Quote of the Day: Dana Milbank on Republican hypocrisy (and worse)

By Michael J.W. Stickings

As the Republicans take over the House, it's time for some perspective. And Milbank's got it:

For incoming Majority Leader Eric Cantor and his House Republicans, something strange happened on the way to Wednesday's "Opening Day" of the new Congress.

For two years, Cantor and his colleagues campaigned against high deficits. Now, in the new majority's first major act, they plan to vote to increase the deficit by $143 billion as part of a repeal of health-care reform. [Ezra Klein has more on this.]

For two years, Cantor and his colleagues bemoaned the Democrats' abuse of House rules to circumvent committees and to prevent Republicans from offering amendments. Now, Cantor confirmed on Tuesday, Republicans will employ the very same abuses as they attempt the repeal.

For two years, the Republicans complained about unrelenting Democratic partisanship. Now they're planning no fewer than 10 investigations of the Obama administration, and the man leading most of those has already branded Obama's "one of the most corrupt administrations" in history.

For two years, the Republican minority vowed to return power to the people. Now the House Republican majority is asking lobbyists which regulations to repeal, hiring lobbyists to key staff positions and hobnobbing with lobbyists at big-ticket Washington fundraisers.

Not that we could have seen this coming or anything. Right, American voters?

Happy New Year! Happy 112th Congress! Enjoy reaping what you have sown!

It's not alright, Jack

"We've lost sight in Washington of what Congress is for, of who Congress serves. It serves the people of the United States. Instead, we've found it serves Chinese sweatshop owners, Russian gangsters — Congress is now serving those interests. The thing is it has become accepted now, so part of our political culture now, that it's normal. Your average citizen doesn't have the voice you'd expect him to have because these voices are much louder and much better financed."
— J. Michael Waller, director, Institute of World Politics

By Edward Copeland 

It's slightly confusing that jailed former lobbyist Jack Abramoff has inspired two 2010 films about his escapades and that both have Casino Jack in the title. I've yet to see the fictional feature starring Kevin Spacey and directed by the late George Hickenlooper, but the documentary Casino Jack and the United States of Money by Alex Gibney, the great documentarian behind past gems such as the Oscar-winning Taxi to the Dark Side and Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room has made an excellent nonfiction version. On top of that, Gibney also directed or co-directed THREE other 2010 documentaries I've yet to see, Client 9: The Rise and Fall of Eliot Spitzer, Freakonomics and My Trip to Al-Qaeda. He also executive produced the phenomenal No End in Sight and was a consulting producer on the exquisite Who Killed the Electric Car? Busy man and from the films I've seen him make so far, a damn fine nonfiction filmmaker as well as a prolific one.

Even if you followed the tale of uberlobbyist Jack Abramoff closely, Gibney's film will keep you riveted as it tells the story of his life and various malfeasance through interviews with many of the associates who were involved in his schemes, either as victims or perpetrators. You also get handy reminders of what a true character the man really was, dating all the way back to his days as he took over the national college Republicans to spin them in a more conservative direction with friends such as Karl Rove and Grover Norquist.

It's also funny to remember his interest and obsessions with pop culture, such as when he grew tired of his secular Jewish rearing and decided to become orthodox based on, of all things, seeing the film version of Fiddler on the Roof. Then there is the obsession he and other college Republicans had with the movie Patton, repeating the famous speech George C. Scott delivers in the film, only replacing every German or Nazi reference with Democrat. Longing for spy games at heart, when an Angolan adventure goes awry, Abramoff even turned to movie producing, financing the Dolph Lundgren hoot Red Scorpion.

However, lobbying proved far more lucrative to Abramoff than show business ever could have been, ethics and laws be damned. It led to the the top our system of legalized bribery (and some instances of not-so-legalized bribery) as he peddled influence on Capitol Hill, mostly with Republicans though Democrats cashed in on his largess as well. The shocking parts are watching as he enlists Indian tribes as clients to promote gaming on one hand and charges them huge fees while on the other hand helps forces out to stop the Indian gaming movement if it interferes with specific clients. Rest assured though, Abramoff and his associates were making money on both sides of the equation.

Casino Jack and the United States of Money tells Abramoff's story in a sleek, informative way and it's still unbelievable that only member of Congress, Bob Ney, R-Ohio, went to jail for his involvement with the man, even if he did help shove Tom DeLay out the door. Gibney saves his suckerpunch for the epilogue though, when you realize that as bad as the system is and as horribly as Abramoff abused it, it turned out to be small potatoes compared to what the lobbyists for the titans of Wall Street have and continue to accomplish.

The result should really be more depressing than it is, but it's made too well and entertains too much for much sadness to seep in.

(Cross-posted at Edward Copeland on Film.)

Too much business

By Capt. Fogg  

It's one of those things many Obama supporters hoped he would do, and do quickly. It's also one of those things nobody should have expected him to be able to do given any amount of time. I'm talking about the malignant, corrupting influence of unfettered and unlimited lobbying. Amidst the chorus singing about too much government influence in the oil industry being the culprit in the Gulf oil disaster (along with the president, of course), isn't it time to listen to the quiet voices trying to remind us that it's too much business involvement in government that's corrupting both sectors?

Of course, they're quiet only in comparison, because the volume of noise is directly proportional to the volume of oil bucks and gas bucks and the volume of Republican/corporate money wells pumping away at the opportunity to make even more through more obfuscation and deregulation. If The Washington Post has it right and 3 out of 4 oil and gas lobbyists were formerly part of the federal government, we have to believe that congress isn't going to find fault with a practice that can offer lucrative employment to the departing congressman or the promise of election support that opens the spigot of campaign financing from those industries.

No, I don't see Obama doing much about it. In fact, I don't see us or anyone else doing much about it. We just can't afford to compete.

Segmeted representation on health-care reform

By Carol Gee

Legislators are generally beholden to a number of constituencies, including just plain citizens. But far too often loyalties lie with other segments of constituents, such as lobbyists, party and other special interests. Thus my interests go unrepresented unless I belong to a special interest group. In the case of health care reform legislation, my Republican senators and Republican U.S. Representative ignore my needs. The Democratic Party, my party is split into liberals and conservatives. I often feel left out of the Blue Dogs' stance. I cannot afford a lobbyist. But I do belong to some special interest groups: Democracy for America, Organizing for America, Social Workers, and the AARP. And I am a part of the liberal blogosphere community.

So who will represent me in this? All my special interest groups are doing a good job so far, but their power is limited. For example, DFA's Howard Dean has been unflagging in his optimism regarding the future of truly comprehensive health care reform that includes a public option. But he is not in the inner circle of legislative power. Thank goodness, however, he has been seen smiling and firmly pro-reform on several TV news shows recently including Rachel Maddow on the night of August 20. Rachel's tweet cited a recent poll supporting the public option that Dean referenced during his interview.

The group at the fulcrum of change right now numbers 6. The only committee with work left to do is the Senate Finance Committee. What they are considering is some sort of nonprofit cooperative as the public option. The six "negotiators" plan to meet occasionally during the recess. And these senators represent only a very small number of the American people. Following are the 2008 estimated state population figures along with the percentage of the total U.S. population (source Wikipedia). The senators include:

• Finance CommitteeChairman Max Baucus (D-Montana, Est. pop: 967,440 - .31%)
• Charles Grassley (R-Iowa, Est. pop: 3,002,555 -.98%)
• Mike Enzi (R-Wyo, Est. pop: 532,668 - .17%)
• Olympia Snowe (R-Maine, Est. pop: 1,316,456 - .43%
• Kent Conrad (D-N.Dakota, Est. pop: 641,481 - .21%)
• Jeff Bingaman (D-New Mex., Est. pop: 1,984,356 - .64%).

These figures total only 8,444,956 people or 2.74% of the total estimated population of the entire United States and its territories. By sheer force of numbers, not to mention politics, there is no way these six could be considered to be representative of all of us or our wishes. First I do not live in any of these states and second, nor does 97.26% of the rest of you.

The House of Representatives' position right now is the closest match to my own views on what reform should look like. Here, courtesy of Michael J.W. Stickings' tweet, is a Bloomberg story on what House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is planning when Congress comes back into session. To quote: "U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she won't be able to pass health-care legislation in her chamber if the measure doesn't include a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers."

So now we wait for Congress to come back in session. We wait for the next report of a disrupted town-hall meeting. We wait for President Obama's next speech to clear up misrepresentations put out by other special interest groups. We wait for Labor Day. And we wait to see what the Senate leadership will decide about legislative tactics that will get us health care reform without the Republicans participating. How about a cool drink while we wait?

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

How astroturfing and town-hall hooliganism will destroy American democracy

By (O)CT(O)PUS

What Rachel Maddow describes is called “astroturfing,” the subject of this hastily prepared post. I say “hasty” because this is an important topic deserving of immediate and sustained discussion in the blogosphere.

The goal of astroturfing is to create the illusion of public opposition to pending legislation or reform. Astroturfing is organized by professional public relations firms financed by corporations, their lobbyists, and trade associations to oppose any legislation that threatens corporate interests. Astroturfing creates the illusion of a popular and spontaneous uprising but, in fact, is a carefully orchestrated and covert operation that utilizes deception, disinformation, scare tactics, fear-mongering, and outright forgery to achieve its goals.

Examples of astroturfing are the recent Tea Bag protests; the “Dead Seniors” campaign designed to sabotage healthcare reform; and the “Birther” movement that seeks to undermine the legitimacy of an elected president.

Astroturfing is sometimes called “stealth” marketing, “viral” marketing, or “ambush” marketing. Cynical and unethical in the extreme, it is specifically banned in the Code of Ethics published by the Public Relations Society of America and the International Association of Business Communicators. However, ethics never seemed to bother former House Majority Leader Dick Armey or the billionaire lobbyists who pay him to sabotage pending legislation and reform.

Recently, astroturfing has taken a more sinister form reminiscent of the violent street tactics that gave birth to the Third Reich. A rightwing organization called Right Principles has published a “political action” memo that shows supporters how to disrupt town hall meetings, harass and heckle members of congress, and shout down and drown the opposition:

"pack the hall... spread out" to make their numbers seem more significant, and to "rock-the-boat early in the Rep's presentation...to yell out and challenge the Rep's statements early ... to rattle him, get him off his prepared script and agenda ... stand up and shout ... "

According to Rachel Maddow, this memo is a prescription for hooliganism and intimidation.

Dick Armey’s client list includes major pharmaceutical firms such as Bristol-Myers Squibb, a trade group representing major insurance companies, a front company representing fossil fuel interests, Sheikh Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum (Prime Minister of the UAE), and Freedom Works (the tea bag protest organizers), among others. Astroturfing represents a threat to democracy because it serves the interests of corporations but NOT the will of citizens and voters, thus undermining the meaning and purpose of elections.

This is my greatest fear: A rabble minority employs stealth and guile to thwart the will of the majority. Better to rule in Hell, as Milton says, than serve in a democracy.

Sometimes, when I am awake at night, I think of how our culture pushes the boundaries of taste and decorum further into the wilderness, and wonder about the tipping point beyond which there is no return, like those who cross an abyss and sink forever into tyranny, the point where “the falcon can longer hear the falconer.”

When my daughters were growing up, I taught them this: Freedom and responsibility are two sides of the same coin. Responsibility earns freedom, not the reverse. I am afraid we are reaching a tipping point where we lose both.

(Cross-posted at The Swash Zone.)

The future of health care reform

By Carol Gee

Who knows what will happen to the biggest item on the Obama agenda for change, health care? No one can tell for certain but a few are willing to hazard guesses. This is the last week Congress will be in session before the summer recess. CQ Quarterly predicts that the Senate Finance Committee will not report out a health care reform package Due to the inability to reach a bipartisan agreement, as well as the press of much other business, work will resume in September. Prediction: A decent bill will be ready for the President to sign before the end of the year. And President Obama will weigh in with his final requirements only late in the game.

Republicans remain uncooperative -- Taegan Goddard points out that we are still waiting for the Republicans' Health Care Plan. It is a safe bet, in my opinion, that there will be none forthcoming. Prediction: What will be forthcoming from Republicans is fear mongering about raising your taxes, plus everything else they can think of to "throw against the wall."

Progressive Dems vs. Blue Dogs is a continual pull and tug between special interests and voter constituents. Prediction: Progressives will not get a pure public option, but a public plan that is nonprofit "co-op" based. The following piece illustrates that the key swing Blue Dog Democrats could play the largest role in how reform legislation emerges from Congress. To quote Politico.com:

President Barack Obama’s signature proposal, a public plan option to introduce more competition in private markets, would be significantly weakened, reflecting pressure from Blue Cross-Blue Shield plans that dominate many rural states and that were a source of millions of dollars in campaign contributions last year. The small-business lobby, itself a political powerhouse, carved out a larger exemption for operations earning up to $500,000 annually. At the same time, families are asked to dig deeper to afford the promised coverage to be bought through public exchanges.

House Democrats have proposed a sliding scale of subsidies so that new health insurance mandates don’t impose a disproportionate — and ultimately unaffordable — burden on working- and middle-class families. Without that feature, Democrats would risk a serious backlash if costs become too great and households rebel against the health care mandate. And the House maneuvering is important as a preview of the larger battle ahead in the Senate, where the Finance Committee is proposing far less generous subsidies.

The other chamber's conservative Democrats, such as Senator Max Baucus (D-Mont.), are being heavily lobbied via huge donations from health insurance companies and stand to cast votes this year that will reelect them to the Senate in 2010. Progressive Democrats are already using targeted ads to try to force the adoption of a public option by wavering Democrats from conservative districts. To be sure the debate will get noisier as Congress heads home to hear what the folks in their districts have to say. Prediction: The major ad campaign, featuring things of which you should be afraid will encourage timid constituents to seriously pressure lawmakers to either stop entirely or compromise severely.

Senators will speak from experience -- Senator Chris Dodd, who spearheaded the H.E.L.P. Committee's health care reform bill has been diagnosed with prostate cancer. He sat in for Senator Ted Kennedy, himself ill with brain cancer. Lobbyists have paid tribute to Senator Kennedy's heroic fight by donating generously to causes that he supports. Prediction: Using their own health care challenges as either spoken or unspoken backdrops to their reform leadership, several key senators, including Senator Specter, will be articulate and passionate spokesmen for significant reform.

Reference: CQ Politics launched the CQ Election Map for 2010 House races.

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

Rick Davis, the mortgage crisis, and the corruption at the heart of the McCain campaign

By Michael J.W. Stickings

So McCain's a maverick reformer who, with his maverick reformer sidekick from the "petro-kleptocracy" of Alaska, wants to clean up Washington, huh?

Well...

Senator John McCain's campaign manager was paid more than $30,000 a month for five years as president of an advocacy group set up by the mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to defend them against stricter regulations, current and former officials say.

So reports the Times on Rick Davis.

That would be the Rick Davis who runs the McCain campaign, the campaign that has tried to connect Obama to former Fannie Mae CEO Franklin Raines, even running ads to that effect. Contrary to McCain's lies, however, Raines is not an Obama advisor. (And even if he were, so what? McCain takes advice from the likes of Carly Fiorina, the failed former Hewlett-Packard CEO and now a top McCain surrogate. There wouldn't be anything wrong with Obama talking to an important figure like Raines.)

But Davis isn't just a McCain advisor, he's McCain's campaign manager. And he actively campaigned on behalf of those two mortgage giants against additional regulation. In other words, he wasn't just part of the problem, he was a high-paid lobbyist fighting attempts to solve the problem. And why did Fannie and Freddie pay Davis so much money?

The value that he brought to the relationship was the closeness to Senator McCain and the possibility that Senator McCain was going to run for president again," said Robert McCarson, a former spokesman for Fannie Mae.

In other words, they spent a lot of money buying access not to Davis's lobbying skills but directly to McCain. "Because the companies hoped to continue to avoid government regulations of their business practices," adds Steve Benen. And who else to turn to but a powerful senator -- he was chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation for most of 1997-2005 -- with a possibly presidential future?

(And how is the McCain campaign responding? By attacking the Times, of course.)

McCain continues to smear Obama over Rezko, even though there is no evidence of any corruption or wrong-doing on Obama's part, and over Raines, even though he and Obama hardly know each other. And yet here's one of McCain's top aides right in the middle of the mortgage crisis, with Fannie and Freddie buying access to McCain.

Country first? Hardly.

McCain has a history of taking huge sums of money from access-buying industries and of surrounding himself with high-powered Washington lobbyists. (Like Rick Davis.) He is anything but the Mr. Clean that he and his fawning supporters and media enablers make him out to be.

Indeed, like the earmark-grubbing Palin, the corruption-happy McCain is the sordid truth behind the web of lies, deception, and misrepresentation that is being spun and re-spun throughout this campaign.

Media props

By Creature

Here are two examples, yes two, of the media doing its job. It's a shame I'm so impressed because reporting should always look like this.

First we have Campbell Brown refusing to take spin for an answer from McCain spokesperson Tucker Bounds [h/t TPM]:



Next--from ABC News, no less--is Brian Ross exposing the lie that the GOP is on respectful footing as a hurricane lashes America [h/t watertiger]:



(Cross-posted at State of the Day.)

Buying Congress, corrupting democracy

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Yes, folks, America is a plutocracy. Here's Glenn Greenwald on "how telecoms are attempting to buy amnesty from Congress":

One of the benefits from the protracted battle over telecom amnesty is that it is a perfect microcosm for how our government institutions work. And a casual review of the available evidence regarding how telecom amnesty is being pursued demonstrates what absurd, irrelevant distractions are the pro-amnesty justifications offered by the pundit class and the Bush administration.

Just in the first three months of 2008, recent lobbyist disclosure statements reveal that AT&T spent $5.2 million in lobbyist fees (putting it well ahead of its 2007 pace, when it spent just over $17 million). In the first quarter of 2008, Verizon spent $4.8 million on lobbyist fees, while Comcast spent $2.6 million. So in the first three months of this year, those three telecoms -- which would be among the biggest beneficiaries of telecom amnesty (right after the White House) -- spent a combined total of almost $13 million on lobbyists. They're on pace to spend more than $50 million on lobbying this year -- just those three companies.

*****

Then there are the specific lobbying arrangements these telecoms have regarding FISA. AT&T, for instance, paid $120,000 in the first three months of 2008 to the lobbying firm of BSKH & Associates -- the firm of which Charlie Black, top campaign adviser to John McCain, is a founding partner. According to BSKH's lobbyist disclosure form (.pdf), Charlie Black himself, at the same time he was advising McCain, was one of the individuals paid by AT&T to lobby Congress on FISA.

*****

Last year, AT&T paid $400,000 to Black's firm. Black was taking money from AT&T to lobby on FISA and simultaneously advising McCain. McCain, needless to say, voted in favor of granting amnesty to AT&T and the other telecoms at exactly the time that his close adviser, Black, was taking money from AT&T to influence Congress on its behalf. And, of course, AT&T and Verizon are among McCain's top donors.

Yes, that's straight-talkin' John McCain, still with the media-driven reputation for being Mr. Clean. (He is, of course, nothing of the sort.)

As always with Glenn's posts, make sure to read the whole thing. Every American ought to know what is being done to their so-called democracy.

Just in case you haven't been paying attention

By Creature

Crusty McSame didn't lose his bearings, he exchanged them for cash from his lobbyist friends (or as McSame likes to call them: his campaign staff).

(Cross-posted at State of the Day.)

The John McCain story

By Carol Gee

As I am writing this Senator John McCain is before the early morning news media cameras attempting to "resolve" to get out in front of the current New York Times hot story, to "move on," from the issue involving himself and a lobbyist. The Senator has denied everything, including what the unnamed aides have said as sources in the story. Senator McCain said, "I am very disappointed in the article and it is not true."

There is a kind of familiar feel to it. But now it has become as much about the messenger as the message. It is rather painful to watch. I am tuned in to MSNBC's Morning Joe. Continuing to focus on The New York Times, host Joe Scarborough has talked at length all morning about the "lack of real substance" in the story with his sidekick Mika Brzezinski. Mica says the NYT "is on the spot here."

Now we get to hear Chris Matthews explain it to us. Naming the NYT, "the best paper in the country, the best at getting sources, careful," Matthews continued, "This is classic John McCain -- it is explosive -- he handled it very quickly... I'm going to go over the story line by line." Later Matthews continued, "We'll hear from Media Matters on this. How would conservatives respond at the beginning? Everybody will go to general quarters."

David Gregory reminded his companions, "We're not engaged in press criticism here. We aren't able to make judgments... But I would ask, how do you as a voter evaluate John McCain. We do not yet know the impact. We will have to watch Mike Huckabee's reaction. I don't think we can judge yet. What are the unanswered questions? Gregory did note that Senator McCain "had declined to be interviewed for the piece." Gregory talked about the Senator's "bringing in Bob Bennett, preferred to handle it behind the scenes."

Pat Buchannan was at high decible rant, saying, "McCain put his credibility straight on the line up against the New York Times, whose integrity is now on the line. The story was a head shot. They were going for the kill. Now they have to now decide what to do next."

Fallout continues. This is a big story, if you use the amount of space used at the website Memeorandum as any gauge. Fully 3/4 of their headline and link space is taken up with this explosive story. The McCain campaign staff is dismissing the story as based only on anonymous sources. John Weaver, named in the story, has denied being the source of the leak. There is more from the NYT's head, Bill Keller: "We think the story speaks for itself. We publish stories when we think they are ready. It was a long time in the works [including lawyers looking at it]. No one has challenged what we have reported" [what the aides said]. Questions remain with Joe of MSNBC about the placement of the story and the timing of its release. Mike Huckabee has responded with supportive comments about Senator McCain.

When this news came out, a phrase popped into my head and it has not left. "This is a watchbird watching you," from Askville, refers to a cartoon character that I used to shame my children into behaving back in the late 1950s. I regret that I did that. I learned later that it was not the way to change children's behavior. I was not a model for an appropriate nonjudgmental attitude. Hootsbuddy's Place explains the phrase for us:

"This is a Watchbird..."

This is what I think of as a "Watchbird" post. I haven't come to any conclusions yet, but I have enough reservations about both links to read what they have said with respect.

The Watchbird was a creation of Munro Leaf whose cartoons from the fifties always ended with "This is a Watchbird watching a [whatever]. And this is a Watchbird watching YOU." Maybe it was this early training that made part of me into a Watchbird. I dunno. In any case, it missed the mark. I was suppose to identify with someone in the cartoon, not the Watchbird. I guess even at that early age I was more prone to judging than being judged.

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

The Amazing Deregulation Race

By Creature

Coming soon to C-SPAN!

- The Amazing Deregulation Race -
Reality TV for the Brooks Brothers Class

The Premise: Teams of corporate lobbyists race against time to screw the American people in hopes of getting the Bush administration to approve their pro-business agenda before 2009.

The Twist: No one goes home a loser. A first for reality television! Each lobbying team is given an unlimited amount of money to compete and virtually 24-hour access to convince a friendly Bush administration to repeal any cumbersome, profit-sucking, tree-hugging regulation they wish.

Check your local listings for more.

Disclaimer: C-SPAN is not liable for damages this show may inflict. These damages include, but are not limited to: lung disease, increased work hours, rollover death, and the destruction of the environment.

(Cross-posted at State of the Day.)

Reaction to the News (11/21/07)

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Here are some interesting stories you might want to check out:

1) San Francisco Chronicle: "California Secretary of State Debra Bowen sued a Nebraska voting machine company on Monday, seeking fines and reimbursements of nearly $15 million from the firm for allegedly selling nearly 1,000 uncertified machines to San Francisco and four other counties."

pse·phol·o·gy (sē-fŏl'ə-jē) n.

The study of political elections.

[Greek psēphos, pebble, ballot (from the ancient Greeks' use of pebbles for voting) + –LOGY.]

Yes, that's how the Greeks voted, by dropping pebbles into urns. The modern equivalent is the paper ballot and the ballot box. And what's wrong with that? There's something to be said for marking an X next to the candidate of your choice, is there not? This is one case, I would argue, where technology has not made our lives any better. The count may be quicker (and, arguably, more accurate, assuming no funny business, which is not something it is wise to assume) with voting machines, but consider what we give up as voters and what the democratic process itself loses in abandoning the older, and ultimately more fulfilling, method of voting.

**********

2) TPM Muckraker: "The Center for Public Integrity's brand-new report on Iraq contracting, Windfalls of War II, identifies at least $20 billion in contract money that has gone to non-U.S. companies that it cannot identify."

War is hell. War profiteering is eternal.

This war just keeps getting better and better, eh?

**********

3) SCOTUSblog: "After a hiatus of 68 years, the Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to rule on the meaning of the Second Amendment — the hotly contested part of the Constitution that guarantees "a right to keep and bear arms." Not since 1939 has the Court heard a case directly testing the Amendment's scope -- and there is a debate about whether it actually decided anything in that earlier ruling. In a sense, the Court may well be writing on a clean slate if, in the end, it decides the ultimate question: does the Second Amendment guarantee an individual right to have a gun for private use, or does it only guarantee a collective right to have guns in an organized military force such as a state National Guard unit?"

Who am I to disagree with Balkin? "I predict that the Court will hold (1) that the 2nd amendment protects an individual right, (2) that this right applies against laws in federal territories like the District of Columbia, (3) that a relatively deferential standard of reasonableness applies, and (4) that, even under this relatively deferential statute at least one part of the D.C. gun control law is unconstitutional. That is to say, I predict a decision that tries to split the difference and is aimed roughly at the middle of public opinion, even if not the exact center."

In other words, the fight will continue, with crazy gunmongers claiming a right to own anything and everything and fare more sensible people arguing that compromise is desirable. As for me, I would prefer to have the Second Amendment struck down altogether.

(See also The New York Times and The Washington Post.)

**********

4) Examiner: "Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay may not be in a leadership position on Capitol Hill anymore, but that doesn't mean he can't weigh in on the current GOP leadership.DeLay told Yeas & Nays that Republicans in Congress are "looking for something to believe in" and "they're not getting it out of this Republican leadership... The leadership just isn't getting it."

By "getting it," I assume The Hammer means leading sex-obsessed crusades against the opposition, gerrymandering electoral districts for partisan purposes, promoting violence against judges, befriending and working with disgraced lobbyists, turning K Street into an organ of the GOP, and vice versa, taking money from Russian oil interests, misusing federal agencies, violating campaign finance laws...

**********

And last, but certainly not least:

5) MSNBC: "Former White House press secretary Scott McClellan blames President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney for efforts to mislead the public about the role of White House aides in leaking the identity of a CIA operative."

Big news, but hardly surprising. It was Bush and Cheney and Rove and Libby and Card -- all of them pushing the lie and lying to Scotty McC.

Olbermann responds. See Crooks and Liars. (And see also Benen, who asks the right questions.)

**********

That's it for now. More posts to come.

Good night, everyone.

Putting the kibosh on K Street

By Libby Spencer

Walmart now loves Democrats. It isn't exactly news that deep pocket corporate contributions aren't based on ideology. They traditionally hedge their bets and spend the money according to who is in power and as such serve as something of a barometer on the conventional wisdom over who's hot and who's not. But it does serve as a reminder that any politician can be bought. Payola is non-partisan and so unfortunately is political backscratching. I think it's another good argument for mandating public financing for campaigns.

For instance, would the dismal Medicare "reform" bill have been enacted without the undue influence of the pharmaceutical lobby? I think not when they essentially wrote the bill and sheparded it on the floor. And before you argue against my point, take a look at the numbers.

Lobbyists have effectively become unelected legislators. It's clear we're not going to be able to clean up the ethical mess inside the Beltway from the inside out. We won't negate the influence of lobbyists unless and until we remove the avenues through which they finance election and especially re-election campaigns. I can't think of a better reason to consider mandating public funding instead.

(Cross-posted at The Impolitic.)