Blogometer Update

The Gates Of Heck

  TPM's David Kurtz is eager to get hearings underway on the nomination of Bob Gates for Defense Secretary... provided that it occurs in January, after the Democrats take over the Senate.

I don't completely understand, quite frankly [is why] Senate Democrats are not demanding full hearings on the Gates nomination after the first of the year.  No one is eager for Rumsfeld to hold the post for a minute longer than necessary, but what better way for Democrats to begin to exert control over Iraq policy.

  Kurtz sees something else at work as well:

One reason the President may be trying to get the Gates nomination through the lame-duck Republican Senate before Democrats take control of the Senate in January is old animosity between Gates and Senator-elect Jim Webb (D-VA), according to Bob Novak. ... Whatever.  In Novak's world, all politics is petty paybacks and trifling personal slights.

  After further reflection, Kurtz has more to say later in the day about his original point:

There is another thing I would point out about the importance of a Democratic-led confirmation hearing on Bob Gates.  The point of such a hearing would not be to torpedo his nomination, but rather to put down some markers on Iraq and attempt to define the parameters within which the Administration will operate going forward.

I don't have much confidence that [key] questions will be addressed in GOP-led hearings.  The thrust of Republican questioning will be, You're not Don Rumsfeld, right?  End of story.

The temptation will be--already is--to dump the Iraq disaster in Rumsfeld's lap and be satisfied that just about anything and anyone will be better than Rumsfeld.  First, that ignores the continuing role of the President and Vice President.  Second, it seems to me that we are at a crossroads, with many options before us.  Simply saying any road is better than the one we just came down is irresponsible.  There are real choices to be made at this juncture.

  "After the 1968 elections," Kurtz wraps, "not many Americans would probably have guessed that we would be in Vietnam for another six and a half years.  We're at a similarly decisive moment now."

  Thoughtful TPM reader BM explores the "political ramifications" of a delay tactic:

[I]f the Republicans are saying the want Gates in and Rumsfeld out next week, how do the Dems respond?  Should they say they want hearings delayed until they take over in January, then a month or more of hearings and a final vote in March?  That is basically saying they want 5 more months of Rumsfeld.  It's not a winning position.  Further, it allows the Republicans to blame the next 400 American deaths on the Dems by pointing out they kept Rumsfeld in even after the "realist Republicans" wanted him out.

  Kurtz responds deftly:

I agree that these are political considerations that need to be addressed.  But they strike me as relatively easy to dispense with.  Bush is responsible for the first six years of Rumsfeld's reign of terror at the Pentagon, and nothing says Rumsfeld has to remain until his successor is chosen.  Ultimately, though, the focus should be on the President.  Iraq is his policy, not Rumsfeld's.  If he's worried about how long it will take to replace Rumsfeld, he shouldn't have waited until now to start the wheels in motion.

  With more emails on the subject coming in, Kurtz notes "a split among readers" on the timing of the hearings.  Reader JW:

[T]hey don't have anything on Gates that would prevent him from becoming Defense Secretary.  It's pretty clear they're going to have to work with Gates; why make him the whipping boy from the outset?  He hasn't done anything wrong yet and isn't likely to know very much more about Iraq right now than the senators do.  I think it's better to take the high road with this nomination, since we all agree we want Rumsfeld out, let Gates get his feet, and ask him in January what he's come up with.

I think the "use nomination hearings as a bully pulpit" logic shows that the Democrats are still thinking like a minority party.  They got the subpoena power, they got the committees, they can open any can of worms any they want to and don't have to snipe at the Administration from the bushes.  Let the rabbits through now and hunt elephants in January.

  Reader EC, meanwhile, sides with Kurtz:

It really is important to maintain that the problems with Iraq don't simply go away with Rumsfeld's departure.  The administration OWNS this one, and whether Rumsfeld leaves immediately or lingers until a successor is confirmed should not matter. ... Democrats should support an extensive, reasonable examination of any nominee for any position; that can't and won't happen if they appear too timid to challenge the administration on the timing.

Foleygate Creaks Opens Wider

  As quickly as the Mark Foley scandal seems to have dissipated into the haze of post-election blues, Pachacutec at Firedoglake is not giving up on it.  Especially when big, fat questions tantalizingly present themselves as new info is revealed.  With help from The Next Hurrah's emptywheel, Pach propounds:

The source for breaking the Mark Foley story on the Internet through the mysterious, new website "Stop Sex Predators" has been uncovered.  He's a moonlighting employee at the Human Rights Campaign.  Or, he was an employee at the Human Rights Campaign.  They fired him right after the story of his role in damaging the Republican party right before the election became public, for "misusing the group's resources."  What "resources" might those be?

Lane Hudson, 29, the activist behind the web site ... [and] a former White House intern, says he had been the recipient of non-sexual emails from Foley when he himself was young, but since then had learned more about Foley's activities.  Where?  He won't say.  All of which raises the question: where did Mr. Hudson learn about Mark Foley's predations?

  Pach especially wants to know more about the involvement of former House clerk Jeff Trandahl, who, "interestingly enough, sits on the Board of the HRC."

The former House clerk seems to have had in depth knowledge of the Foley story and all its ugly permutations for quite some time, while the House GOP covered it all up. ... Was Trandahl pushed out of his Clerk's job, perhaps over objections he may have had to the coverup?  Did he launder revenge through Mr. Hudson, or was he complicit in the coverup?  Did the HRC want to bury the information?  If not, why was Mr. Hudson fired?

  He excoriates the HRC for its "ineffectiveness as a political lobbying outfit, and demands to know more about its complicity in the whole case, if any: "[I]f the HRC had any part in sitting on any knowledge of the Mark Foley story to protect its friends in the Republican party or to sustain its branding as a 'non-partisan' (read: neutered by Republicans) organization, the HRC should cease to exist."

  At any rate, Pachacutec is itching to know the whole story, and even urges Hudson to contact him to get some of the nagging questions answered.  Despite some knocks in the comment thread for blogging "old news," doubtless Pach and firedoglake will stay on this until the dam, in whatever literal guise, breaks.

Reid It And Freep

  Convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff, on his way to prison, has a lovely parting gift for federal prosecutors that has them all atwitter.  He claims to have the dirt on "seriously corrupt" Democratic senators and on erstwhile electoral genius, Karl Rove.  But with his ample self off to jail, "prosecutors' easy access to Abramoff has now ended," write Brian Ross and Rhonda Schwartz at The Blotter.  But the court has thrown the feds a bone:

ABC News has learned that the court has granted a request from prosecutors that Abramoff be incarcerated at the closest prison to Washington, D.C., the Federal Correction Institute in Cumberland, Md., where Abramoff is expected to report tomorrow.

  Bloggers, particularly on the right, didn't hesitate to name the Senate Dems that Abramoff was likely to rat out (Dorgan, Kerry, Murray et al.).  It's not new information, but crowing about it just as gloating Democrats are about to take over the House is some salve for the wounds of a bloodied GOP and its loyalists.

  But tops on the right-wing's list of "Corruptocrats" is pending Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who was "named in the first group of politicians to be investigated in the Abramoff scandal" and has been the recent target of Associated Press strafer John Solomon.  Nothing would be sweeter for wound-licking righties than to nail "the same Democrats who tried exploiting the scandal for electoral advantage this year," as Captain Ed writes at his Quarters.

  But not all rightys are so quick to pile onto the bandwagon.  John at Powerline is leery of affording too much legitimacy to a vague investigation that could further entangle reeling Republicans as it stains a handful of Dems:

Have Abramoff's purported "revelations" actually yielded evidence against anyone?  Possibly Bob Ney; I'm not sure whether the offense he pled guilty to was Abramoff-related or not.  Otherwise, as far as I know, nobody.

Lots of people ... are now buzzing about the report--anonymous, of course--that Abramoff has provided information on "six to eight seriously corrupt Democratic Senators."  Well, maybe.  But the definition of "corruption" that seems to be operative here is that A) someone contributed money to a Congressman's or Senator's campaign, and B) the Congressman or Senator subsequently did something that person approved of.  This isn't corruption, it's democracy.

  "Abramoff might have something on someone," John wraps cautiously, "but I'll have to see the goods..."  And weigh the cost, no doubt.