Why Are They Afraid of a Living Wage, Clean Air, and Free Speech?
Well, the Republicans have launched their long-planned attack on the Representatives who will be Committee Chairs when we take back Congress. It will get nastier than this–the WSJ hides, at least, the degree to which this fear campaign depends on race-baiting and gay-baiting. But let’s look at some of the things they fear:
Energyand Commerce would return to the untender mercies of John Dingell, thelongest-serving Member first elected in 1955, who was a selectivescourge of business when he ran the committee before 1994. The MichiganCongressman would do his best to provide taxpayer help to GM and Ford.But telecom companies would probably get more regulation in the form ofNet neutrality rules, and a windfall profits tax on oil would be a realpossibility.
Hmm. Provide help to GM and Ford? Even Republican candidate for governor in MI, Dick "Amway" DeVos, is trying to force Bush to help out the automobile companies. Not a bad idea, you know, to try to preserve hundreds of thousands of middle class jobs.
But look what they don’t mention about John Dingell’s legacy. Dingell is known for several things–the Clean Air Act, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, the Medicare Program that works (unlike the donut hole monstrosity invented by Bush’s donors)–all programs with solid support around the country.
And they’ve thrown in Net Neutrality, pretending that Dingell’s support for Net Neutrality, which simply preserves the state of Free Speech on the Internet, is something to be feared. Why is the WSJ, a media outlet, campaigning against Free Speech. (Hint–the dead tree media aren’t doing so well with real competition. I guess the WSJ’s support for competition only extends to other publicly traded companies?) So just with John Dingell, the WSJ wants you to be afraid of Clean Air, adequate medical care for children and seniors, and Free Speech. Whew, I’m quivering from fear.
First Wilkes and Now Mrs. Cunningham
Last week we were treated to Brent Wilkes’ attempt to exonerate himself publicly and/or threaten his co-conspirators, Lowery and Lewis. This week, we’re treated to Mrs. Randall "Duke" Cunningham’s story (sub. required), who is apparently a person of interest in the investigation. As Mrs. Cunningham’s lawyer explains, she’s trying to convince us that she didn’t know about Duke’s multi-million dollar bribery racket.
"My client faces an uphill battle as faras people believing she is not part of her husband’s conspiracy. Idon’t believe she benefited from anything Duke did, but every aspect ofher life has been affected by the suspicion."
By that, he’s probably referring to the fact that Mrs. Cunningham got her ill-gotten house taken away and now she has to live like the rest of us.
What a Difference a Year Makes
I’m having a little bit of deja vu this morning. When I did my post on the background to Cheney’s Old Man Shooting Party, I reviewed the fundraiser that attracted Bush Pioneers from all over the country–including Katharine "Where’s Waldo of Republican Warmongering" Armstrong, who owns Dick’s shooting range–the annual fundraiser at the Broken Spoke Ranch. So I read several accounts of Bush, riding in a black Chevy Suburban, being driven by Camp Casey to go hobnob with his most corrupt generous donors.
President Bush and his motorcade passed the growing camp of war protesters outside his ranch Friday without incident.
As Bush passed on his way to and from apolitical fundraiser, law enforcement blocked two intersecting roadswhere the demonstrators have camped out all week. Officers required thegroup to stand behind yellow tape, but no one was asked to leave.
The motorcade didn’t stop.
And once again last week, even as 20 South Asian terrorists threatened to down 10 airliners headed to the US, Bush drove by Camp Casey to hit up his rich friends for cash.
On the way to the event at the Broken Spoke Ranch on a hot,cloudless day, the presidential motorcade drove past ascattering of anti-war protesters associated with CindySheehan, whose soldier son died in Iraq. They waved signs like"WMD Lies Lost Lives."
Deja vu, right? Only with one key difference. Bush expected to raise only 38% this year of what he raised last year. And to do that, he had to lower the bar of entry, from those who donated $25,000 to those who donated $15,000.
Marty Marty Marty
I’m going to take a guess and say that Marty Peretz has been designated as the guy who will give Joementum cover for joining the Republican party, in fact if not in name. I say that for two reasons. First, there’s this little bit of nuttiness:
Worse can besaid of Bill Clinton’s stumping in Connecticut for Joe (and Hillary’sendorsement, too.) When Clinton came into the state, Lieberman andLamont were running dead even in the polls, more or less. Clinton’sappearance began Lieberman’s decline. Within two or three days,Lieberman was down by ten points. (In the last few days of thecampaign, Lieberman recovered considerably … but not enough.)
Obviously, Marty is wrong on the facts. Clinton’s campaigning came after Joementum saw he was losing big. Clinton came in. Joementum made up lost ground.
So what’s the reason for Marty’s delusions? Well, it probably has to do with the fact that Clinton said he will support the winner of the primary (and Hillary has already sent off a big check to that effect). The guy who helped Joementum keep this close is about to endorse his opponent. So Marty does Joementum’s backstabbing for him, diminishing the value of a Clinton endorsement just before he endorses Joementum’s opponent. Hey Bill?!?! After Joementum’s shiv during Monicagate, did you really expect any better behavior this time?
Can You Hear Me NOW?
The NYT’s blockbuster story on Brent Wilkes is most interesting, IMO, for the delicate dance of threat and technical legal denial it portrays. Wilkes leaves little doubt as to why he agreed to the interview.
Ms. Luque said her client’s legal problems were a battle that he “will fight and win.â€
Shesaid federal prosecutors told her in January that they were notinterested in Mr. Wilkes’s dealings with Mr. Lowery and Mr. Lewis.“Cunningham couldn’t have followed through on what he did without thecooperation of other people on the committee,†Ms. Luque said.Prosecutors should be looking at the entire committee, she said.
And notice that Ms. Luque doesn’t even say that Wilkes plans to "fight and win" this in the courts. Heck, she doesn’t even say who this is a battle against, the law or Wilkes’ former associates, Lowery and Lewis. Meanwhile, Wilkes claims he believes Lowery and Lewis haven’t broken the law. But then he describes Lowery making threats that reveal a clear quid pro quo.
DeLay's Dilemma
Let’s say you’re Tom DeLay. It’s February 2006, and your legal defense fund is beginning to run dry.Well, not just run dry. It’s already running a deficit. You’re already polling behind your Democratic opponent in the polls, and you haven’t even won the primary yet. Thing is, you consider the three people running against you disloyal. Fuck ’em. Who are they to accuse the Hammer of corruption? So you stay in the race just to prevent one of them from benefiting from the misfortune of Tom DeLay. No problem. You can whup their asses in the primary and just deal with getting a candidate later.
Fast forward to Summer 2006. At this point, you’ve got $1.4 million in your campaign fund, with $1 million in unpaid legal bills. With lots more legal bills to come. And your Democratic opponent has $2 million in his campaign chest. You know you’re not going to win your seat. In fact, all your colleagues want you out, ASAP, because you’re making them look like crooks. And frankly, with the Legal Defense Fund donations slowing down, it’s beginning to look like you’ll need to use all of your campaign funds to pay the lawyers. And shit, they haven’t even gotten Buckham yet. There’s a while ‘nother legal case on the Abramoff charges, that’s coming down the pike.
So you just ask the head of the TX GOP party to declare you ineligible. Tell them I’m from VA, now. Those Democrats won’t do anything about it. They’re a bunch of pansies. Right?
