second blogger in the White House."

(This would make Eric Brewer, the blogger I wrote about in Tuesday's column, the "third blogger.")

Eric Pfeiffer, who writes the Beltway Buzz blog for National Review Online, blogged from the briefing room on March 1, (scroll down to "Notes from the Gaggle") almost a full week before Graff made it in.

Pfeiffer just didn't make a big deal out of it.

Nevertheless, there are some important distinctions to be made between Pfeiffer and Graff.

Pfeiffer, although primarily a blogger, works for an established media organization that has previously been credentialed by the White House. He also reports for the magazine and has previously written for other publications. On asking to get his day pass, he tells me, he identified himself as a National Review employee who blogs on the White House and Congress.

So you could say that letting him in wasn't exactly setting a new precedent for the White House press office.

By contrast, Graff, who writes the FishbowlDC blog, is employed by mediabistro.com, an independent Web site for media professionals. He is not an established journalist who could have gotten into the briefing room under any other auspices.

So while Pfeiffer was indeed the first blogger to blog from the White House briefing room, Graff can still claim credit for being the first blogger granted a day pass purely on his blogging credentials.

And that was the precedent that paved the way for other bloggers. Brewer, for instance, is a volunteer blogger who happens to be a scientist by profession.

Just to add to the confusion, the first person to have blogged a White House event, as far as I know, is neither Pfeiffer nor Graff. It's Rex Hammock. (See my Feb. 20, 2004 column.) He blogged a private meeting with Bush more than a year ago.

[Posted 04/08 03:21 PM]

The Miami Herald hits Bolton over allegations he pressured intelligence analysts into trumping up Cuba’s interest in biological weapons programs.

As I posted earlier today, Carl Ford testified in 2002 that intelligence experts cleared Bolton’s comments on Cuban BW interests, not the other way around.

As a general rule, but certainly post 9/11, one would think in terms of intelligence estimates on WMD’s, our government officials should air on the side of caution.

Even if the evidence on Castro’s BW interests is inconclusive at this point, he has publicly for decades wished harm upon American interests. Would the American public tolerate a lax attitude toward a fascist regime less than 100 miles from U.S. shores if that said regime were to hit us with a terrorist strike?

[Posted 04/08 02:38 PM]

A Senate staffer offers this possible preview of Monday’s Bolton hearings:

“It looks like Bolton is going to get through ok. He’ll get heckled by most of the Democrats, no surprise there. It’s going to be just like all the other confirmation hearings since the election. They are going to use this hearing as a way to attack the White House over Iraq.”

“Don’t look for Bolton to fire back aggressively. He knows he has to put on a good face to get Chafee’s vote.”

The question is which negative angle will the media take with this? Will they focus on Democrat’s criticizing over Iraq, or Bolton’s past critiques of the United Nations? Will either angle potentially hurt his chances with Chafee?

[Posted 04/08 11:46 AM]

Finally, Democrats have attempted to smear DeLay by accusing him of being too close to gaming interests. But Senate Minority Leader Reid truly takes the cake here. One last LAT excerpt:

“The Nevada Mining Assn. gave Reid a lifetime achievement award. Throughout his career, the senator has fought tenaciously against hard-rock-mining reforms opposed by the industry. And the American Gaming Assn. honored Reid as one of ‘America's Gaming Greats.’ Again, Reid has consistently represented the industry's positions, including opposition to a nationwide ban on college-sports betting.”

"’I've been proud to help educate America about the contributions gaming entertainment makes to Nevada and across the country,’ Reid said upon receiving the award.”

“One of Reid's relatives has represented each of those interests as a lawyer or lobbyist, according to lobbyist reports and court records.”

“Frank Fahrenkopf Jr., the president of the American Gaming Assn., understood the possible sensitivity involved in hiring a member of Reid's family. He said he called the senator before retaining his son-in-law, Barringer.”

"’I told him I was thinking of hiring Steve and asked if that was a problem for him. Sen. Reid said, 'If you need him, hire him,' Fahrenkopf said.”

[Posted 04/08 11:41 AM]

The Los Angeles Times correctly notes that numerous members of Congress have family members on the payroll. But Harry Reid truly leads by example. In the words of the LAT:

“Harry Reid is in a class by himself. One of his sons and his son-in-law lobby in Washington for companies, trade groups and municipalities seeking Reid's help in the Senate. A second son has lobbied in Nevada for some of those same interests, and a third has represented a couple of them as a litigator.”

“In the last four years alone, their firms have collected more than $2 million in lobbying fees from special interests that were represented by the kids and helped by the senator in Washington.”

“So pervasive are the ties among Reid, members of his family and Nevada's leading industries and institutions that it's difficult to find a significant field in which such a relationship does not exist.”

[Posted 04/08 11:37 AM]

As I mentioned earlier this week, the New York Times story attacking Tom DeLay for having family members on his payroll is outrageous. Paying family members to work on campaigns is not illegal and is a strategy used by more than a dozen members of both parties.

I also told Beltway Buzz readers that Harry Reid came under scrutiny a few years ago for his family payroll associations that far outweigh DeLay’s. Unlike Tom DeLay, Reid’s payroll had negative ethical implications.

Rush Limbaugh picked up on this yesterday and did a great job highlighting points from a 2002 Los Angeles Times article on Reid. Some of the highlights:

In 2002, Reid introduced a funding proposal without stating his family ties. As the LAT notes: “

The Howard Hughes Corp. alone paid $300,000 to the tiny Washington consulting firm of son-in-law Steven Barringer to push a provision allowing the company to acquire 998 acres of federal land ripe for development in the exploding Las Vegas metropolitan area.”

[Posted 04/08 11:25 AM]

Legal Affairs Senior Editor Nicholas Thompson writes in Slate today on the various ethical issues surrounding Tom DeLay. Thompson rates each DeLay-related “scandal” with both a “stench factor” and the level of potential “trouble” they could cause for DeLay.

For a left-leaning publication like Slate, Thompson’s article does make some respectable points in noting early that Democrats took many of the same foreign trips as DeLay that are under investigation.

On an ascending scale of 1-10, three of the five issues examined barely register as potential trouble for DeLay, scoring 2, 3 and 3 respectively. It’s the questions over TRMPAC and DeLay associations with Jack Abramoff that each scores an 8.

The odds that DeLay would be found guilty of any wrongdoing with TRMPAC or his associations with Abramoff are slim, and Thompson seems to mostly acknowledge this.

[Posted 04/08 09:43 AM]

Lincoln Chafee tells the Providence Journal (registration required) he will vote to confirm John Bolton as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, “unless some significant new anti-Bolton information surfaces during a Senate hearing next week.”

Although Chafee notes he has received several hundred phone calls protesting Bolton, this was an organized campaign paid for by a liberal activist group. Chafee also says that even if many in his state are opposed to Bolton’s personal politics, it is not Bolton who will dictate U.S. policy at the United Nations, “Ultimately, policy is going to be made at the White House and the State Department.”

Chafee noted he’s had positive conversations with Bolton and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice since Bolton’s nomination was announced.

[Posted 04/08 09:30 AM]

Carl Ford now claims Bolton warped intelligence on Cuba’s effort to obtain biological weapons. However, his 2002 testimony on the subject was quite different:

“There is substantial information about Cuba’s BW effort … We feel very confident about saying that they’re working and have been working on an effort that would give them a BW – limited BW offensive capability. And that’s serious enough to tell you about it.”

Democrat Senator Chris Dodd then asked Ford if he disagreed with portions of Bolton’s Heritage Speech. Dodd said, “Did you have any disagreements with the draft [Heritage] speech?” Ford answered, “On the intelligence side, we did not. We approved it. It was the language we had provided.”

Since this is Senate testimony, we can certainly hope Ford’s past comments will be brought to light when he testifies against Bolton next Tuesday before the Senate. He, not Bolton, seems to be the one with some explaining to do.

[Posted 04/08 09:25 AM]

Here are some highlights from Carl Frod’s Senate testimony in June, 2002. Ford previously served as Assistant Secretary for Intelligence and Research at the State Department.

On John Bolton’s 2002 Heritage Foundation speech, which came after Ford’s March 19th testiomny:

“When it came time for Mr. Bolton to give his speech a month or two later, he then took the same language that had been approved earlier by the community and stuck it into his Heritage speech. Both those were our words, the intelligence community’s words, not his”

Ford, who claims Bolton “intimidated” officials, had this to say in his ’02 testimony:

“Secretary Bolton invited the intelligence community to provide him with some words he could use in a speech on BW (biological weapons). He was very careful I think not to suggest words to the community for clearance. He asked them, what do you think? What do you say? So that they came up with the lines in the speech and presented those to INR to take back to Secretary Bolton for his use.”

[Posted 04/08 08:33 AM]

Former State Department official Carl Ford, who claims he was “intimidated” by John Bolton over intelligence matters, has a history that contradicts his claims. Two months prior to Botlon’s 2002 speech before the Heritage Foundation on WMD, Ford gave a nearly identical speech before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. What’s more, intelligence officials cleared Bolton’s “controversial” speech before he delivered it. It was far from a rogue operation.

The Senate heard from five officials who claimed Bolton pressured and/or intimidated officials into giving WMD intelligence estimates that matched up with administration claims heading into the war with Iraq. However, according to the Senate’s own investigation, none of these five officials provided a single piece of evidence that Bolton or any other official pressured or influenced those providing WMD intelligence estimates.

[Posted 04/08 08:25 AM]

After John Bolton’s Monday hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the State Department has agreed to allow four officials to appear before the SFRC who are Bolton critics. Two of the names have been released: Thomas Finger, chief of the intelligence bureau and Christian Wastermann, a former bureau official who claims Bolton unfairly fired him for disagreeing on intelligence issues.

The Senate has said Bolton may have the opportunity for a rebuttal after critical testimony, including that of Carl Ford.

[Posted 04/08 08:20 AM]

The New York Times notes Bill Nelson is the latest Democrat senator to announce a “hold” to block a Bush appointee, Stephen Johnson, who will head the EPA. Barbara Boxer had previously announced her plan to filibuster Johnson’s nomination as well.

Hillary Clinton and Patty Murray have announced plans to block Lester Crawford’s nomination for food and drug administrator.

And then there are the judicial nominations.

However, the NYT notes those in the conservative movement have a plans of their own, beyond the so-called “nuclear option” of ending judicial filibusters.

Americans for Tax Reform President Grover Norquist said, "If the Democrats want to change the rule to require 60 votes the Republicans will change the rule to require no votes."

President Bush has made recess appointments in the past, but to a limited degree. Now, it may be his most viable response to the filibuster.

[Posted 04/07 12:02 PM]

A GOP source tells me Lincoln Chafee’s office was not happy with yesterday’s Boston Globe story. “Though he’s already leaning in favor of it, the story yesterday made Chafee even more inclined to vote for Bolton.”

“The media is having a field day with this, but it’s just politics as usual. Chafee doesn’t want to give his tacit approval and get assaulted by liberal protest calls. He knows Bolton is going to sound a friendly tune in his testimony. This will take the heat off Chafee and make it easier for him to officially announce his support afterwards.”

[Posted 04/07 11:40 AM]

Dana Milbank skewers the testimony of Richard Perle and Wesley Clark before the Armed Services Committee yesterday. Milbank opens with Republican Walter Jones, a Republican from North Carolina who voted for the Iraq war but not criticizes pre-war intelligence. Milbank attempts to paint Perle as both the source for this blame and one who refuses to accept responsibility. However, midway through his column, Milbank acknowledges Perle’s comments on pre-war intelligence:

“The occupation of Iraq did much to vitiate the goodwill we earned. The grand ambition of the Coalition Provisional Authority was profoundly mistaken.”

I spoke with a Pentagon source that notes, “If the Washington Post wants Milbank writing stuff like this, they should give him a column, not call him a reporter.”

“It’s true that Democrats went after Perle while Republicans mostly laid-off Wesley Clark. But that’s because Clark is a politician now, he’s out of the loop on what’s happening in military intelligence.”

“How could Richard Perle not defend himself in front of the committee? Would it have been better if he just sat there and said nothing while partisans posing for the cameras attacked him?”

[Posted 04/07 10:24 AM]

The New York Times reports former State Department official Carl Ford will testify against the nomination of John Bolton as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations on Tuesday. Bolton is scheduled to testify on Monday, and Senate aides say he could return for a rebuttal after Ford. Ford claims that Bolton “intimidated” intelligence officials regarding claims against Iraq and Cuba. A State Department source told the Times that Ford’s claims are unfounded.

[Posted 04/07 09:35 AM]

Despite what the New York Times editorial board would have you believe, President Bush is in good company regarding his assessment of Social Security IOUs.

The Washington Post’s Jim VandeHei and Jonathan Weisman wrote in February:

"To redeem those bonds, the government will have three choices: Raise taxes, cut spending or borrow more money. Those are the same choices the government would face even if there were no trust fund.”

The AARP’s John Rother told the New York Times in March of last year:

“The trust fund’s importance is largely symbolic. It is a symbol of the insurance nature of the program and the social contract behind it. But it doesn’t really bind the Congress. No individual’s benefits are insured by it.”

In their story from March of last year, Gannett News Service wrote,

“The Social Security trust funds are an accounting mechanism. When the amount of money coming in to Social Security from payroll taxes exceeds the amount of money the program pays out in retirement and other benefits, the government spends the excess immediately on other programs."

And President Clinton’s 2001 fiscal budget stated:

“These [trust fund] balances are available to finance future benefit payments and other trust fund expenditures, but only in a bookkeeping sense. … They do not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits.”

[Posted 04/07 09:16 AM]

Reader Mike Cakora writes in on Social Security IOUs:

“The reality of the Social Security IOUs is that as the pressure on the rest of the budget grows, and as the baby boomers age and die off, taxpayers will pressure Congress to reduce the tax bite caused by the need to fund the SS IOUs and Medicare. Benefit cuts are more likely than increasing the qualifying age, although the latter will be necessary to some extent. This is the intergenerational war on the horizon about which few will speak. Who will have more votes, the old or the young? You can expect many to look upon the Schiavo case with fondness.”

[Posted 04/07 08:57 AM]

In the new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, President Bush has a 48 percent approval rating, with 46 percent disapproving. While that represents a two-point drop from February, it’s a marked improvement from the negative polls to emerge in the past two weeks. It’s another sign that things have stabilized for the president after weeks of negative press.

The percentage of those supporting an end to the filibuster has also risen to 40 percent, with 10 percent remaining undecided. As the number of undecided respondents declines, there has been a corresponding rise in the number who support ending judicial filibusters.

[Posted 04/07 08:41 AM]

The Schiavo memo controversy is finally over. Brian Darling, who served as legal counsel to Senator Mel Martinez admitted yesterday he was the author of the much-derided memo.

Darling offered his resignation to Martinez and it was accepted. Martinez was assured by his staff that they had nothing to do with the memo, so he was naturally surprised by Darling’s admission, “I never did an investigation, as such. I just took it for granted that we wouldn't be that stupid. It was never my intention to in any way politicize this issue."

There is a reason the Beltway Buzz mostly avoided this topic. As I mentioned in an earlier post, some bloggers falsely stated as “evidence” the fact that this memo was not written on official Senate letterhead. Anyone who’s seen memos of this nature knows that is common practice. And though we are regular critics of the Washington Post, Mike Allen is a solid reporter who tends to frame his stories fairly.

That said, Darling never would have come forward had the blogs not investigated. The media will be quick to illustrate this as a defeat for them. However, while this particular fight may not score political points for the conservative movement, it is another example of the growing power of blogs.

[Posted 04/07 08:25 AM]

The New York Times editorializes today that President Bush’s discussing of Social Security IOUs was, “casting aspersions on a basic obligation of the United States government” and “insulting and irresponsible.”

However, just yesterday, the Times wrote of the president’s take on the Social Security trust, “Mr. Bush was on solid ground when he said it was basically ‘just IOU's.’”

The Times erroneously compares the Social Security trust fund to foreign debt. They suggest Bush’s comments could lead to international strife if foreign governments don’t believe our IOUs have intrinsic value.

Their argument lacks merit. Bush didn’t argue the Social Security IOUs lacked value. His point, stated clearly, was that there was nothing to stop Congress from spending those IOUs on programs other than Social Security.

[Posted 04/06 01:12 PM]

President Bush issued the following statement today on the election of Jalal Talabani as Iraq’s next president:

“Iraq’s Transitional National Assembly took a momentous step forward in Iraq’s transition to democracy today, voting by an overwhelming majority to elect the Presidency Council of the Iraqi Transitional Government.”

“I congratulate Iraq’s next President, Jalal Talabani, and its next Deputy Presidents, Adil Abd al-Mahdi and Ghazi Ajil al-Yawer, on this historic occasion. These individuals will be formally sworn in tomorrow and will move quickly to name a Prime Minister who will work during the coming days to select a Council of Ministers. The new Iraqi government will then begin its important work of writing a new constitution, continuing to train Iraqi security forces, delivering basic services, and advancing Iraq’s transformation from dictatorship to democracy.”

“The Iraqi people have shown their commitment to democracy and we, in turn, are committed to Iraq. We look forward to working with this new government and we congratulate all Iraqis on this historic day.”

[Posted 04/06 12:39 PM]

The liberal interest group Campaign for America’s Future will take out a full-page ad in tomorrow’s Washington Times, attacking Tom DeLay. The ad negatively compares his to past conservative leaders including Eisenhower, Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. The ad reads as follows:

“Once upon a time, conservatives stood for honest government. Just read Barry Goldwater’s Conscience of a Conservative. Now, their chosen leader is the symbol of money corruption in Washington.”

“Conservatives once stood for limited government. Now, their chosen leader drags Congress into one family’s private tragedy. Conservatives once stood for family values. Now, their chosen leader does the bidding of gambling lobbyists. Conservatives once stood for common sacrifice in times of national emergency. Now, their chosen leader takes lavish junkets around the world, paid for by mysterious foreign interests.”

“Conservatives once challenged Beltway corruption. Now, even the Wall Street Journal editorialized that conservatives’ chosen leader’ smells just like thee Beltway itself.’ Tom DeLay is the man conservatives chose to be Majority Leader of the House of Representatives. They voted for him, even though three of his closest associates had been indicted by a grand jury for illegally raising political funds from corporations. They voted for him though he had been rebuked three times by the bipartisan House ethics committee: for giving inside access to campaign contributors, for coercing a lawmaker to vote the party line on the Medicare bill, and for improperly using a federal agency to track political opponents.”

“Now conservatives rally to his defense, saying he hasn’t been convicted of any crimes yet. Once, conservatives had higher standards for their leaders. Once upon a time...”

[Posted 04/06 11:45 AM]

House Speaker Dennis Hastert’s office released the following statement on his medical condition:

“Speaker Hastert was admitted to Bethesda Naval Hospital this morning to undergo a routine procedure to remove kidney stones. He is expected to make a quick recovery.”

[Posted 04/06 11:28 AM]

Last Saturday, former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell said his fellow Democrats’ use of the filibuster was “grounded in Senate tradition,” and that the GOP’s goal is to “silence the minority.”

Through the glory of Nexis, I’ve come across a 1994 CNN interview with Mitchell in which he sounded a different tune.

Mitchell, on the GOP’s use of filibusters: “I think that the previous restraint that senators had exercised with respect to the rules had vanished, and as a result, the rules are being abused in a way that obstructs and prevents action. That wasn't intended by the men who started this country and wrote the Constitution.“

When CNN’s Bob Franken asked Mitchell if the filibuster should remain, Mitchell responded:

“I think we should keep them, but we should limit the opportunities for their use much more than is now the case.“

Franken then asked, “But what is the purpose of a filibuster? What constructive purpose does it serve?”

Mitchell answered, “It can prevent precipitous action. It's intended to permit a longer time for consideration. Like all things in life that serve a useful purpose, it can be abused, and it was abused in this Congress. I hope the next Congress doesn't act in the same way.”

Finally, in direct contradiction to Mitchell’s defense of the Democrats’ filibuster, Mitchell said this back in ’94:

“Now, I don't want to be defending the filibuster and I don't want to be defending the obstructionist tactics that the Republicans used in this past Congress. But I think the appropriate course is to say that we retain those provisions which make the Senate the unique institution it is, but we reform them in a way that doesn't lend itself to abuse of those procedures.”

[Posted 04/06 10:57 AM]

As liberal groups struggle to fight Bolton’s nomination, their options are becoming increasingly limited. The comments from Senator Chafee’s office to the Beltway Buzz today indicate the Boston Globe took the senator out of context yesterday.

What’s more, Bolton’s opposition had one other hope for derailing his nomination, Chuck Hagel. Fortunately, Hagel already put out the following statement:

“I intend to support John Bolton’s nomination to be Ambassador to the United Nations. His experience and knowledge will serve him well as he represents America’s interests in the U.N. at a critically important time. Mr. Bolton’s commitment to consult with members of Congress on a regular basis will be essential in helping him strengthen the U.N. and moving it toward reform.”

“He has the confidence of the President and the Secretary of State and I believe he will be confirmed by the U.S. Senate.”

[Posted 04/06 10:44 AM]

This morning, I spoke with Senator Lincoln Chafee’s office about today’s Boston Globe story declaring Chafee was “leaning against” supporting John Bolton’s nomination as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.

Chafee’s office tells me, “The senator’s position has not changed. He’s waiting to hear what Mr. Bolton has to say at the hearing. He’s inclined to support the president’s nominees, but will wait to see what he has to say at the hearing.”

Chafee and Chuck Hagel have come under pressure from liberal groups who have taken out ads in their home states urging Bolton opponents to call the senators voicing their opposition.

While there have been a significant number of calls to Chafee’s office, they tell me:

“We pay attention to all of the calls that come in. That does not mean the senator’s constituents are overwhelmingly opposed to the nomination.”

[Posted 04/06 10:18 AM]

The Boston Globe reports that Lincoln Chafee’s office has received 500 phone calls in opposition to the nomination of John Bolton as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, “signaling that Chafee is leaning against supporting Bolton in a move that could derail the nomination.”

If all Democrats vote against Bolton in committee, as is expected, it would only take a single Republican vote to prevent Bolton’s nomination from reaching a floor vote. Chafee has repeatedly said he normally follows the lead of the White House in supporting their nominations. In his last confirmation vote, Chafee supported Bolton.

[Posted 04/06 09:38 AM]

David Frum has an excellent write-up on the NYT and WP coverage of DeLay this morning that is worth checking out.

[Posted 04/06 09:27 AM]

On March 2nd, the National Center for Public Policy Research put out a statement on the DeLay Moscow trip:

“The National Center for Public Policy Research sponsored and paid for educational trips to Russia and to Great Britain in 1997 and 2000 that included, at our invitation, Congressman Tom DeLay, Mrs. DeLay and Congressional staff members. We were then, and remain, honored that they chose to accept our invitation.”

“The National Center has sponsored trips by conservative leaders and allies to and from foreign nations since our first year of operation, 1982, and to and from Great Britain since 1985. This is consistent with our mission as an educational foundation that promotes a strong national defense while seeking to develop limited government solutions to public policy problems and communicate them to the American people.”

“Because our mission is not focused on legislation, most of the trips we have sponsored have not involved elected officials. For example, participants in a June 1997 educational trip we conducted to Russia, a trip very similar to the August 1997 trip Rep. DeLay participated in, included journalists and public policy analysts from non-profit groups.”

“The trips Rep. DeLay participated in had substantial public policy content. Reports that Rep. DeLay met with the Russian Prime Minister in Moscow and with Lady Thatcher in Britain (among other significant policy meetings) are correct. The National Center for Public Policy Research was careful to pay all the expenses associated with Congressman DeLay's trip. Reports to the contrary are incorrect.”

“The National Center for Public Policy Research is a non-profit institution organized under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. We do not have any affiliated 501(c)(4) organizations or 527s.”

[Posted 04/06 09:14 AM]

Yesterday, I reported President Bush’s remarks on Social Security IOU’s. Democrats want the public to believe money has already been set aside for future Social Security benefits, but that’s not the way it works. As the New York Times states today:

“Mr. Bush was on solid ground when he said it was basically "just IOU's.”

“The Social Security trust fund is an accounting device representing the billions of dollars in government bonds that were bought over the years as Social Security taxes have exceeded benefits. In the next decade, benefits will begin to exceed taxes, and the government is supposed to redeem the bonds in the trust fund to meet the cost of benefits.”

“But Social Security will then be competing with all other costs of the government from the military to farm subsidies, and there is nothing to stop Congress from reducing benefits so that fewer bonds need to be redeemed.”

[Posted 04/06 08:47 AM]

As we mentioned in our last post, the New York Times failed to mention two critical points in their story. First and foremost, the practice of paying family members to work on campaigns is not illegal. Several members of both parties do so.

Secondly, the Times may defend itself by pointing out that DeLay is a high-profile member of Congress deserving more attention. That’s their best defense, but it does not hold up. Harry Reid has done the same thing and receives zero mention in the story, as have House members Jesse Jackson Jr., Bart Stupak and Gene Taylor, all Democrats.

[Posted 04/06 08:37 AM]

The New York Times has its own DeLay piece, this one lacking whatever substance the Washington Post conveyed.

The Times devotes its piece to the fact that DeLay’s PAC paid his wife and daughter for services rendered on behalf of his re-election campaigns. The payments fall under the categories of “fund-raising fees,” and “campaign management.” Several paragraphs later, the NYT brings itself to mention DeLay’s daughter “has managed several of her father’s re-election campaigns for his House seat.”

The piece also mentions that this practice is not unusual in Congress, citing Barbara Boxer as example. Though the NYT paints a portrait of impropriety, nowhere in the piece does it cite any possible ethical or rule violations committed by DeLay’s actions.

[Posted 04/06 08:26 AM]

Another DeLay trip is coming under scrutiny by the press. The Washington Post reports that in 1997 DeLay and other individuals took a six-day trip to Moscow that was underwritten “by business interests lobbying in support of the Russian government.”

DeLay’s office reported the trip was sponsored by a Washington-based nonprofit. However, those involved in planning the trip say a “mysterious” company registered in the Bahamas that also paid for a $440,000 lobbying campaign covered expenses.

DeLay spokesman Dan Allen countered, “The trip was initiated by the National Center, and they were the ones who organized it, planned it and paid for it.”

[Posted 04/05 03:59 PM]

In a follow-up to reader Bryan’s email earlier, here are comments from President Bush today talking up Social Security reform. When it came to the so-called trust fund that anti-reformists often cite, the president noted:

“A lot of people in America think there is a trust -- that we take your money in payroll taxes and then we hold it for you and then when you retire, we give it back to you. But that's not the way it works. There is no trust 'fund' -- just IOUs that I saw firsthand.”

[Posted 04/05 03:18 PM]

Reader Bryan writes in to say:

“Something that I've thought about is this, as a first step towards Social Security reform the Republicans ought to pass a quick law mandating that the entire social security tax be shown of paycheck stubs, all 12.4% rather than hiding half of it.”

“This should produce unrest among the taxpayers especially the younger group who don't believe that they will ever recoup their investment. The employers should retain whatever tax benefits they receive now, if any but just exposing the full amount of the tax would be beneficial.”

“I'm sure that the Democrats wouldn't like this but they probably wouldn't be able to block it.”

It’s a good idea in general to have as much transparency on government spending. Like with the Social Security trust fund, members of both party’s in Congress use loopholes to disguise excessive spending. Something to think about with tax day around the corner.

[Posted 04/05 01:17 PM]

In the Associated Press report noting former presidents Bush and Clinton will travel with President Bush to attend the Pope’s funeral, they note:

“It wasn't immediately clear why former President Carter was not going along as well. [Scott] McClellan said the White House reached out to him but would not elaborate. A spokesman with his Carter Center in Atlanta, Jon Moore, also would not explain.”

[Posted 04/05 11:08 AM]

In an email to supporters, the DNC asks for email signatures to send “one million” petitions to the Senate tomorrow protesting a possible end to judicial filibusters. From the email:

“This fight is about more than any single issue. They want to throw out the rules and give themselves total control -- to remove all checks on their corporate pandering or ideological crusades.”

“And this fight isn't just about today's legislation -- with total control, the fringe GOP leadership will distort the federal judiciary for a generation by giving lifetime appointments to unqualified political hacks and hardcore ideologues.”

With those words, the DNC is aligning the Democratic Party against free markets and faith. Of course, those on the left will disagree. But this is not the language of those who respect either institution.

[Posted 04/05 10:10 AM]

The Club for Growth has begun an ad campaign targeting Senator Lindsey Graham for discussing the possibility of raising the cap on Social Security taxes as a possible route to reform. Fiscal conservatives have not been happy about Graham’s comments. Though Graham stressed it was just one option, it has contributed to media stories portraying the reform movement as fractured.

However, the AP reports that when he was a member of Congress, Club for Growth President Pay Toomey voted for a similar cap increase four years ago.

Toomey says the comparison is not fair: “I don't see any comparison. Social Security was nowhere near the front burner of any policy agenda."

[Posted 04/05 10:01 AM]

At 6pm today, the Senate will engage in a mock debate on Social Security reform. Dick Durbin and Debbie Stabenow will represent the Democrats, while Rick Santorum and Jim DeMint will debate on behalf of Republican and the pro-reform movement. The debate will air on C-Span and is expected to last about an hour.

[Posted 04/05 09:11 AM]

USA Today writes that with the House back in session today, the budget will be a top priority. Budget Committee Chair Jim Nussle will work for larger cuts in programs such as Medicaid, than the Senate budget, which all but eliminated savings from the budget.

While conservatives should applaud Nussle and others for sticking to the principles of fiscal disciplined they campaigned on, there could be cause for concern on the horizon. If Senate moderates refuse to endorse a budget that holds the line on spending, initiatives such as ANWR could be in jeopardy.

[Posted 04/05 08:51 AM]

The New York Times headlines an Associated Press write-up, “Bush: U.S. to Bear Burden of Iraq Costs.” However, the subject or even the word “Iraq” does not turn up until the story’s final paragraph.

The preceding 19 paragraphs concern new Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko’s visit to Washington yesterday. Yushchenko visited Ukrainians living in American and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, expressing his desire for greater financial and diplomatic ties to the West.

UPDATE: Probably can't take credit for this, but the Times has now changed their headline to "Bush Says He Supports Ukraine Joining NATO"

[Posted 04/05 08:26 AM]

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales will propose changes to the USA Patriot Act today that include secret warrants for financial documents, library data and other business records. The proposed changes would limit the use of such warrants to national security investigations and allow warrant suspects to legally challenge the searches.

[Posted 04/05 08:18 AM]

The Washington Post writes that Republican lawmakers return to work today to “confront a political landscape that is considerably more problematic” than the one they left behind for Easter recess.

The WP cites the Schiavo case, Social Security reform and judicial nominations as the leading examples. The question is can the Republican majorities govern in a way that stands true to their standards and those of the conservative base without alienating the same voters who put them in the majority?

A question the WP did not address is that if these same voters elected Republicans on conservative principles why are they suddenly in need of a values reevaluation?

[Posted 04/04 06:37 PM]

As further evidence of MoveOn’s inaccurate portrayal of Iraq’s liberation and young democracy, I recommend checking out StrategyPage.com. Here is an excerpt from their 3/30 entry on declining terrorist attacks in Iraq:

For most of March, enemy attacks have been running at less than half the level of the past few months. Attacks have not been this infrequent since last April. It is believed that the attacks are fewer because of poor morale among the attackers, and the loss of many leaders in terrorist and Sunni Arab gangs. The anti-government forces never really recovered from the beating they took in Fallujah last November. While most of the enemy leaders got out of Fallujah and set up shop in other Sunni Arab cities, the failed effort to stop the January 30th vote exposed many of the surviving terrorist groups to attack by Iraqi and coalition forces.”

More:

“The war isn’t over by any means. As terrorists and anti-government gangs fade, Iraqis have to deal with the always larger number of criminal gangs, and the long tradition of government corruption. In the West, we take ‘law and order’ for granted, but in Iraq, that sort of thing is seen as an impossible dream that is suddenly within reach.”

[Posted 04/04 05:08 PM]

The right of dissent is fundamental to freedom. But as the great Harlan Ellison is fond of saying, you are not entitled to your opinion – you are entitled to an informed opinion.

In their latest fundraising email to supporters MoveOn edges toward the line of American betrayal while leaving the facts behind.

Criticizing the administration’s request for an additional $82 billion in Iraq-Afghanistan/anti-terror funding, MoveOn points out that $600 million will go towards an Iraq embassy and “an absence of an exit strategy” that will “worse, not improve the situation in Iraq.”

The vast majority of Democrats have already signaled their support for the funding request. Even John Kerry indicates he will support the bill. Still, MoveOn writes:

“The situation continues to worsen. In February of this year there was an average of 70 attacks per day by insurgents. A year ago, the average number of attacks per day was 14. Similarly, the number of insurgents has more than tripled over the last year.”

All non-partisan indicators contradict MoveOn’s claims. Since the Iraqi elections, U.S. casualties have significantly dropped and support for insurgents evaporates as the Iraqis segue into sovereign power. For MoveOn to cash-in on the sacrifice of Iraq's heroes shows where their true intentions and desires lie.

[Posted 04/04 04:48 PM]

In a follow-up to my post earlier today, the blog “Non-fat latte liberal” takes up TNR’s line about saving the Democratic Party. Step number one: Stop with the politics of childishness:

“George Bush’s presidency is fundamentally flawed, sets some frightening precedents, scares the shi* out of me and, most importantly, is a success. Democrats (after '06, not now, of course) need to acknowledge this. Before '06 stop the whining. Schadenfreude gets us nowhere. Congratulate him on what he has done. He has taken the most significant step in a century toward Democracy in the Middle East, played a bold and lucky but perfectly correct card in the Israel-Palestine conflict by ignoring the roadblock to peace, Arafat. These alone are enough for him deserve his legacy.”

Of course, simply praising President Bush will not reverse the electoral slide Democrats have experienced in the past decade. Ideas and candidates who exemplify the qualities of leadership drive a party to success.

The Democrats had a charismatic leader in Bill Clinton, but they’ve been out of the ideas game for a long time.

[Posted 04/04 02:35 PM]

Some highlights from Dick Cheney’s interview with the New York Post:

First, Cheney says he “strongly disagreed” with Tom DeLay’s comment that there would be “retribution” for judges who blocked the restoration of Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube: “I don’t think that’s appropriate,” Cheney said.

Cheney refused to endorse Kofi Annan, signaling the administration thinks Annan should step down after numerous scandals, including the Iraqi oil-for-food scandal.

Cheney also gave a strong endorsement of John Bolton to serve as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. In the Post’s words, Cheney “all but invited Democrats to make his day by trying to block Bolton's Senate confirmation.”

[Posted 04/04 12:44 PM]

Reader Patrick writes in to say:

“Thanks for pointing out that comment by Ginny Brown-Waite. I'm not
familiar with her, but I'm sure she's a good decent Republican. But in a way, she epitomizes what's wrong with some of our Republican Representatives and Senators. They just won't take a stand on things on their own.”

For example, the President hasn't put forth a proposal yet, but he has practically begged Congress to put forth some ideas of their own. He has set some ground rules, one of which directly relates to what Brown-Waite has been hearing - that is, no benefits for seniors over 55 will be threatened or touched.”

It just seems that many Republicans read things like Klein's article and start running scared. But haven't we learned in the recent past that just because MSM say's it's so, doesn't mean it is so!”

[Posted 04/04 12:12 PM]

Just finished a conference call with Senators Rick Santorum and John Cornyn and Representative Adam Putnam. The RNC sponsored the call as a chance for the lawmakers to give feedback on their town hall meetings on Social Security during the congressional recess.

Rick Santorum said: “People are understanding it better. Some of this information is beginning to seep in. I am very, very encouraged by what I am seeing.”

Cornyn added: “Two things struck me in these town hall meetings – almost universal acknowledgement from young people that Social Security will not be there as it’s currently constructed. Seniors are relieved that Social Security will be there for them. The easiest thing is to ignore a problem. People don’t respect and shouldn’t those who don’t pursue results.”

Putnam: “ The people who attended my meetings were genuinely curious – a very genuine discussing amongst neighbors about what our options are. Some gave credit to the Congress and White House for taking on an issue instead of just looking for a band-aid to get us through the next election cycle.”

[Posted 04/04 11:02 AM]

In his analysis piece “Democrats Are Lost in the Shuffle While GOP Holds All the Cards” the Los Angeles Times’ Ron Brownstein writes:

“On almost every major question in Washington today, the choice isn't whether to move in a Republican or Democratic direction, but how far in a Republican direction to move.”

The obvious advantage for conservatives is having our agenda advanced, even if only in incremental stages. Though, as Brownstein points out, there are limits to government control. President Bush and Congress have seen their approval ratings drop recently as a public not nearly as unified as the respective political parties vents its frustrations on those elected to lead.

On the Democrat side, Brownstein argues the biggest problem facing the left may not simply be their lack of institutional power. It’s the lack of strong minds and coherent voices to develop and sell liberal ideas:

“It's like watching a baseball game where one team is always at bat, or a basketball game where one team always has the ball. The best Democrats can do is hold down the Republican score; the Democrats have found virtually no opportunities to advance their own ideas or to steer the discussion onto their strongest terrain.”

[Posted 04/04 10:50 AM]

The Boston Globe's Rick Klein writes this morning that “many Republican lawmakers are set to return to Washington more convinced than ever that President Bush's Social Security plan isn't ready for launch.”

The article cites Charles Grassley, Dennis Hastert, and Ginny Brown-Waite, all GOP lawmakers who have expressed reservations not such much about Social Security reform, but President Bush’s efforts to sell it.

Nearly the entire piece focuses on Brown-Waite, who does express some reservations about personal accounts. “The president has not done a great job in selling this plan. Seniors are petrified that their Social Security that they've come to depend on . . . will be impacted in some way.”

[Posted 04/04 09:54 AM]

As far as liberal publications go, the New Republic is the one that most often seems to “get it” as many NRO readers know. TNR editor-in-chief Martin Paretz writes in their new issue “Giving George W. Bush His Due On Democracy. The story leads with a similar anecdote to one I have often used in conversation:

“If George W. Bush were to discover a cure for cancer, his critics would denounce him for having done it unilaterally, without adequate consultation, with a crude disregard for the sensibilities of others.”

From there it gets better:

"The significant fact is that Bush's obsession with the democratization of the region is working. One does not have to admire a lot about George W. Bush to admire what he has so far wrought. One need only be a thoughtful American with an interest in proliferating liberalism around the world. And, if liberals are unwilling to proliferate liberalism, then conservatives will. Rarely has there been a sweeter irony.”

[Posted 04/04 08:54 AM]

Charles Rangel – who during last year’s presidential campaign repeated claimed President Bush had a secret plan to reinstate the draft – managed to lower his prestige recently.

While being interviewed by New York Public Television, Rangel was asked to give his immediate reaction to various people. The first was president Bush. Rangel’s response:

"Well, I really think that he shatters the myth of white supremacy once and for all; it shows that, in this great country, anybody can become president."

[Posted 04/04 08:33 AM]

U.S. News adds Russ Feingold, John Thune, Tim Pawlenty and Christine Whitman to their list of possible 2008 White House candidates:

“We've got more names to add to the growing list of 2008 presidential hopefuls. On the Democratic side, pen in Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin. Allies say his trip south last week was the first of many to red states where he hopes to push his progressive agenda. On the GOP side, add rookie South Dakota Sen. John Thune, who took down former Democratic leader Tom Daschle . Senior Republicans say he's being groomed for a veep or even presidential run. Include Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty . Insiders love his record of balancing the budget, boosting education, and protecting the environment. Finally: ousted Environmental Protection Agency chief Christie Whitman , the former moderate New Jersey guv.”

[Posted 04/04 08:27 AM]

Liberal columnist Joe Klein writes in the new issue of Time on Democrat attempts to filibuster judicial nominations:

“The fight may be winnable, but it is a culture of law cul-de-sac. The Democrats will be shutting down the Senate over a matter of process rather than substance, a pinhead of principle most civilians will find difficult to understand. The Armageddon of confirmation battles—over the next Supreme Court Justice—will probably follow soon after, and it may cement a public impression of the Democrats as a party obsessed with the legal processes that preserve the status quo on issues such as abortion, gay rights and extreme secularism—and little else. The political damage may be considerable.”

[Posted 04/04 08:19 AM]

The New York Times has a recap of the Social Security reform battle so far, including an interview with Charles Grassley. Grassley says he plans to bring a Social Security bill to committee in July, but said, “The president may not succeed in as clear-cut a manner as I might have hoped.”

[Posted 04/04 08:02 AM]

64 former high-ranking diplomats, including Caspar Weinberger and James Woolsey have sent a letter to Richard Lugar endorsing the nomination of John Bolton as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.

They are responding to a letter published last week by critics of Bolton’s nomination. Bolton’s diplomatic supporters say that criticism of his nomination is really just a thinly veiled attack on President Bush’s policies.