[Posted 04/15 03:28 PM]

While visiting Ohio today, President Bush met with state and local public employees who function outside of Social Security and have the option of investing in personal accounts.

Ninety seven percent of Ohio’s 1,000,000 public employees and five million nationwide, exist outside the current Social Security system and can invest in personal accounts.

[Posted 04/15 02:32 PM]

Almanac of American Politics Editor Charles Mahtesian has a great piece in the National Journal (subscription required). Mahtesian shows how congressional districts surrounding ground-zero of the World Trade Center took significant swings in President Bush’s favor between the 2000 and 2004 elections. From the article:

“According to congressional district-by-district data compiled recently by the political analysis firm Polidata for the 2006 Almanac of American Politics and The Cook Political Report, Bush posted many of his greatest gains in the unlikeliest of places: the blue-state heartland that once stood in the shadow of the World Trade Center, among those who live closest to Ground Zero.”

“The bottom line, of course, is that Democratic nominee John Kerry comfortably won Connecticut, New Jersey, and New York. But Kerry's winning margin in all three states was down from Gore's 2000 showing, and Bush improved on his 2000 percentage in every single congressional district in those places. Of the 17 districts nationwide that switched from Gore in 2000 to Bush in 2004, six were in New Jersey and New York. And of the 53 districts that experienced wide swings of 10 or more percentage points -- between the winner's margin of victory in 2000, versus the winner's margin of victory in 2004 -- a quarter were in Connecticut, New Jersey, and New York.”

Mahtesian notes other contributing factors may have included Kerry’s inability to stoke voter enthusiasm, the McGreevey scandal and Bush’s strong support for Israel.

[Posted 04/15 01:21 PM]

The Hotline (subscription required) has released its new polling data on Social Security reform. While the numbers are far from complete, they show the uphill battle President Bush faces in convincing even the mostly-reliable House to push forward his agenda on this issue.

Only 85 GOP House members would go on the record stating they support or lean-towards supporting personal accounts. 126 remain uncommitted. On the Democrat side, 190 have stated their opposition or lean towards opposing. Only 9 House Democrats remain uncommitted.

While the Hotline has done an incredibly impressive job in polling members, the data should not cause reform proponents to give up hope – but it is yet another sign for concern. Once there are concrete proposals being focused on, the House support is likely to increase noticeably. Is it time for both the White House and Congress to bite the bullet and settle on a concrete proposal?

[Posted 04/15 11:30 AM]

When media outlets like the New York Times attack Tom DeLay for paying members of his family to work on his re-election campaigns, that’s perfectly all right with liberals. But when the local media starts reporting on liberals’ own family ties, they don’t like it as much.

Earlier this week, the Bennington Banner, a local Vermont paper, reported that liberal House member Bernie Sanders has paid his wife and daughter more than $150,000 in the past few years. The paper got all of its statistics from the government Federal Elections Commission website.

Nonetheless, Sanders is calling their reporting a “lie” and threatening a media blackout over the reporting. However, Sanders’ own staff confirmed the numbers and has not attempted to refute the story. From the paper’s editorial:

“If Rep. Sanders believes the payments are on the up and up, a completely acceptable practice, he should come out and say so, instead of threatening not to speak with the media.”

[Posted 04/15 11:14 AM]

The Wall Street Journal notes that while the media takes shots at Tom DeLay for foreign travel, members of congress are increasingly taking advantage of a loophole that allows members to take unlimited trips paid for by trade associations and corporations, as opposed to lobbyists themselves.

Congressional rules only forbid members from taking trips paid for by lobbyists or foreign agents.

Last year, members took more than 1,900 corporate/trade association sponsored trips compared to 1,400 in 2000, at a cost of more than $3 million, a 50 percent increase over 2000.

[Posted 04/15 10:44 AM]

The AP follows along as Treasury Secretary John Snow travels the country, “like a harried tourist” to promote President Bush’s plan for Social Security reform.

[Posted 04/15 10:20 AM]

Tom Tancredo has told the Denver Post that it would not be the “worst idea” if Tom DeLay stepped down as House Majority Leader until the allegations against him are resolved.

Tancredo said he doesn’t think the allegations against DeLay “amount to much” but that he has handled the charges against him “stupidly.” Tancredo:

“I don't think we should try to oust him. Right now, I would not encourage him to leave. If he chose to resign as majority leader until these matters are resolved, that's probably not the worst idea.”

The Denver Post notes that although Tancredo is a conservative, he and DeLay are not considered allies.

[Posted 04/15 10:02 AM]

Adding to the less than positive Social Security reform news today, the AARP has released a poll of northeastern Ohio voters in an attempt to zing President Bush on the day he visits there to promote reform.

The AARP proudly declares that 58 percent of those Ohio voters are against private accounts. However, the AARP even admits in their press release that the language used exclusively focused on what benefits “they would lose” under the various proposals. If only less than 10 percent over 50 disapprove of a poll question framed in entirely negative language, that’s better news for reformists than the AARP would have you believe. Especially in a swing voter district.

[Posted 04/15 09:55 AM]

The Cleveland Plain Dealer says that when President Bush brings talk of Social Security reform to Kirkland, Ohio today he will be “preaching” not only to residents of Northeastern Ohio but also to fellow Republicans. Bush has yet to “convert” Ohio’s two Republican senators or House member Steve LaTourette into supporting Social Security reform.

George Voinovich said of personal accounts, “My initial reaction to that is I'm not real excited about it.”

Mike DeWine said, “I would have to look at how you're going to pay for it.”

And LaTourette added, "Off the top of my head it doesn't appeal to me.”

[Posted 04/15 09:42 AM]

White House economic adviser Alan Hubbard says President Bush is open to making a “major shift” in his Social Security proposal to allow for add-on accounts instead of personal accounts.

At a breakfast with reporters, Hubbard said, “We haven't ruled it out, we haven't ruled it in, but we're certainly willing to discuss it. It really comes down to what the proposal is.”

[Posted 04/15 09:21 AM]

Ambassador John Negroponte and Lt. Gen. Michael Hayden won committee approval yesterday and will now face a full floor vote to become the nation’s first Director and Deputy Director of National Intelligence.

While the vote took place in closed session, Oregon Democratic Senator Ron Wyden said he planned to vote against Negroponte.

The Washington Post also notes Hayden’s support for the Saxby Chambliss proposed DNI reform that I reported on earlier this week. The Post says the Chambliss bill would help counter efforts by the Pentagon to center intelligence-gathering power in what a senior official in one of the agencies called, “a poke in the eye of the DNI.”

[Posted 04/15 08:39 AM]

The Washington Post says it is “all but certain” that Bill Frist will seek a vote to end judicial filibusters in the next few weeks.

Non-partisan analyst Charlie Cook says, “I think Senator Frist has backed himself into a corner where I don't see how he can avoid pulling the nuclear trigger,”

[Posted 04/15 08:33 AM]

Rick Santorum issued the following statement on Chuck Schumer’s comments concerning Republicans and ending judicial filibusters:

“The Senate Majority believes in a fair and independent judiciary. The
Constitution demands it. The Constitution also outlines the duty of all
Senators to vote up-or-down on judicial nominations."

Of coursed, Schumer didn’t always take such an volatile attitude towards voting on judicial nominations. Especially when his party was in power at the White House.

In March 7th, 2000 congressional record, Schumer said:

"The basic issue of holding up judgeships is the issue before us, not the qualifications of judges, which we can always debate. The problem is it takes so long for us to debate those qualifications. It is an example of government not fulfilling its constitutional mandate because the President nominates, and we are charged with voting on the nominees.”

[Posted 04/15 07:57 AM]

As we edge closer to a possible end to filibusters on judicial nominations, two Republicans have split the difference. John McCain will not vote to end filibusters, while Thad Cochran has announced he will.

Cochran said, “There should be no question in anyone's mind about my intentions. I will work ... to end filibusters of judicial nominations in the Senate.”

McCain, who appeared on MSNBC’s Hardball last night, countered, “Look, we won't always be on the majority. I say to my conservative friends, some day there will be a liberal Democrat president and a liberal Democrat Congress."

"Do we want a bunch of liberal judges approved by the Senate of the United States with 51 votes if the Democrats are in the majority?”

[Posted 04/14 06:14 PM]

The Ankle Biting Pundits blog gives some "hands-on" attention to Dana Milbank's Chris Shays article today.

[Posted 04/14 05:03 PM]

At his Senate confirmation hearing today, General Michael Hayden, the nominee for Deputy DNI, said he liked the idea proposed by Senator Saxby Chambliss and Bill Nelson that I wrote about here.

The Chambliss/Nelson bill could streamline DNI intelligence gathering so that a single four-star commander would report to the DNI, rather than the 15 individual intelligence-related agencies.

Hayden said:

“To the degree that Defense can package up the tactical intelligence activities of the military departments and present them in a unified, integrated, coherent way to the DNI … would be a real virtue and something that would be very welcome.”

[Posted 04/14 04:15 PM]

The Atlantic Monthly has sent an internal announcement to its staff announcing that after more than 150 years they are closing their Boston offices.

The Atlantic has been gradually moving staff over to their Washington offices in the Watergate and are making the final transition over the next several months.

Another huge announcement is that Atlantic Managing Editor Cullen Murphy will be quitting the magazine as a result of the move. From the email:

“The hardest part within that hardest part is the decision by Cullen Murphy, The Atlantic’s managing editor, to step down from his position when the transition to D.C. is complete. Cullen has reached the conclusion that this is the right time for him to step down as he personally is unable to relocate to D.C., is convinced that one cannot manage a magazine like The Atlantic from long distance, and has other interests to pursue”

[Posted 04/14 03:50 PM]

Tom DeLay sat down for an interview with the Washington Times yesterday. In the interview, he accused Democrats of holding up the Ethics committee from meeting, so as to avoid his chance to be cleared on the record, “The only way I can be cleared is through the ethics committee, so they don't want one,”

DeLay notes that liberal House member Jim McDermott is also under investigation and would likely be removed from office if the Ethics committee convened. McDermott was found guilty of leaking illegally taped phone conversations to the New York Times of a Republican’s cell-phone conversations. DeLay said, “One of their best friends, [Rep.] Jim McDermott, is being investigated, and they don't want him to be kicked out of Congress I mean, this guy has been found guilty — guilty by a court of law — and they don't want an ethics committee.”

The entire interview is worth a read.

[Posted 04/14 11:18 AM]

Maybe this is all you need to know about Bolton’s nomination: the Saudis are against it.

[Posted 04/14 11:12 AM]

David Brooks has a pretty good column today endorsing Bolton’s nomination. Brooks acknowledges he doesn’t like Bolton’s “management style” and doesn’t think Bolton believes in using U.S. influence genocide or promote democracy.

However, Brooks does think Bolton will strongly and accurately represent U.S. interests at the United Nations. He notes most of Bolton’s critics are not actually against his record, but are advocates of the model of the United Nations as world governing body, and:

“John Bolton is just the guy to explain why this vaporous global-governance notion is a dangerous illusion, and that we Americans, like most other peoples, will never accept it.”

[Posted 04/14 11:05 AM]

The Washington Times also picked up on my reporting. Rowan Scarborough adds some details of his own, calling Ford’s office to no avail. However, the person who answered Ford’s phone described him as being a Democrat “a long time ago.”

This is all public information, so it would be a tad self-righteous of me to demand credit. But coming from two conservative journalists it would have been nice. Oh well. The important thing is the information is out there and the Democrats’ hope of tarnishing Bolton is fading.

[Posted 04/14 10:59 AM]

Bob Novak picks up on my reporting yesterday that Bolton critic and self-described “loyal Republican” Carl Ford started his Hill career working for Democrat John Glenn and in recent years donated campaign contributions to Democrats including John Kerry and Charles Rangel. From Novak:

“It is also doubtful most senators knew much about former Assistant Secretary of State Carl Ford when he testified against Bolton on Tuesday. Although he characterized himself as a faithful conservative Republican, former CIA analyst Ford worked for Democratic Sen. John Glenn for five years. Federal Election Commission filings indicate he contributed to both Democrats and Republicans, to both John Kerry and George W. Bush. Ford, as President Bush's appointee, was giving funds to Democrats Jane Harman, Charles Rangel and Daniel Inouye.”

[Posted 04/14 09:49 AM]

I have a new article up on the main site. It concerns the number of congressmen, including Democrats, who employ family members on their campaigns just like Tom DeLay. I also look at the slanted coverage of this issue, noting the practice is 100 percent legal, approved by the FEC and Congress. Please take a look when you have a chance.

[Posted 04/14 09:44 AM]

While the Washington Post, USA Today, Chicago Tribune and other media outlets perform admirable jobs of covering the DeLay press conference yesterday; the New York Times pulls off another hack job. As the cited examples I mention above indicate, journalists do not have to praise conservative leaders or issues to be considered objective by the Beltway Buzz. They simply need to be fair and accurate. Again, the Times fails.

They lead their coverage of DeLay’s press conference with the following passage:

“Deflecting all questions about his ethical conduct and political future, Representative Tom DeLay, the House majority leader, on Wednesday stepped up his crusade against judges,”

DeLay has not dodged questions concerning the expenditures of his foreign travels under question. DeLay and his spokesman Dan Allen answered questions for weeks. What DeLay understands however, is that the media will keep asking the same questions that have already been answered to give the story the appearance of being fresh. That is why he is now deferring comments until the Ethics committee convenes.

The Times finally gets around to acknowledging this – in their 19th paragraph of a 22 paragraph story.

[Posted 04/14 09:27 AM]

Several news outlets, including USA Today, the Washington Post and the Chicago Tribune take a fair look at Tom Delay’s press conference yesterday. All lead with DeLay’s apology over his self-described “inartful” comments about judges after Terri Schiavo’s death.

DeLay stressed that he favors an independent judiciary, but also noted he will not give up his efforts to combat activist judges, We've got jurisdiction over the courts. We set up the courts, and we can unset the courts. We have the power of the purse.”

DeLay also repeated his willingness to meet with the House Ethics committee to discuss questions surrounding his trips to foreign nations over the past decade.

[Posted 04/14 09:08 AM]

Perhaps growing tired of being rebuffed by his anti-Pentagon stories, Dana Milbank today tries to take a hit at Tom DeLay. He does so in a love-letter written to Chris Shays, the lone Republican to call for DeLay to step down.

In his piece entitled, “The loneliest Republican,” Milbank writes Shays received a cold reception on the Hill from fellow Republicans after his Sunday show comments accusing DeLay of hurting GOP chances to hold their House majority in the 2006 elections.

Though in fairness, Milbank does note of Shays’ motivations:

“It is not a new position for Shays, who was denied the chairmanship of the House Government Reform Committee because of his role championing campaign finance reform. His position as an outspoken centrist (he opposed President Bill Clinton's impeachment) has severed him from party leaders.”

In his interview with Milbank, even Shays can’t in good conscience accuse DeLay of breaking the law: “It's not that he may have broken the law, it's that he has continually pushed what is proper conduct to the very edge, and it's the accumulation of this.”

[Posted 04/14 08:20 AM]

The San Francisco Chronicle today runs its own list of congressional members who have relatives on their campaign payrolls. Like the Los Angeles Times link below, the Chronicle leads with DeLay. That shouldn’t be surprising and it makes sense since the bias reporting of the New York Times provided the catalyst for this story.

However, in their mostly bipartisan list, the Chronicle for whatever reason chooses to exclude the nearly $150,000 paid by home state Senator Barbara Boxer to her son’s consulting firm over the past few years. Over 10 of California’s 53-member, mostly Democratic House delegation have family members on their payroll.

[Posted 04/14 08:04 AM]

After over a week of reporting from the Beltway Buzz, mainstream media outlets are finally getting the word out that dozens of other congressional members besides Tom DeLay pay relatives to work on their campaigns.

[Posted 04/13 05:44 PM]

Carl Ford, the self-described “loyal, conservative Republican to the core” got his start on the Hill working for, yes, a Democrat. From yesterday’s testimony:

“I've been fortunate to work for some very fine, fine leaders. Vice-President Cheney, Secretary Powell, John Glenn -- all of these people were examples to me of how you go about running an organization; how to be a leader.”

More from Ford, on his history with Glenn:

“I worked as an analyst for quite a number of years at DIA and CIA. And then was invited to take part in what was called a Congressional Fellowship Program, and I came down as a CIA officer to work on the Hill for a year. I was supposed to spend six months on the Senate side and six months on the House side. And I got hooked up with Senator John Glenn of Ohio, who was the chairman of the Subcommittee on East Asia Affairs, at the time. And those of you who know Senator Glenn, he has a strong mind of his own, and he decided that I would not go on to the House. And so I spent a year working on his personal staff. Senator Glenn had gone out and saw the director to make sure that happened. And then he convinced me to work full- time on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. So I spent five years on the staff of the Foreign Relations Committee. And in fact, when I started, as many of you will remember, it was -- there was not a Democratic and a Republican staff, there was one staff. And I think that that -- those days are gone, but that was a -- that's a pleasant memory I have.”

[Posted 04/13 04:22 PM]

Self-professed “loyal, conservative Republican to the core” Carl Ford has not always put his money where his mouth is. Over the past five years, Ford donated more than $3,000 to a number of prominent Democrats including John Kerry and Charles Rangel, according to OpenSecrets.org.

Ford has also donated to a number of Republicans, including President Bush. The Democrat donations include:

$1,000 Charles Rangel 8/12/04

$500, Daniel Inouye, 2/18/04

$1,000 Jane Harman, 12/8/03

$250 Jane Harman, 3/7/2000

$500 John Kerry, 11/9/99

[Posted 04/13 03:23 PM]

Bill Kristol has issued a memo on John Bolton’s detractors that reads in part:

“The assault on John Bolton—a collaborative effort of Senate Democrats, the liberal media, and some quasi-Republicans resentful of his success—has now degenerated from an earnest (if misguided) critique of his views to a pathetic attempt at character assassination.”

“I worked with John Bolton in the first Bush administration. I know many people who have worked with him and for him in this administration. Carl Ford’s characterization of Bolton as a ‘kiss-up, kick-down sort of guy’ is disingenuous. No, let’s call a spade a spade—it’s dishonest.”

“John Bolton is no ‘kiss-up.’ Quite the contrary. Over the last four years, he was famously willing to challenge his bosses, Secretary of State Colin Powell and Deputy Secretary Richard Armitage, at the daily 8:30 State Department senior staff meeting. He paid a price for this, especially by earning the enmity of Armitage. Carl Ford, the former State Department intelligence chief, was a close associate of Armitage.”

[Posted 04/13 02:59 PM]

Did the AFL-CIO and Campaign for America’s Future (CAF) break the law?

The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation today filed a request with the Labor Dept. asking for an investigation into AFL-CIO International Affairs Director Barbara Shailor. Allegedly, Shailor never filed legally required paperwork disclosing the group’s financial contributions to CAF. What’s more, CAF was founded and is led by her husband, Robert Borosage. CAF has received at least $130,000 in funds from the AFL-CIO.

Aside from possible criminal prosecution of Shailor and Borosage, the alleged disclosure failure leaves a substantial mark on the reputation of CAF, a group that has recently taken out paid ads accusing Tom DeLay of corruption.

[Posted 04/13 12:01 PM]

Add Barbara Boxer to the list of congressional members who have families on the payroll. In 2002, Boxer paid her son $150,000 for professional services, more than any DeLay family member earned in a single year.

A bit of clarification on the numbers reported as DeLay family payments. In every story on this subject you will see the number $500,000 thrown out. It’s true that’s the total amount paid to DeLay’s wife and daughter over that period. However, that is a full-decade, covering five House election cycles, equating to $50,000 per year. That is far less than what your average paid political consultant would earn for such work. If anything, it shows that when it comes to paying families for political work, most members of congress are nothing if not thrifty.

UPDATE: Stupid mistake on my part. The payments were over five years, but split between DeLay's wife and daughter equal roughly $50,000 per year.

[Posted 04/13 11:52 AM]

The Bennington Banner, a local Vermont paper, notes House liberal Bernie Sanders has kept his family on the payroll for years.

Sanders used campaign donations to pay his wife and stepdaughter more than $150,000 since 2000, according to the FEC.

Beltway Buzz has been telling you about members of Congress who have their families on the payroll for weeks now, and we will continue to do so until the media backs off DeLay. There is nothing wrong with the member's actions, just in how the media has singled out and twisted its coverage of DeLay

[Posted 04/13 11:26 AM]

The Free Enterprise Fund has issued a new memo asserting it is time for House Republicans to take the lead on Social Security reform. FEF warns that failure to do so will give a political advantage to Democrats who could pick up both House and Senate seats in 2006. From the memo:

“We believe that the Republicans will be jolted out of their slump only if conservatives in the House assert control over the economic agenda in a more aggressive fashion. For example, on Social Security, House Republicans must take tax hikes off the table by announcing that no bill with higher payroll taxes on the middle class will be reported out of conference. Higher taxes are a deal breaker on Social Security. Period.”

“The conservatives, led by emerging stars like Mike Pence of Indiana and Jeff Flake of Arizona should do this by embracing the Ryan/Sununu bill as THE Republican plan. This plan has large accounts (6.4 percent of payroll) and does not require tax hikes or cuts in future benefits. But it does solve the long term solvency problem by replacing future Social Security payments with the higher retirement benefits that workers would receive from the personal accounts. The administration got its wires crossed when it declared that personal retirement accounts don’t solve the financial problems of Social Security.”

[Posted 04/13 11:19 AM]

Factcheck.org takes down the Democrat’s so-called Social Security calculator. Asking, “How much will you lose under Bush privatization plan?” the calculator projects cuts up to 50 percent for low-wage workers. Democrats have also taken out a $1 million dollar ad campaign promoting their claims saying, “Look below the surface and you’ll find benefit checks cut almost in half.”

However, Factcheck states:

“In fact, the calculator is rigged. We find it is based on a number of false assumptions and deceptive comparisons. For one thing, it assumes that stocks will yield average returns of only 3 percent per year above inflation. The historical average is close to 7 percent.”

“The calculator's authors claim that they use the same assumption used by the Congressional Budget Office. Actually, CBO projects a 6.8 percent gain.”

You can read their full analysis here.

[Posted 04/13 09:42 AM]

Are the Democratic filibusters coming to an end? That’s the indication from today’s story in The Hill.

Democrat Senator Ben Nelson is pursuing a deal with Trent Lott that would allow for floor votes on controversial judicial nominees after an allotted time for debate. The proposal would create a permanent Senate rules change.

While The Hill notes Harry Reid would certainly be against the proposal, there may be enough moderate Democrats from red states to push it through.

Nelson and a number of centrist Democrats have also indicated that should Harry Reid attempt a Senate shut down in response, enough Democrats would not go along, thus preventing its effectiveness. As Kent Conrad said, “That’s not going to happen, the Senate can’t be shut down.”

South Dakota Senator Tim Johnson added, “Clearly I don’t want to see complete gridlock in the Senate.”

[Posted 04/13 09:20 AM]

The Wall Street Journal (subscription required) takes a deeper look at the DeLay 1997 trip to Moscow sponsored by the National Center for Public Policy Research. The WSJ notes the trip itself does not represent an ethical problem for DeLay or any of the other trip participants.

However, the WSJ explains a lingering ambiguity that could potentially be worrisome. Controversial lobbyist Jack Abramoff traveled with DeLay on the trip. He also made financial contributions to the National Center shortly before the National Center paid for the Moscow trip. None of this is illegal. However, were it shown that Abramoff made his donation specifically to pay for the DeLay trip and DeLay knew about this, that would be a violation of House rules.

Despite what many liberal readers believe, I will do my best to report fairly on questions such as this. However, it’s equally worth noting that while the media has already tried and convicted DeLay, questions such as this still lack any substantial evidence and remain far from conclusive.

[Posted 04/13 08:30 AM]

In the past four years, there have been more than 4,800 private trips taken by congressional members, at a cost of approximately $14.4 million dollars. In that span, Democrats took approximately 600 more trips than Republicans.

The Aspen Institute is the top provider of such trips for Democrats, spending $2.7 million on 490 trips. Despite being the minority party, 69.2 percent was spent on Democrats and only 30 percent on Republicans.

Perhaps Tom DeLay was rightly criticized for golfing with associates while on one of his trips. Well, it should then be noted that many of the Aspen Institute funded trips Democrats accepted included taxing locales such as Rome, Barcelona, Honolulu, Puerto Vallarta and the Bahamas.

[Posted 04/13 08:20 AM]

It’s tempting to allow the stories accusing Tom DeLay of taking illegal foreign trips to fade away with the passing news cycle. I’ve already illustrated several times the bi-partisan nature of such trips. If a congressional rule was violated in the reporting of trip expenditures it is a technicality and one that would mark dozens of House and Senate members, including Nancy Pelosi.

But we know the rest of the media and DeLay critics are not going to let this go, so we have to stay on the ball as well.

In the meantime, it’s worth noting DeLay has already provided expenditure reports concerning all trips under question. In addition, DeLay has instructed his staff to contact the Chairman and Ranking member of the House Ethics Committee and sent letters to them saying he is happy to discuss the trips.

[Posted 04/13 08:08 AM]

Earlier this week, Democracy for America sent a letter to supporters blasting Tom DeLay for having his wife and daughter on his campaign re-election payroll.

Before it was Democracy for America, the organization was Dean for America, created by DNC Chair Howard Dean to support his now-failed presidential bid. What DFA's letter failed to mention is that Democracy for America is now run by – Dean’s younger brother, Jim. In the 2004 cycle, he was paid $22,177 By Dean For America and $6,009 by Democracy For America, according to the non-partisan Political Money Line website. Up to date dollar numbers for 2005 are not currently available.

This is not to say Dean’s employment of his brother is unethical in any way. However, for the Dean family to criticize Tom DeLay for employing his family members in strict accordance with congressional rules is both intellectually and morally dishonest.

[Posted 04/12 05:03 PM]

Connecticut GOP House member Rob Simmons often disagrees with Tom DeLay. In fact, much like his fellow state Republican Chris Shays, he sometimes even brags about it. At the same time, Simmons seems to have a better ethical barometer than Shays when it comes to DeLay’s standing as House Majority Leader.

Simmons issued a press release noting the many policy differences he has with DeLay, including the Terri Schiavo case, the environment, Medicare and labor issues. Simmons represents a predominantly Democratic district. However, concerning Shays’ comments that DeLay should step down, Simmons responded:

“Until the House ethics committee decides against him or he admits wrong-doing, I will not call for Tom DeLay’s resignation solely on partisan or personal grounds.”

[Posted 04/12 02:46 PM]

In their Associated Press write-up, the New York Times headlines, “DeLay draw fire from fellow Republicans.”

The AP story cites the comments from Chris Shays and Rick Santorum that we’ve already mentioned. I just addressed Santorum, so I’ll leave that alone.

In my article yesterday, I touched on the relevance, or lack thereof, of Shays suggesting DeLay should step down as House Majority Leader.

While I was appearing on Fox News yesterday with Jim Warren of the Chicago Tribune, Warren was asked about the impact of Shays’ comments. Warren noted, “Chris Shays is like a committee of one.” Couldn’t have said it better myself.

[Posted 04/12 02:36 PM]

The Washington Post’s John Harris thinks his way through an exploration of Washington scandals and how figures choose to combat them. The conventional wisdom is for a politician to “get in front” of a scandal and display cooperation with authorities. It’s something Richard Nixon failed to do and Harris argues Nixon could have saved his presidency had he acted in a more transparent manner.

However, Harris notes that recently many public figures have found success through evasive maneuvers. He cites Sandy Berger as the most recent example of someone who consciously lied to the public and authorities and nonetheless received a mild punishment when found guilty. Harris seems to argue Berger’s evasiveness may have helped him receive his lenient sentence.

Unfortunately, Harris slips when throwing Tom DeLay into the mix. While it’s undeniable DeLay is experiencing something of a media crisis, he has not been charged or convinced of any wrongdoing in the way Nixon and Berger were. Isn’t Harris jumping the gun a little here?

[Posted 04/12 02:23 PM]

In an otherwise fair assessment of Tom DeLay, USA Today makes a mistake virtually all mainstream media outlets have fallen prey to these past two days.

On ABC’s “This Week,” Rick Santorum said DeLay must answer ethics allegations made against him by the media and partisans. The media has taken Santorum’s comment to mean he is now critical of DeLay’s leadership. However, looking at the full quote given by Santorum shows he was simply advising DeLay on the best way to alleviate the negative coverage. Here’s the full quote:

“I think he has to come forward and lay out what he did and why he did it and let the people then judge for themselves, but from everything I’ve heard, again, from the comments and responding to those, is everything he’s done was according to the law.”

“When you have a leader of Tom DeLay's passion and Tom DeLay's effectiveness, you have a media that's very much going after him and tracking him and dogging him and trying to find what they can about him.”

[Posted 04/12 11:25 AM]

As expected, Democrat senators are hitting Negroponte hard over documented human rights abuses in Honduras during his time as ambassador there. Negroponte has not denied the abuses, though he does note the number dramatically declined during his tenure, and included the first democratic elections in nearly a decade.

Oregon Democrat Senator Ron Wyden was particularly caustic in his questioning of Negroponte, interrupting the ambassador regularly and despite his stated intention to not do so, was clearly trying to re-debate the contra issue of the 80’s.

However, as Negroponte reminded Wyden, “It’s not as if refugees were fleeing Honduras into the neighboring communist counties,” as Wyden asserted, “it was just the opposite. Despite the noted abuses that took place in Honduras, thousands were fleeing the surrounding countries to come there,” where the standard of human rights was markedly higher.

[Posted 04/12 10:36 AM]

Meanwhile, the Washington Post has made use of the Freedom of Information Act to obtain several records relevant to Negroponte’s record as Ambassador to Honduras during the early 1980’s.

The records show that after the Democrat-controlled House voted to cease funding to the contras fighting the communist Sandinista government in Nicaragua, Negroponte urged President Reagan’s National Security Advisor and Secretary of State to “hang tough.”

From the Post write-up:

“Overall, Negroponte comes across as an exceptionally energetic, action-oriented ambassador whose anti-communist convictions led him to play down human rights abuses in Honduras, the most reliable U.S. ally in the region.”

[Posted 04/12 10:28 AM]

The Negroponte/DNI confirmation hearings are underway. So far, he has received highly complimentary remarks from Chairman Pat Roberts and ranking member, Democrat Jay Rockefeller, with both noting his 40 years in government experience. Here is some background on Negroponte from the Associated Press.

[Posted 04/12 09:39 AM]

I have another new article up on the main site today. Today’s piece discusses a proposal by Senator Saxby Chambliss to reform the way the new Director of National Intelligence receives their intelligence analysis. Under the current command structure, the DNI would get their info from 15 sources. Chambliss wants to narrow it to a single individual who would save the DNI headaches by spotting conflicting reports in advance.

[Posted 04/12 08:46 AM]

USA Today has the most-balanced take on the Bolton proceedings that I’ve seen so far this morning. They lead by noting that Bolton praised the United Nations yesterday, offered plans for its reform and “appeared headed for confirmation despite strong Democratic opposition.”

The paper also notes Chafee told reporters during a hearing break yesterday that he is still inclined to vote for Bolton.

[Posted 04/12 08:40 AM]

The New York Times profiles Lincoln Chafee as he weighs his decision on whether or not to vote John Bolton out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

The Times does a good job of noting Chafee’s inclination to support Bolton and the liberal forces gathering to persuade him otherwise. John Kerry has now joined other liberal interest groups in sending out a letter to supporters asking them to call and pressure Chafee into voting against Bolton.

As Chafee’s staff told me last week, they acknowledge the volume of calls, but dispute whether they represent a significant portion of Chafee’s constituents. As Chafee himself told the Times, “It's an important vote. But I'll be honest. Back in Rhode Island, I think the interest groups care strongly about it, but I think the average citizen doesn't know who John Bolton is.”

[Posted 04/12 08:27 AM]

Not surprisingly, Dana Milbank leads his coverage of yesterday’s Bolton hearing noting the three protestors who briefly interrupted proceedings. And he gives Barbara Boxer credit for providing an “unexpected assist” while Bolton “sat frozen.” However, Milbank accurately notes Boxer’s motivations were less sanguine, “Boxer wanted to heckle Bolton herself.”

Milbank then opines that Bolton responded to Democrat critics with “mild sentiments, half-hearted excuses and convenient amnesia, but not his legendary temper.”

Once again, Milbank masquerades under his official title of Washington Post staff writer by instead offering his personal opinion of Bolton and the hearings. Milbank asserts that no one but George Allen and Norm Coleman offered praise for Bolton, which is far from true. While almost certain to vote against him, even critics like Joe Biden offered in-depth praise of Bolton’s service to country and voluntary work at the United Nations.

[Posted 04/12 07:00 AM]

The AP follows-up on my post late yesterday asking if John Kerry and Richard Lugar may have named a CIA operative during John Bolton’s hearing yesterday.

Doing some research last night, and with assistance from several helpful Beltway Buzz readers, I can tell you that the individual named, Fulton Armstrong, is the former head of the National Intelligence Council for Latin America. He left the position in 2004. There are several mentions of Armstrong on the CIA.gov website. His name is also cited in several public hearings.

Could it be then that Armstrong simply asked to be referred to as “Mr. Smith” for his own preference of personal anonymity?

Many thanks to readers Brennan, Debbie and Brian for their assistance.

[Posted 04/11 04:38 PM]

Apologies for being so late to post about htis, but Bob Novak has a must-read today on the tactics of the editorial page writers at the New York Times. Novak reports former congressmen Bob Livingston was approached by the Times to write an op-ed suggesting Tom DeLay step down from his leadership position. Livingston declined, offering instead to write a piece in support of DeLay. Needless to say, the Times was not interested.

As I noted in my article today, the media has been on a big game hunt to find GOP cracks in DeLay support. Novak asserts, “the quest by The New York Times for a prominent Republican to suggest his resignation may cross a line.”

Media Research Center President Brent Bozell issued the following statement on Novak’s story:

“This case makes the political agenda of the New York Times perfectly clear. They want to destroy Tom DeLay, period. What liberals could not do at the ballot box, they are trying to do through the ‘news’ media. These actions prove how the media are actively demonizing DeLay. It has nothing to do with the search for truth. The New York Times has indicted and convicted DeLay already. Now they’re trying to execute him politically.”

[Posted 04/11 04:26 PM]

Reader Debbie writes in to say:

“Can you check this out? This went on during the hearing today.

“KERRY: ‘30sec. Mr. Chairman. This is reading from Mr. Flightses(sp) interview where he says did Otto Reich(sp) share his belief that Fulton Armstrong should be removed from this position, the answer is yes. Did John Bolton share that view? Mr. Flights said ‘Yes’”

“When Bolton comes back he says Mr. SMITH right away.”

“They have been using the name Smith all day to keep the agents identity secret. If so, is Mr. Armstrong the Mr. Smith they have been referring to, and if so did Kerry just do a great big no no?”

[Posted 04/11 01:42 PM]

I’ll be on Fox News at 2:40pm today discussing Tom DeLay with Jim Warren of the Chicago Tribune.

[Posted 04/11 11:21 AM]

National Review’s editorial endorsing Bolton’s confirmation is now posted. From the editorial:

“The Democrats just don’t get it. Their party is perceived as too weak on national security and too deferential to ineffectual international institutions like the United Nations. How are they going to address this political deficiency? By laying into John Bolton, President Bush’s nominee for ambassador to the U.N., for, among other things, being too critical of the U.N.’s weakness and corruption over the years.”

Richard Lugar postponed today’s hearing until after the Pope’s funeral. In exchange, Democrats agreed to a committee vote on Bolton’s nomination this week.

[Posted 04/11 11:16 AM]

Three protestors just interrupted the Bolton hearing, holding up pink sheets that read, “No on Bolton, yes on U.N.” Police quickly escorted the protestors out, none of whom physically resisted. These were obviously professional protestors. If there was any doubt, the last protestor escorted out yelled, “We are here because there are no senators representing the District of Columbia.” Yawn.

The next senator up on deck was Chris Dodd who asked, “Does that come out of my time?”

[Posted 04/11 11:04 AM]

In his introductory speech, Bolton noted that he has been friends with Kofi Annan for more than 15 years and received a phone call from him last week. Lincoln Chafee is now questioning Bolton and asked if Annan offered his endorsement in the phone call. Bolton answered, “Well, I probably should not get into it, but he said, ‘Get yourself confirmed quickly.”

Chafee responded, “Well, that’s important.”

[Posted 04/11 10:47 AM]

I have a new article up today on the main site concerning Tom DeLay. It’s a rundown of the scandals and accusations against Mr. DeLay and where they currently stand. As I state in the article, the largest threat to DeLay’s leadership rests in liberal Texas District Attorney Ronnie Earle. It’s the scandal that ties closest to DeLay and Mr. Earle’s zeal for indicting elected officials makes him all the more dangerous. DeLay would only have to be indicted, not even found guilty of any wrongdoing, to lose his leadership position under House rules.

[Posted 04/11 10:34 AM]

In his first question, Joe Biden asked Bolton is he ever asked to have Westermann fired. Bolton responded that he did once inquire about the possibility of having Westermann "removed from his portfolio" and that once he was rebuffed he ceased pursuing Westermann’s termination.

When Bolton was asked why he wanted Westermann removed from his portfolio, which is different than being fired, Bolton responded, “I don’t have a problem with people disagreeing with me. What I have a problem with is them disagreeing with me behind my back.”

[Posted 04/11 10:29 AM]

John Bolton is appearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee right now. Richard Lugar just asked Bolton about the allegations from Carl Ford and Christian Westermann that he intimidated intelligence analysts. Lugar noted that several of the documents concerning Ford/Westermann remain classified.

Bolton responded that his preference is to have the interview documents declassified and that doing so would clear his record.

[Posted 04/11 09:08 AM]

Also on Late Edition was the following exchange between Wolf Blitzer and Richard Lugar:

Blitzer: “If you discover that John Bolton tried to get fired two intelligence analysts, careerists, not political appointees, but careerists, CIA, or other intelligence agencies, would you then reconsider your support for his nomination?”

Lugar: “I might. But I've seen the transcripts of the interviews, gone carefully over all of this. And I do not see evidence that that occurred. Now, I appreciate that many people have views about John Bolton's personality, his bluntness, the way that he handles himself. I think this is their legion of situations. But these are not, in my judgment, disqualifiers for a presidential nominee who is going to the U.N. to create reform.”

[Posted 04/11 09:03 AM]

On CNN’s Late Edition yesterday, Joe Biden said he would not vote to send Bolton out of committee for three reasons: rumors that he pressured intelligence analysts, a greater need for the U.S. to rely on the United Nations and because he didn’t think Bolton did a good job in his last post. But in typical Biden double-speak the senator then added, “And so for all those reasons, I'm not going to vote for him. But I'm going to give him a chance.”

Exactly how does declaring your firm intentions to vote against a nominee constitute giving him a chance?

[Posted 04/11 08:28 AM]

A source reveals to me the content of what will be in Bolton’s speech before the Senate committee today. First, Bolton will note the importance of the United Nations as an institution and America’s commitment to its success.

Bolton will say that if nominated he will work with the Senate to forge a stronger relationship with the United Nations and address critics of the institution. He will also stress working on a bipartisan basis to ease this criticism.

Bolton’s specific goals as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations will include supporting freedom and democracy, stopping the proliferation of WMDs, winning the global war on terror, supporting international humanitarian efforts and making the United Nations a more efficient organization.

[Posted 04/11 08:19 AM]

The Post also notes the organization Move America Forward will begin airing an ad this week promoting Bolton’s nomination. While saying Bolton reflects American values, the ad “mocks” Democrats who “blame America first.”

The ad will run in Rhode Island. Move America Forward say they chose the state to exert pressure on Lincoln Chafee to support Bolton’s nomination. Chafee’s office had already told outlets, including the Beltway Buzz, that he plans to support Bolton’s nomination.

[Posted 04/11 08:13 AM]

The Washington Post previews today’s committee hearing for John Bolton, the White House nominee to serve as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations.

The Post dedicates the vast majority of its article to Bolton’s “controversial” track-record, which includes steering the U.S. away from the international court and renegotiating arms treaties with Russia that now allow for U.S. missile defense testing.

As to accusations that he “intimidated” State Department intelligence analysts during is time there, State spokesman Richard Boucher said Bolton would defend himself and had provided evidence to the Senate committee countering accusations, "We don't see any grounds for questioning his nomination or confirmation," Boucher said.