May 10, 2006
5/10: Where's The Loyalty
Judging from the blogosphere, a 31% approval rating seems a little high for Pres. Bush these days. Scandal fatigue has definitely set in on the right as HUD/Sec. Alphonso Jackson's recent gaffe drew a total of zero defenders from traditional GOP corners. Instead, the right was busy throwing around words like "investigation" and even "impeachment" in reaction to stories that U.S. Customs and Border Patrol have been reporting Minuteman activities to the Mexican gov't. Only ABA shenanigans seem able to rally righties around judicial noms. Meanwhile, bloggers also reacted to 5/9 primaries in NE and WV.
HUD: What We Have Here, Is A Failure To Communicate
A 5/5 Dallas Business Journal report on HUD/Sec Alphonso Jackson's 4/28 comments in front of a Real Estate Executive Council exploded into the blogosphere 5/9. Sirotablog launched the story: "The Dallas Business Journal has a blockbuster story out today about how President Bush's Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Alphonso Jackson, is now openly denying government contracts to anyone who does not like President Bush."
On the left ThinkProgress was quick to identify illegalities: "Jackson has admitted that this particular contract was not awarded with "impartiality." The business that would have been awarded the contract was excluded because of the contractor's political views. Jackson's conduct appears to be in violation of federal law. From the Federal Acquisition Regulations, 48 CFR 3.101-1: Government business shall be conducted in a manner above reproach and, except as authorized by statute or regulation, with complete impartiality." Lawyers, Guns, and Money identifies case law that could put Jackson on legal jeopardy as well.
Lefty The Carpetbagger Report wants a resignation: "I think it's probably fair to call on Housing and Urban Development Secretary Alphonso Jackson to resign over this one. So, to summarize, the secretary of HUD admitted, in public, that he denied a qualified minority contractor funding because the contractor said he didn't like the president. In Jackson's mind, this is "logical." This is probably illegal, and is definitely moronic. If some congressional Dems made an effort to follow up on this, it's the kind of incident that could force Jackson to resign."
The left's The Political Animal was amazed at the audacity of the pitch: "Charming, isn't it? And the topper is that we didn't find out about this from a whistleblower who sent private emails to a reporter. Not at all. In fact, Jackson was proud enough of this that he made it the topic of a speech to the Real Estate Executive Council. Do you think they all got the message?"
Left leaning Wonkette took the opportunity to do some unbiased reporting: "Wow. We had a hard time believing Secretary Jackson actually said these things (although his honesty is refreshing). After talking to a HUD source, we find it less difficult to fathom. Here's what we learned from our operative: Before taking the helm at HUD, Jackson ran three different housing authorities, all of which had serious problems...some related to his (mis)management of them. ...He is "a sleazy character," and a close friend of Marion Barry. ...When he arrived at HUD, he initiated a staff shake up that resulted in the departure of several highly regarded career employees. ...As for why he said what he said in Dallas, "Jackson probably thought that it was safe for him to speak candidly to a group of minority executives...his fellow 'brothers and sisters.' But he shouldn't have assumed that no press members were present. That was pretty dumb!"
Archy urged fellow bloggers to use this case as example A of WH evil: "If your friends, relatives, and coworkers, need evidence that "they" really will "do that" and aren't convinced by wiretapping and presidential signing statements, then show them the latest example of fire-sale corruption." Similar lefty reax include: Obsidian Wings, Talking Points Memo, LeanLeft, AMERICAblog, Midtopia, and Eschaton.
The Left Coaster previewed the admin's defense when he asked: "So why was the Secretary even involved in the awarding of contracts in the first place?"
The Dallas Business Journal reported that HUD spokesperson Dustee Tucker, later described Jackson's statements as purely "anecdotal," and explained that "he's not part of the contracting process."
ThinkProgress didn't think the explanation gets Jackson off the hook:
"In other words, his spokesman claims that Jackson fabricated a long and detailed exchange with a CEO that doesn't actually exist, about a process he isn't actually involved with. Two points: 1) That excuse isn't just difficult to swallow...it also contradicts the spokesperson's first response in which she indicated Jackson was referring to a real contract: "On May 3, Tucker told the Business Journal that the contract Jackson was referring to in Dallas was 'an advertising contract with a minority publication,' though she could not provide the contract's value." It looks like Jackson is changing his story as criticism builds. 2) Bidding for a government contract isn't 'asking for money.' It's not Alphonso Jackson's money to give away to his buddies. It is the taxpayers' money. It should go to whoever can do the best job, regardless of their political views."The Carpetbagger Report also pokes holes in Tucker's story: "Hmm. First, this may be the only time in recent memory that a cabinet press secretary used the 'he's lying' argument as a defense. Second, I don't think Dustee Tucker knows what 'anecdotal' means. Third, for a conversation that never actually occurred, Jackson sure did go into a lot of detail, without bothering to mention that he was making the whole thing up. And fourth, Tucker's second response (the story is bogus) doesn't exactly work with her first response (the story is real, but the contract was merely 'verbal')"
Righty bloggers were perfectly willing to throw Jackson under the bus:
- QandO: "Can anybody tell me why he ought not be removed from office -- and, if possible, jailed -- for using his position to punish political opponents by withholding federal contracts? I may not care for the Democratic candidates in the '06 elections, but at least a Democratic Congress would take an interest in oversight. That's one thing more than the Republican majority will do."
- Captain's Quarters: "This is, bluntly, appalling. If Jackson wants to work on the GOP election campaign as a contracts administrator, then he has every right to deny contracts to those who do not support the GOP. However, as Secretary of HUD, Jackson has ceased representing George Bush and the Republicans and now should work on behalf of all Americans. I don't often agree with Lautenberg, but if the Dallas Business Journal has reported this correctly, then Lautenberg is right. Jackson has to go, and go now."
- Sundries Shack: "Jackson ought to step down tomorrow. Our Federal government exists to represent all citizens equally as the Constitution insists and Jackson has clearly breached the trust he held with all of us."
IMMIGRATION: Benedict Bush?
After Michelle Malkin highlighted reports that the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol is notifying Mexican gov't officials of Minuteman civilian patrols, righty bloggers savaged the admin.:
- Confederate Yankee: "I'll never support impeachment proceedings brought against President [Bush] for going to war with Iraq based on flawed intelligence. ... His resistance to protecting this nation's borders, however is another matter entirely. Bush refuses to protect the territorial integrity of the United States, leaving us exposed to an importation of poverty that strains our social welfare system and artificially depresses wages."
- Riehl World View: "Maybe Bob's right and Bush should be impeached. He can always retire to Mexico."
- Weapons of Mass Destruction: "It almost seems like the stuff of fiction. A government agency shadowing the actions of American citizens and then reporting their movements and actions to a foreign government. ...If a Republican President, Republican House, and Republican Senate is not enough to implement a sensible border policy in a post 9/11 era, then whats the point?"
- RightWingNews: "Not only should Congress demand that the Border Patrol stop working with the Mexican government to circumvent our laws, they should launch an investigation in order to find out who signed off on this unconscionable outrage."
- Bryan at Hot Air: "I've seen several administrations do a lot of outrageous things, but tipping a foreign government to the legal activities of American citizens just might be the most outrageous thing I've ever seen any American administration do."
- Daily Pundit: "As for the treacherous Bush administration notifying a foreign power of the actions of homegrown patriots, that goes beyond despicable, and assures that the administration has no further claim on my support whatsoever. George W. Bush supports a foreign power engaged in fostering a criminal invasion of our country over the very Americans trying to stop that invasion!"
- Tom N at Hot Air: "It surely could put the lives of the minutemen at risk, especially from drug runners..I've been a republican since Reagan and now IM getting worried about where the party is going..
CBP issued a denial to the original story. Michelle Malkin responds in detail and concludes: "Message to apologists: Stop blaming the messengers. It's only going to make those poll numbers you worry so much about worse. Message to the White House: Stop blaming the messengers. Do us all a favor by ending this travesty and apologizing."
Righties were not about to take the word of the administration. Superfun Powerhour Blog: "Who are we to believe? The problem-riddled DHS or Mr. Martinez? Sure both are saying the information is given to ensure the "rights" of the illegals are being maintained, but Martinez is clear in stating that they are telling the Mexican government where the MM-Project will be not where they've been."
JUDGES: Making The Grade
Righty bloggers called foul on the ABA's downgrading of a judicial nominee's rating from "well-qualified" to "qualified," before a 5/9 hearing. Point of Law provides some background:
Early in the Bush's first term, the administration caused a small controversy when they announced they would no longer cooperate with the American Bar Association's judicial ratings, defending the decision on the grounds that the ABA was biased. The most famous example of that bias was the "Qualified/Not Qualified" ratings given Judges Posner and Easterbrook during the Reagan administration; the two went on to be the most prolific and cited judges of their generation. ...We now have another prime example. Brett Kavanaugh, whose nomination to the D.C. Circuit has been held up for years, has received two "well-qualified" evaluations from the ABA. However, in recent weeks, the Democrats have singled Kavanaugh out as someone they want to make a stand on, even getting a second Judiciary Committee hearing on him. And the ABA has now followed suit, downgrading Kavanaugh from "well qualified" to "qualified"-apparently, the additional experience of being Staff Secretary for the Bush administration as he awaits a Senate vote makes him less qualified.
Fellow righty Powerline is equally displeased but also thinks he sees the fingerprints of Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY): "This strikes me as a mini-scandal, reminiscent of the days when the American Bar Association played the discreditable role of liberal activist group on judicial nominations. ...No explanation, of course, as to what Kavanaugh has done since last year to cause six committee members to change their ratings. ...Hillary Clinton is the Democrat most bent on blocking Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation due to Kavanaugh's service on Ken Starr's staff."
Powerline was also concerned about a Washington Post editorial attempting to split the difference on the judicial nominations before the Judiciary Committee: "the Post's discussion of Judge Boyle is misleading in at least one respect. The paper states that "[Boyle's] nomination to the Fourth Circuit was a particular goal of former senator Jesse Helms (R), who blocked a string of President Bill Clinton's nominees to the court to keep the seat open for his man." What the Post declines to tell its readers is that Boyle had been nominated by the first President Bush, but blocked by the Senate Democrats. So, yes, former Senator Helms blocked subsequent nominees for that slot, but only in retaliation for the actions of Senate Democrats. Moreover, it's my understanding that Helms retaliated not just because the Democrats blocked Boyle but because he believed Senator Biden had promised not to do so, but then reneged at a time that Helms was out of commission due to major surgery. ...As I say, I take no position as to whether Boyle should be confirmed. But given the Post's one-sided presentation, I can't help but wonder whether its opposition is driven at least in part by its animosity towards Jesse Helms. "
Also on the right ConfirmThem, American Thinker, and Strata-Sphere had takes. Professor Bainbridge looks at the ideological breakdown of the ABA committee.
The self-described Moderate Voice doesn't like the way Sen. Bill Frist is running the Senate: "once AGAIN polarization - a code word for division - is the way Frist and the GOP are choosing to operate." While The Democratic Daily simply posts Sen. Ted Kennedy's statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
NE: Down To Tom On The Field ...
Lefty NE bloggers were happy to see Rep. Tom Osborne (R-NE) lose his Gov bid. Lefty Mark at Swing State Project: "I'm actually glad to see Heineman poised to prevail here. Not only will it demoralize the Nebraska GOP, with Osborne squandering both his gubernatorial run and his early opportunity to challenge Ben Nelson for the Senate seat. Furthermore, I'm much more comfortable with Maxine Moul's chances in the Lincoln area without Nebraska icon Tom Osborne at the top of the ticket. I certainly was not expecting Heineman to pull this out against Osborne. Hopefully, it's a sign of good things to come in Nebraska." Nebraska Dem at Politics1 had a theory on why Heineman won: "I'm ever-so-slightly surprised by the Gov's race results, but I don't think it makes any difference as far as the direction of the State goes. Guess Tom Osborne's political career is over. I wonder if Heineman's harder line on immigration helped him."
From the right, Corey at Politics1 picked up this Hotline On Call analysis (go team!) to explain Osborne's defeat: "The irony here is that Heineman apparently owes his victory to rural voters in Osborne's Congressional district. ...As for Tom Osborne, maybe he can take Lynn Swann's job covering football for ABC Sports once Swann is elected Governor of PA."
Over at RedState, BigRedStater was ready to move on: "As of 11:10PM Central, Heineman is making an acceptance speech. I'm disappointed, as I voted for TO, but I'll be happy to help out on Heineman's campaign. Should be a lock for the election, it is Nebraska after all........"
WV: The Raese Is On
The blogosphere was pleased, but not surprised, by the results of the 5/9 WV primary. Righty ricbuc at RedState had this to say on media mogul John Raese's primary victory:
"Both Houses of our State Legislature has been controlled by the Democrats since 1934. Tonight House Majority Leader Rick Staton was soundly defeated in the Primary. ...Add to that, the Speaker of the House retired. None of the Leaders of the Manchin Rubber Stamp will be back. Now if the Democrats can vote out their leaders, it is not impossible that they will at least look at Raese. WV is a very conservative state and Raese has a chance since Byrd has gotten more liberal as he has gotten older. Rumors are everywhere that Byrd will not stay in the race...The same rumor has Gov Manchin running in his place. Manchin for some unknown reason is very popular."
Lefty Mark at Swing State Project also is looking forward to a Raese candidacy: "I maintain that a John Raese candidacy could be a dream come true for the good guys if played right. With all the "God, guns, and gays" culture warriors the GOP could be foisting upon Byrd, West Virginia Republicans are going with a Cato Institute mouthpiece celebrating Gregory Mankiw talking points to a state full of government-dependent lower-income voters. The Dems could connect Raese's plutocratic worldview with incidents like the Sago mine disaster, or at the very least, with the average working person's increased struggle to make ends meet and possibly plant the seed in the minds of West Virginia "values voters" exactly the kind of people they're aligning themselves with."
Also on the left DavidNYC at Swing State Project was happy Mike Callaghan won a shot at challenging Shelley Capito (R-WV): "Wow! Awesome! Mike wins! I just got done doing a spreadsheet projecting likely turnout in the remaining counties when I got an e-mail from someone affiliated with the campaign telling me the good news. ...This is just great! I admit, I was feeling down in the dumps about this one after I saw Hunt winning so many counties, so the feeling of joy and relief is tremendous. Go Mike!"
Other bloggers chose to read the turnout tea leaves. Dave Weigel at Politcs1: "I'm not sure which precincts are outstanding, but it must mean something that Democratic votes in the primary are double Republican votes. About 80,000 votes were cast in the Dem primary - Byrd vs. a nobody. Only around 35,000 votes have been cast in the GOP primary. WV Democrats outnumber Republicans a little less than 2-1, but they're voting in the primary a bit more than 2-1. This after Raese and Lewis each spent hundreds of thousands of dollars turning out the vote. That doesn't bode well for GOP momentum this year."
On the right Corey at Politics1 saw it differently: "I don't know if that means anything Mr. Weigel because the state has voting in primaries by party registration. Thus, the 80,000 Democrats have to vote in the Democrat primary but can vote for who they want in November. It would mean more if anybody in the state could vote in either primary. Democrat turnout may be higher because the most competitive race in the state is the Dem nomination for the 2nd Congressional district and probably because that is where all the action is on local races with Democrats probably controlling those offices."
THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Killer Donut
The Reality Based Community is not terribly concerned about a New York Times piece claiming the new Medicare drug plan may help the GOP after all. RBC links to decidedly non-partisan epocrates analysis:
After a $250 deductible, patients pay 25% of the next $2000 in drug costs (or up to $500 in expenditures).
If patients spend more than $2250 in total drug costs, there is no insurance coverage for the next $2850 in drug costs. This is often called the "donut-hole" or "coverage gap" in the prescription drug program. Patients are expected to pay this amount out-of-pocket.
Lastly, after the additional $2850 in out-of-pocket costs, coverage resumes at a rate of 95%, with patients only paying 5% of remaining drug costs, unlimited until the end of the calendar year.
The Reality Based Community then notes: "Let's see: it's six months to Election Day. So anyone who has coverage by now and spends at least $400 a month on drugs will run out of coverage before it's time to vote; those who signed up earlier will run out even if they spend somewhat less. ...So pretty soon now - and well before November - seniors in large numbers are going to start running into that gap. They're going to show up at the pharmacy with their shiny Part D card and be told that they're going to have to pay full retail price for their drugs."
LEST WE FORGET: What If Rickey Henderson Had Pete Incaviglia's Legs?
Not much according to the authors of Baseball Between The Numbers. Alex and Karen have this to say: "This book, written by the stat-heads over at Baseball Prospectus, is an awesome speedy read for anyone who's a fan of the game and likes to debate its many idiosyncracies...Chapters I really enjoyed were "Is David Ortiz a Clutch Hitter?", "Five Pitchers or Four? On Pitching and Stamina", "Is Wayne Huizenga a Genius?", "When is One Run Worth More Than Two?", "Do Players Perform Better in Contract Years?", "Why Doesn't Billy Beane's (expletive) Work in the Playoffs?" and "What Do Statistics Tell Us About Steroids?"
Posted by Conn Carroll at May 10, 2006 12:22 PM
The Watergate · 600 New Hampshire Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20037
202-739-8400 · fax 202-833-8069
NationalJournal.com is an Atlantic Media publication.
