The WaPo placed the news that Tom Loeffler, McCain’s Fundraising Chair, has left the campaign because he was unwilling to give up his lobbying gig, on A1.

Tom Loeffler, the national finance co-chairman for Sen. John McCain’s presidential campaign, resigned yesterday because of his lobbying ties, a campaign adviser said.

With five high-level resignations in the last week or so and the prominence of coverage about those departures, you might think McCain is really cleaning house.

But here’s the thing. Even with just the resignations of the last ten days, McCain has shown a real inconsistency about what kind of lobbying ties compromise his campaign. With Loeffler and Eric Burgeson, there seem to have been two problems. First, both were active lobbyists, who lobbied the Senate for clients whose issues fell squarely in the purview of the Commerce, Armed Services, and Indian Affairs Committees on which McCain serves. In addition, both represented foreign "countries," Loeffler Saudi Arabia and Burgeson the Kurds.

Of course, that’s true of Charlie Black, as well. For example, Black lobbied the Senate on FISA, and has had an affinity for representing evil dictators throughout his career. So why is okay for Charlie Black to stick around while Loeffler and Burgeson take their blackberries and go home?

John McCain has a ready explanation: Charlie Black (and Rick Davis, someone else McCain couldn’t afford to lose) aren’t really lobbyists anymore:

Charlie Black and Rick Davis are not in the lobbying business; they’ve been out of that business,

Today’s WaPo story provides a little more detail about what that really means.

Until recently, his top political adviser, Charles R. Black Jr., was the head of a Washington lobbying firm. Black retired in March from BKSH & Associates, the firm he helped found, to stay with the campaign. Davis ran a lobbying firm for several years but has said he is on leave from it.

Indeed, Black does seem to have stepped down from his lobbying work sometime before the quarterly disclosure forms were submitted starting on April 18. So by "out of the business," McCain must mean "out of the business for a whopping month and a half." But there are two problems still.

First, how do you wipe clean all the lobbying Charlie Black did from the Straight Talk for Lobbyists Express? Black was, by his own admission, lobbying from McCain’s campaign bus.

Black said he does a lot of his work by telephone from McCain’s Straight Talk Express bus.

How do you separate either the policies McCain espoused because Charlie Black–lobbyist for AT&T–or Eric Burgeson–lobbyist for liquid coal and nuclear energy–or Tom Loeffler–lobbyist for Saudi Arabia–advised him to adopt those policies? And how do you dissociate McCain’s primary victory from the work these folks did? It sure seems like McCain’s primary victory is, and will always be, tainted by Mr. AT&T, Mr. Nuclear Energy, and Mr. Saudi Arabia.

So the next time you hear McCain spouting his "green" images, ask him if Eric Burgeson’s clients bought that green image for him.

Finally, there is one even greater inconsistency in McCain’s new vetting policy (aside from the fact that his wife escapes all notice). Doug Goodyear and Doug Davenport resigned from McCain’s campaign because they had lobbied for the military junta in Myanmar six years ago.

"It was our only foreign representation, it was for a short tenure, and it was six years ago," Goodyear told NEWSWEEK, adding the junta’s record in the current cyclone crisis is "reprehensible."

So the McCain campaign has already accepted that the taint of questionable lobbying deals lasts at least six years. That would make Charlie Black’s representation of Ahmad Chalabi, just to take one example, fair game. You know–the guy who, more than any other, has ensured the Iraq invasion benefited Iran?

Obviously, with all the inconsistencies of ousting Eric Burgeson but keeping top campaign aides Davis and Black (and shielding Cindy’s investments from scrutiny), this so-called vetting process is just one big whitewash–which the McCain campaign readily admits.

"The campaign over the last week or so obviously had a perception problem with regards with this whole business of lobbyists and their work," spokesman Brian Rogers said. "This is really all about setting a policy so that we can just get through that perception problem and the issues that come up with regards to lobbyists affiliated with the campaign and move on." [my emphasis]

The McCain campaign employed a number of people who were actively lobbying the Senate on subjects central to McCain’s interests. That’s not a perception problem, it’s a real ethical problem, a stench the campaign can’t cleanse simply by considering it a "perception problem." McCain’s campaign and McCain’s policies have been bought and sold by lobbyists, something that doesn’t appear to be changing anytime soon.

DHinMI is right. Tom Davis’ memo about how to save the Republican brand is worthy reading–if only because one of the few Republicans who believes in gravity penned it.

To me, the most interesting passage is where Davis reviews the reasons why Republican fundraising sucks.

(1) Abandonment of many traditional GOP interest groups or a hedge strategy to “buy in” on a perceived longer term Democratic majority. For example, Pharma, UPS, government contractors and FED Ex are now giving strategically to Democrats for “protection money”.

(2) GOP leaders turned lobbyists, from Bob Livingston to JC Watts, are giving Blue. Are there any Democratic lobbyists returning the favor?

(Is anyone weeping "K Street Project" tears right now? I guess it’s not enough to ensure all the lobbyists are Republicans, now, is it?)

(3) Net roots and money from the internet have swelled Democratic coffers, from the Obama campaign, to their Red to Blue programs, giving Democrats huge
fundraising advantages across the board. Much of this is fueled by a strong Democratic desire to seize power after eight years of Bush and Cheney, coupled with a strong disappointment among grass roots Republicans at the party’s performance in office. Governance is a tough business requiring tough choices and holding together coalitions of economic and social conservatives is difficult to sustain.

Thank you Tom. Though there are bigger reasons why you Republicans suck at the netroots. First, transparency kills Republicans in the same way sunlight kills vampires. That, and dirty fucking hippies scare you Republicans–in fact, anything that operates on any but a top-down hierarchy. So the Republican Party is just constitutionally inappropriate for the netroots. But thanks for the nod of recognition.

Immigration pits our business wing against our grass roots wing. The War has turned many educated, affluent Republicans away. Spending priorities, scandals, gas prices and home value declines leave little for Republicans to be enthused over, particularly when our ability to draw issue lines and force choices by Democrats is frustrated by House Rules, inarticulate and unfocused national leadership and finger pointing.

Davis could have written a whole memo about these few subjects, starting with the recognition that you can oppose undocumented workers being hired to bring down wages, but focus on prosecuting employers, not brown people. Given that it’s not even in the realm of imagination for Davis, I guess he’s just got a paradigmatic inability to understand the issues that–even he says–could flip this election. And that’s way before we get to the war, which he considers a "cultural" issue and only a cultural issue.

4) Incumbent giving was a Republican invention from 1994 to 2004. We outraised Democrats because we were more committed to keeping our majority and the attendant perks of leadership. But guess what? We are being badly outraised by Democratic members’ contributions.

Democrats are giving more because they like their majority status; they want to keep it. Republicans don’t think they can win this time. Moreover, most Democratic members do not have re-elects that require they spend their money on themselves – particularly senior members on A committees. Republican incumbents are nervous and don’t want to give away their money if they may need it, in October.

Democrats are finding it easier to raise money. Republicans are finding it tougher to raise money in the minority. And, Democrats punish and reward party contributors. Republicans haven’t done so in the past and do not have the perks and appointments they could disburse that they had when they were in the majority.

The GOP ranks have started to splinter into an “everyman for himself” psychology. This is not conducive to the teamwork necessary to close the financial gap.

(5) Labor unions, long the mainstay of the Democratic Party have gone even deeper into their members’ pockets to ensure Democratic majorities. Not resting on their laurels, labor has upped the ante to Democrats and the leadership has delivered. From CardCheck, to Columbia Trade, Democrats have delivered and labor has responded, with cash, enhanced 527s and ground troops. The Democratic financial advantage has been amplified with increased money from Labor. Ironically, the Democrats are not paying any price with Business, as Business PACs have given more to Democrats, not less.

There’s an implicit recognition that Democrats have delivered on issues important to labor–and that ties directly to union enthusiasm for elections. But again, since Davis doesn’t believe that union members might actually support things like forming unions, he doesn’t get the connection.

Liberal and Democratic use of the internet has far outperformed conservative and Republican deployment of the same. Failure to invest in on-line funding over the last two cycles has put the GOP behind the technology eight ball. This doesn’t even address the numerous 527s dominated by the left.

The whole netroots phenom seems to bug Davis. Good.

Now, Davis does say a few things that are important for Congressional Democrats to hear. We haven’t accomplished any grandiose agenda. On a number of key issues–like healthcare–we haven’t really started advocating for real promises rather than opposing Bush’s Medicare giveaway to Pharma or trying to ensure children get healthcare. Even if it’s only rhetorical, we need to be better about advocating our own agenda.

One area where I believe this is particularly important is on terrorism. Tom Davis thinks–even now–that FISA is a winning issue–largely because Democrats haven’t noted that Bush and the Republicans are still falling woefully short on a number of no nonsense things to keep the US safe. We need to keep pushing for the things that will keep us safe, beyond the 9/11 Commission recommendations we championed. For example, we ought to talk about inspecting more cargo containers. The reasons we’re not, after all, is because it’d hurt WalMart, though it actually might create some American jobs. So we need to be sure to be advocating for our policies, even if they won’t get passed so long as Joe Lieberman can flip a vote.

Finally, though, consider the source. Yes, Tom Davis is intelligent. Yes, unlike many Republicans, he does believe in gravity and other reality-based concepts.

But Tom Davis is retiring this year because he’s not sure he can win his increasingly Democratic district comprising a bunch of affluent VA suburbs of DC, along with some rural horse country. Mind you, his is not one of the areas he lists as urban or "granola belt," though big parts are the inner circles of suburbs he admits Democrats are solidly winning. But his district also encompasses a whole lot of Pentagon employees, CIA employees, defense contractors. And in spite of the fact that he includes military veterans in his description of the GOP base,

So let’s focus on shoring up our base: social conservatives, lunch bucket blue collar whites, Hispanics (they are in play for McCain), and military veterans.

…with his very retirement, he’s admitting that veterans–at least those still tied into government–aren’t necessarily the GOP base anymore (and particularly not after it takes Obama to make sure veterans with PTSD get diagnosed properly–isn’t Davis on an Oversight Committee of some sort?).

And that’s just Davis, who is, admittedly, in an increasingly tough VA district. But the whole state of VA (well, except for the Appalachian counties) went in big numbers for Obama this year, even while McCain was worried about depriving Huckabee of a moral victory. Worse for Davis, no one in their right mind thinks the GOP will retain Senator John Warner’s seat this year, not with Mark Warner in the race.

Tom Davis has a bunch of ideas. But his retirement, by itself, suggests they won’t even work for a reddish-purple state like VA.

Of the dozens of lobbyists that work on John McCain’s campaign, one already got nabbed in McCain’s recent "conflict of interest vetting for everyone but my wife" initiative: Eric Burgeson (though the NYT also reports that Tom Loeffler, Fundraising Chair, "was expected to give up his position to comply with the new rules "–presumably that’ll happen once Loeffler has finalized the next round of $30,000 a person fundraising dinners).

One lobbyist out of dozens. Why was Eric Burgeson, an advisor on energy and environmental issues, so much more of a problem for McCain than all the other lobbyists working on his campaign?

Burgeson’s recent job history looks like a wildly revolving door taking him from the White House, to the Department of Energy, and then into lobbying (I’m still trying to figure out whether Burgeson played a part in Dick’s Energy Task Force):

October 2006 to present: Barbour Griffith & Rogers, Vice President, Energy and Environment

April 2005 to October 2006: Chief of Staff, Department of Energy

November 2004 to April 2005: Special Assistant to the President and Associate Director of the Office or Presidential Personnel, White House

May 2004 to November 2004: Deputy Chief of Staff and White House Liaison, DOE

January 2001 to May 2004: Associate Director in the Office of Cabinet Affairs in the White House, Senior Policy Advisor to the Secretary of Energy and Senior Legislative Advisor in the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

1999 to 2001: Lobbyist for Mercury group, representing (among others) BP Amoco, Lockheed Martin, and the NRA

His 2008 first quarter lobbying for BGR offers more insight into the conflicts Burgeson represented for McCain:

Breakthough Fuel, energy and environment, new client (no quarterly reports)

Coal 2 Liquid, liquid coal, includes Senate lobbying

Contractors International Group on Nuclear Liability, IAEA Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage, includes Senate lobbying

Deloitte Consulting, procurement of technology and systems management, includes Senate lobbying

Energy Enterprise Solutions, IT Management, includes Senate lobbying (more background)

Flambeau River Biorefinery, energy and budget, includes Senate lobbying (more background)

Forest County Potawatami Community, tribal affairs, includes Senate lobbying (more background)

Kurdistan Regional Government, foreign relations, includes Senate lobbying (and Presidential and NSC lobbying)

MLBA Services, insurance reform, includes Senate lobbying

MPI Corporate Holdings, business development, US Mint

Materials Processing Corporation, electronics recycling, includes Senate lobbying (more background)

O2 Diesel Company, renewable energy, includes Senate lobbying (more background)

Qioptiq, defense issues, includes Senate lobbying (more background)

Southern Company Services, climate change, energy independence, includes Senate lobbying (more background)

WE Energies, climate change, electric utilites, and energy independence, includes Senate lobbying (more background)

In other words, one of the campaign advisors who has cultivated McCain’s "green" image has, at the same time, been representing companies from the renewable energy, nuclear energy, and liquid coal industries. Though lobbyist declaration forms don’t specify which Senators Burgeson has been lobbying, it would have been hard for Burgeson to avoid the former Chair of the Commerce Committee–especially since he was sitting with him on the Straight Talk for Lobbyists Express. Which is why I find Burgeson’s answer on the influence of special interests–speaking as McCain’s advisor–to be so amusing:

Renville, Minn.: While I support ethanol and believe that it is a valuable first step, I do not believe that the criticism of subsidies for ethanol is fair. I gladly would support no subsidies or tax breaks for ethanol if the same were done for the oil industry. I cannot believe anyone is strong enough to stand up to the oil industry. Does Sen. McCain believe that this is possible?

Eric Burgeson: You are right, powerful interests in Washington, DC are difficult to stand up to. But if there is anyone in Washington who can do it, it is Senator McCain who has built his career and reputation standing up to special interests. As for subsidies, Senator McCain has a clear position that he opposes subsidies, not just ethanol subsidies, but all subsidies. [my emphasis]

That’s right. McCain stands up to all the special interests–unless they work on his campaign staff.

As an added bonus, I like that McCain, until he decided the lobbyist schtick was ruining his image, had a lobbyist for a Potawatami tribe working for him who, with one other person, billed $80,000 in the first quarter of this year. It seems John McCain’s energy policy was being run by the second coming of Jack Abramoff.

In thoroughly unsurprising news, the defense attorneys for the five 9/11 High Value Detainees (including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Ramzi bin al-Shibh) have moved to either have the charges against their clients dismissed or, at least, have General Hartmann disqualified as Legal Advisor to the Show Trials. Here’s Carol Rosenberg on that story–as well as the news that Judge Allred will delay the start of Salim Hamdan’s trial until after SCOTUS rules in Boumedienne.

This motion obviously piggy-backs on Judge Allred’s decision from last week to have Hartmann disqualified in the Hamdan trial. The 9/11 defendants largely replicate the Hamdan complaint in their own motion–with one significant addition. They also argue that Hartmann illegally tried to coerce defense counsel, in addition to Colonel Morris Davis, the Chief Prosecutor. As they describe:

On January 25, 2008, a member of the Convening Authority’s staff, Colonel Wendy Kelly, inadvertently emailed a draft copy of the charges against Khaleed Sheikh Mohammed and five other detainees to Mr. Michael Berrigan, the Deputy Chief Defense Counsel. The draft charges were being circulated within the Office of the Convening Authority. Mr. Berrigan immediately notified Colonel Kelly of the disclosure and ascertained it was inadvertent, but after seeking counsel from his state bar, refused to return the draft charges.

On February 1, 2008, the Legal Advisor to the Convening Authority wrote a memorandum to the Chief Defense Counsel, Colonel Steven David. General Hartmann stated that he had contacted the professional responsibility offices for the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps and they had opined that Mr. Berrigan must return the draft charges in this case; charges which approximately two weeks later General Hartmann claimed to have just received.

[snip]

The fact that the Legal Advisor, rather than the Chief Prosecutor, sent the Memorandum to the Chief Defense Counsel illustrates the point that the Legal Advisor failed to retain the required independence from the prosecution function and maintain his ability to provide independent, neutral, and impartial advice to the Convening Authority.

The [Military Commissions Act] prohibits attempting to coerce or unlawfully influence the professional judgment of trial or defense counsel. While the Secretary of Defense has attempted to circumvent the statutory prohibition against unlawful influence of trial counsel by regulation, he has not done so for defense counsel. When unlawful influence is directed against a defense counsel, it "affects adversely on accused’s right to effective assistance of counsel." [citations removed]

Now, Hartmann would argue (as he did in his memo to Colonel David) that Berrigan,

…serves in a supervisory attorney capacity and does not represent clients. To my knowledge he does not have an attorney-client relationship with any of the individuals represented in the privileged materials. Therefore, returning the privileged materials presents no conflict with any duty to protect a client.

I’ll let the lawyers present assess that argument (I would note, though, that when Hartmann made that argument, none of the six detainees in question had attorneys). Obviously, though, since Berrigan did keep the email proving that Hartmann and the Convening Authority generally were included in drafts of the charges, it utterly undercuts Hartmann’s claim to independence when–in his press conference announcing the charges–he suggested he had yet to evaluate the charges.

I will evaluate the charges and all of the supporting evidence, along with the chief prosecutor’s recommendation, and I will forward them with my independent recommendation to Mrs. Susan Crawford, the convening authority for the Military Commissions.

Like I said, this was a thoroughly unsurprising move–when Allred disqualified Hartmann in Hamdan, whose charges Hartmann had little influence over, it particularly threatened those charges that Hartmann was closely involved in.

It makes you wonder how long Hartmann will still be involved in the Show Trials.

Tommy K has now joined Duke Cunningham in prison, with Tommy K being sentenced
to more than eight years and more than a million dollar fine. That leaves Dusty Foggo–presently due to be tried for bribery and then some in the fall in Virginia and currently squabbling over discovery with the government. And Brent Wilkes, who is trying to negotiate bail while he prepares to appeal his conviction.

These guys were all indicted for the gaming of our defense and intelligence contracts using bribes. But the housing crisis has added a nice touch of irony to the equation. Brent Wilkes has had trouble making bail because his southern California real estate has declined in value so much it’s no longer enough to back the $2 million he originally posted for bail.

Burns reinstated the $2 million bail, but wanted current appraisals of any real estate Wilkes would put up to secure $1.4 million of that amount.

Wilkes was short about $600,000 at first. The crash in the real estate market had devalued property previously used to secure the bail.

And Judge Larry Burns was none too happy that–after Tommy K signed a plea deal with the government–he continued to engage in massive mortgage fraud.

Burns also took into account that Kontogiannis continued breaking the law after he pleaded guilty.

“Here you are with your rear end on fire over this Cunningham thing, and you’re out there making bad loans?” Burns said. “I think that’s just brazen.”

So two and a half years after this little bribery ring first became public, its perpetrators are beginning to go to jail.

Howie’s got a good post on the secrecy surrounding Tommy K’s sweet plea deal. Like Howie, I hope that we begin to learn why the government almost gave Tommy K a pass on bribing a Congressman because–they claim–he was cooperating on some counter-terrorism investigation. We saw how Chiquita Bananas similarly got a pass on their crimes, courtesy of Michael Chertoff. I just wonder how many of the folks ripping off middle class home owners in the last several years will, like Tommy K almost did, similarly get a pass.

Dear George Bush:

Thank you for giving this son of immigrants the opportunity to deprive brown people of their right to vote. I’m just sorry I won’t have the opportunity to do so during the 2008 election.

Love,

Hans

I’m sorry. That’s not exactly what Han von Spakovsky said in his letter withdrawing from consideration for FEC. He did mention being the son of immigrants:

The day that I was sworn in as a Commissioner in January of 2006 was almost exactly 55 years to the day from the date that my parents arrived in the United States as penniless war refugees. It says a great deal about what a wonderful country we live in that a first-generation son of immigrants could be appointed by the President to such a post of public service.

And he did boast about his service in the Civil Rights Division of DOJ.

I am very proud of the work that I did as a career lawyer at the Department of Justice, which has been validated by numerous federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court.

Spakovsky must have forgotten the "sometimes" in that last sentence, as he was also reversed by those same courts.

Mostly, though, this letter is all about victimization–his victimization, not those whose votes or civil rights he ignored. He explains as his reason for withdrawing that his family does "not have the financial resources to continue to wait until this matter is resolved" (which I’m frankly fairly sympathetic to). No mention of Mitch McConnell’s refusal to let Spakovsky get an upperdown vote of his very own, without yoking him to other, more palatable nominees. To hear Spakovsky tell it, he was due this nomination, and unfair mean opposition ruined it for him.

That’s a stance that Harry Reid does not agree with, to say the least.

I welcome the President’s decision to withdraw the controversial nomination of Mr. von Spakovsky. It is an action I have repeatedly urged the President to take for more than six months. Democrats stood united in their opposition to von Spakovsky because of his long and well-documented history of working to suppress the rights of minorities and the elderly to vote. He was not qualified to hold any position of trust in our government.

As I understand it, the Senate has a Rules Committee hearing scheduled for Wednesday, at which they will be prepared to discuss the three other nominees. I’m trying to clarify whether that means Commissioner Mason–the guy who said McCain was breaking his own damn campaign finance law–will be ousted, but it seems to be. (In fact, I think one of the people they’ve nominated is Donald McGahn, a former DeLay lawyer also involved on the edges of the NRCC scandal–so we may be trading racially biased policies for outright corruption.) I will update you when I figure out more.

After losing a slew of dictator-connected advisors in the last week, the McCain campaign has finally decided it might be a good idea to vet the people hanging out with John McCain.

McCain campaign manager Rick Davis moved to avoid a recurrence of the situation with his conflict-of-interest policy, released late yesterday. It also sought to stem the impression that McCain’s campaign is run by lobbyists — a characterization Democrats have tried to make since it was reported that a senior adviser, Charlie Black, made lobbying calls from McCain’s signature bus, the Straight Talk Express. Davis himself is currently on leave from his lobbying and consulting firm, and the campaign removed two other officials this week for work they’d done on behalf of Burmese junta.

[snip]

The memo establishes a new vetting process, requiring campaign aides to fill out a questionnaire on their status and to provide proof to the campaign legal department that they’ve terminated outside contracts.

In an show of civic responsibility, Progressive Media USA has filled out the forms for five of McCain’s top advisors. Here, for example, is part of Charlie Black’s now-completed survey:

McCain Staff Lobbyist Survey

NAME: Charlie Black

CAMPAIGN ROLE: Senior Political Adviser

Have you ever registered as a federal lobbyist?
Yes

Have you ever been a registered foreign agent?
Yes

Please list all of the foreign governments, political and other interests you lobbied for:
Jonas Savimbi (leader of UNITA rebels in Angola)

[snip]

Government of Zaire

Please list any clients you think could potentially cause a conflict of interest for the McCain Campaign:
Yukos Oil
Philip Morris
JP Morgan
Johnson & Johnson
G-Tech
United Technologies
Washington Mutual Bank
U.S. Smokeless Tobacco
Occidental Petroleum Group
Accenture
Fluor
AT&T
Lincoln Group
Lockheed Martin
National Association of Mortgage Brokers
Ocean Duke Corp.
SAP America

Please list the times you have lobbied Senator McCain or his office:
NOT DISCLOSED

See how helpful that is? Transparency is a wonderful thing.

Only, McCain’s campaign forgot to ask for disclosure from one additional source of conflicts of interest. So, out of my own sense of civic responsibility, I’ve started to fill out the very special survey the campaign forgot:

McCain Staff Lobbyist Survey

NAME: Cindy McCain

CAMPAIGN ROLE: Sugar Momma

List Total Net Worth
$100,000,000

Please list all campaign donations provided that have not been fully reimbursed:

Six months of flights on the Sugar Momma Express
One large barbecue at my Sedona "ranch"

(More to come as "the base" requires it)

Please list all past or present investments that directly undermine a stated McCain campaign promise:
American Funds Europacific Growth fund
American Funds Capital World Growth and Income

(others to be filled in after the AP discovers them)

Please list all business partnerships with corrupt owners of savings &loans, mortgage banking firms, or other financial institutions for which Senator McCain has done legislative favors:

Charles Keating

(others to be filled in after the AP discovers them)

Please list all business partnerships with business owners that have or will be bailed out at taxpayer expense:

Charles Keating

(others to be filled in after the AP discovers them)

Please list any products you sell that offend the cultural sensitivies of a significant portion of the Republican base:

Alcohol

Wait. This isn’t working. There are just too many potential conflicts to fit into one simple survey. There must be an easier way of vetting the Sugar Momma‘s improper conflicts.

Thankfully there is, though it’s an invention of evil big government. For easy vetting and disclosure, the McCain camp might want to try this.

No no, not the bomb. Strictly a peaceful civil program, you understand, just like the Iranians say they’re developing.

As Bush flew into Riyadh, the White House said the United States, the world’s largest energy consumer, had agreed to help protect the resources of the world’s top oil exporter and help it in developing peaceful nuclear energy.

"The United States and Saudi Arabia have agreed to cooperate in safeguarding the kingdom’s energy resources by protecting key infrastructure, enhancing Saudi border security, and meeting (its) expanding energy needs," a White House statement said.

"The U.S. and Saudi Arabia will sign a memorandum of understanding in the area of peaceful civil nuclear energy cooperation."

The announcement came as Bush ended a three-day trip to Israel where he vowed to oppose Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Tehran says its program is peaceful but Bush said it would be "unforgivable" if Iran were allowed to get the bomb.

So we’re giving Saudi Arabia nukes while still refusing to allow Iran nukes.

And for all that, Saudi Arabia isn’t even willing (though I question whether, at this point, they are able) to lower gas prices?

While Bush is likely to find common ground on Iran when he meets King Abdullah, the Saudi monarch is expected to rebuff for the second time this year Bush’s face-to-face call to get OPEC pumping more oil to world markets.

Wasn’t it just yesterday that Bush was decrying negotiations with evil dictators? Does giving them nuclear technology while getting nothing in exchange count as "appeasement"?

I joked to some folks yesterday that Will Rogers is probably rolling over in his grave about now. Between Obama’s insistence on running one, unified message and party and Obama’s masterful implementation of the Edwards endorsement yesterday, we Democrats may no longer be able to quip–at least for the next several months–that we "belong to no organized party."

That sentiment was widely shared among a bunch of local political types in MI with whom I just had beers. It wasn’t just that Obama (and David Bonior, surely) had managed to headline Obama’s first MI event with the guy in the race who spoke most about the crappy economy. It wasn’t just that it was MI where he chose to get the endorsement–making up for a lot of the bad things some Michiganders have been told about Obama. It wasn’t even just the nice touch of keeping the Edwards endorsement a secret from the thousands who showed up in Van Andel arena to see Obama until Obama got to announce it himself on stage–magnifiying the specialness of the Edwards endorsement. It was, obviously, also the way Obama managed to pre-empt Hillary’s biggest win since Arkansas with the news that both of them have been chasing since February.

But the more I think about it, Obama’s management of the Edwards endorsement was even more brilliant than that.

Consider, for a moment, Robert Reich’s explanation of why Hillary remains in the race (h/t Jane).

She wants the best possible deal she can strike with Obama. She wants Obama to agree to pay her campaign debts, to seat the Michigan and Florida delegations (so she can claim a moral victory), and – the quietest deal of all – a personal commitment from him to appoint her to the Supreme Court when the next vacancy occurs.

Just as a picky point, the Edwards endorsement simplifies any resolution of MI. If the MI compromise proposal goes forward, it’ll make it a lot easier to award Obama 59 delegates now that the other major candidate who took uncommitted votes has endorsed Obama–Edwards isn’t going to complain that "his" votes from uncommitted are awarded to Obama. And even if Obama does feel generous and gives Hillary her MI "win" (which will piss me off, but I’m willing to be used once again for the sake of party unity)–having the Edwards endorsement will make it more likely that the roughly 5 elected delegates who support Edwards and the At Large delegates yet to be assigned to uncommitted will support Obama. (Obviously, that’s true of FL as well.)

But that’s a picky point. What I’m really interested in, with regards to the timing and implementation of the Edwards endorsement, is that it happened just as Hillary’s team had intensified its lobbying to secure the VP nomination for Hillary. A few days ago, everyone was talking about the dream ticket Obama-Clinton. Now, after last night’s endorsement, everyone is talking about the dream ticket of Obama-Edwards; talk of a Obama-Clinton ticket now seems dated, flat.

Consider the pressure that puts Hillary under. Whether she wants SCOTUS or VP or some other prize for a concession, everything she might be a good candidate for, Edwards would also be an excellent pick for. VP? AG? SCOTUS? Yup.

Yet Edwards, of course, jumped in when the concession prizes were all available–and jumped in in a way that made Hillary’s concession less necessary (though still pretty important) even as it isolated Hillary further in her opposition to Obama. If Hillary holds out much longer, it’ll be easy for Obama to give Edwards whatever prize Hillary might have wanted as a reward for Edwards endorsing to bring the party together.

By bringing in Edwards when he did (and mind you, I don’t imagine that Edwards is missing this significance either), Obama takes away much of Hillary’s bargaining position. That’s not very nice, mind you. But it is effective politics.

Will Rogers. I’m sorry, but you may have to take a pass this year.

…In our discussion of Tim Shorrock’s Spies for Hire, it seems appropriate to post on the Senate Armed Services Committee’s report on the Cyber-Security Initiative.

As you’ll recall, the Bush Administration has been struggling for their entire term to address the fact that our cyber-infrastructure is woefully exposed to cyber-attacks. After a series of cyber-czars who either wouldn’t or couldn’t address this problem, back in January the Administration began to make some progress–not least, by taking the project out of Michael Chertoff’s hands. The SASC’s report notes that the Administration has made some progress, though it has three substantive complaints.

The committee applauds the administration for developing a serious, major initiative to begin to close the vulnerabilities in the government’s information networks and the nation’s critical infrastructure. The committee believes that the administration’s actions provide a foundation on which the next president can build.

However, the committee has multiple, significant issues with the administration’s specific proposals and with the overall approach to gaining congressional support for the initiative.

First, the SASC objects to the way the Administration has shielded what is supposed to be at least partly a deterrent program in so much secrecy that the program has lost its deterrence ability.

A chief concern is that virtually everything about the initiative is highly classified, and most of the information that is not classified is categorized as `For Official Use Only.’ These restrictions preclude public education, awareness, and debate about the policy and legal issues, real or imagined, that the initiative poses in the areas of privacy and civil liberties. Without such debate and awareness in such important and sensitive areas, it is likely that the initiative will make slow or modest progress. The committee strongly urges the administration to reconsider the necessity and wisdom of the blanket, indiscriminate classification levels established for the initiative.

The administration itself is starting a serious effort as part of the initiative to develop an information warfare deterrence strategy and declaratory doctrine, much as the superpowers did during the Cold War for nuclear conflict. It is difficult to conceive how the United States could promulgate a meaningful deterrence doctrine if every aspect of our capabilities and operational concepts is classified. In the era of superpower nuclear competition, while neither side disclosed weapons designs, everyone understood the effects of nuclear weapons, how they would be delivered, and the circumstances under which they would be used. Indeed, deterrence was not possible without letting friends and adversaries alike know what capabilities we possessed and the price that adversaries would pay in a real conflict. Some analogous level of disclosure is necessary in the cyber domain.

Not only can’t citizens debate aspects of the program with so much secrecy, but we also can’t tell the Chinese hackers who would like to shut our systems down what will happen if they try to do so. (Hmm, I wonder if the worry is that the Chinese hackers wouldn’t be too concerned?) For more on this complaint, see Steven Aftergood.

To add to the concerns that secrecy prevents any meaningful debate, SASC notes, the initiative is moving far ahead of standard requirements for acquisitions: the Administration is trying to get Congress to pay for stuff that just isn’t ready yet.

The committee also shares the view of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence that major elements of the cyber initiative request should be scaled back because policy and legal reviews are not complete, and because the technology is not mature. Indeed, the administration is asking for substantial funds under the cyber initiative for fielding capabilities based on ongoing programs that remain in the prototype, or concept development, phase of the acquisition process. These elements of the cyber initiative, in other words, could not gain approval within the executive branch if held to standards enforced on normal acquisition programs. The committee’s view is that disciplined acquisition processes and practices must be applied to the government-wide cyber initiative as much as to the ongoing development programs upon which the initiative is based.

Hmm. The Committee seems right to be worried that the Administration wants us taxpayers to pay for "concepts" in secret.

And then, there’s the issue that Ryan Singel hits on–the Administration is trying to get us to pay for stuff, in the name of Cyber-Security, that is really just more spying.

The committee also concludes that some major elements of the cyber initiative are not solely or even primarily intended to support the cyber security mission. Instead, it would be more accurate to say that some of the projects support foreign intelligence collection and analysis generally rather than the cyber security mission particularly. If these elements were properly defined, the President’s cyber security initiative would be seen as substantially more modest than it now appears. That is not to say that the proposed projects are not worthwhile, but rather that what will be achieved for the more than $17.0 billion planned by the administration to secure the government’s networks is less than what might be expected.

The Administration is waving a $17 billion price tag around, which won’t get us the Cyber-Security the project is intended to, but will get us a bunch of other spying programs that really aren’t about Cyber-Security. No word, then, on what the real price tag would end up being to actually implement a Cyber-Security program that, you know, is something more than a concept. $17 billion is an awful lot for a concept with some more spying added in just for kicks.

Finally, the SASC attaches a laundry list of other major problems with the program–which basically make it sound like this isn’t a "program" yet at all.

Finally, the committee concludes that, for all its ambitions, the cyber initiative sidesteps some of the most important issues that must be addressed to develop the means to defend the country. These tough issues include the establishment of clear command chains, definition of roles and missions for the various agencies and departments, and engagement of the private sector.

Though, given the discussion we had earlier today, it sure seems like the Intelligence Community really hasn’t yet figured out the chain of command, defined the roles and missions, and figured out how to integrate the private sector effectively anyway.

All in all, this report looks like the kind of report you’d get from a very positive elementary school teacher. "Very nice try, Johnny. It’s so nice to see you trying to finish the homework you’ve been working on for eight years. Now let’s talk about the bare minimum you’re going to need to do in order to actually complete this homework. And no, you can’t have $17 billion dollars for what thus far is still C minus work."