Democracy as Anti-corruption

Matt Yglesias posted the other day on the problem China has in curbing corruption and he relates that to the lack of Democratic institutions. He attributes the relatively low level of corruption in the Western Democracies to our democratic institutions. In his words

Simply put, the main way that corruption gets exposed is through a combination of a free press and active, opportunistic opposition parties eager to make hay out of corruption scandals.

A succinct way of stating something true. Critical review and transparency are really the only effective way to uncover errors, whether due to accident or corruption.
One of the conservative arguments for expanded government police powers has been that if the prosecutors and police had an easier time arresting, questioning and trying people they could do a better job catching criminals. And actually that is true. They would be able to do a better job catching criminals. Unfortunately, they would also be able to keep their jobs and positions of authority while doing a really bad job of catching criminals by using the expanded powers to silence the folks who might be inclined to point out that they weren't doing their jobs. In fact, with much expanded powers the police and prosecutors would be in a good position to work with criminals, and yet keep their positions, because they could silence those who would object. This would make them even more powerful and wealthy. It would be lousy for us and beneficial for them. Any you know what. For all of the past five thousand years of human history, that is exactly the kind of thing people in authority did when granted extensive police powers. And that is why many people think it is a bad idea to expand the police powers of government to the extent that Conservatives wish.

Jefferson Indicted

Well, I was wondering when that shoe was going to fall. A United States Congressman with $90,000 hidden in a freezer should certainly face an indictment. I'm glad that has finally come down. Let's see the trial now and, unless there is one damn good explanation, a conviction. Corruption needs to be pursued wherever it is found.

Wolfowitz is Out

The amazing thing is the shamelessness of these people. After intense pressure he is finally resigning, but he will stay on until June 30 so as to get a $400,000 bonus. Given the embarrassment and loss of prestige that he has cost the United States, he is still grubbing for cash. I find the times we are lining in amazing. The supporters of this administration seem, to me, to admire them because the administration is perceived to be high class, elegant and mannered. Consider the David Broder quote from the 90's regarding Clinton coming in and "trashing" the place. The Bush administration is seen to be the opposite. There are numerous stories of the press being won over on the Bush campaign trail over the fine, elegant treatment.

Yet for all that impression, these things like the Wolfowitz saga, Bush with the Queen, Cheney shooting his friend in the face and on and on, I can only conclude that these people are among the most ill mannered, boorish clods ever assembled in one place.

Hatch Act

Read this post by Kagro X over on Kos. Ok, now keep in mind that the people who are doing these things, and the people who are defending these things insisted passionately in 2000 that Al Gore could not be trusted as President because he might have used the wrong phone on some occasions. The people in the current Administration have no principals and cannot be trusted. Now often the term "no principals" is used to refer to people who have very few principals, but they are so limited that to say none is a slight exageration, but of no matter. I don't mean that. I mean that they have no principals, at all. None.

Fantastic

Wow, all I can say is wow.

Well, ok I can say more. This from over at TPM is an advanced copy of remarks that Rahm Emanuel will make tomorrow at the Brookings Institute. Rahm has certainly picked up the steam that we progressives have been longing to see in our Democratic leaders. Go over to Josh's site and read it all, but a few quotes here

His[Rahm's] aides are billing the speech as a broad and far-reaching indictment of the GOP and the Bush administration that seeks to find a common thread in all the GOP scandals from the Attorney Purge to the Katrina failure to the mendacity that brought us the Iraq war.

That common thread: On every conceivable policy front, the administration and the GOP have placed party before country, and government has become politicized to its core. Rather than casting the administration's manifold failings as simply the result of incompetence, Emanuel will argue that they're really driven by nothing more than all-pervasive partisanship -- the imperative of putting party before country, always, without fail.

"There is a common denominator," Emanuel will say. "Instead of promoting solutions to our nation’s broad challenges, the Bush Administration used all the levers of power to promote their party and its narrow interests...Nothing was free from political influence."

This captures a point I've tried to make before. These are not, and should not be treated as, a bunch of individual issues. There is a common theme throughout these issues, which incidentally Rahm has captured very well. I was frustrated in the run up to the 2006 election with talk implying that we had to pick one issue to make the center of the campaign. All the progressive issues are tied together and we can, and should, always make a point of linking them and showing the links. Read the whole thing and look for a full transcript tomorrow. It will be well worth noting.

Rove in the Crosshairs?

There has been a bit of a low-key roller coaster ride in the left blogosphere today over an investigation into Karl Rove. It started with this report in the LA Times informing us

But the Office of Special Counsel is preparing to jump into one of the most sensitive and potentially explosive issues in Washington, launching a broad investigation into key elements of the White House political operations that for more than six years have been headed by chief strategist Karl Rove.

The new investigation, which will examine the firing of at least one U.S. attorney, missing White House e-mails, and White House efforts to keep presidential appointees attuned to Republican political priorities, could create a substantial new problem for the Bush White House.

So it would seem that Karl is once again on the hot seat. And considering that there is plenty of reason to suspect improper activity by Karl, given that the Attorney General doesn't know anything about how the USAs got fired, it's a good guess that Karl knows something. Also, where are those missing emails? You get the idea.

Enthusiasm cooled a bit, however, as folks got looking into who would do the investigating. The OSC is headed by Scott J. Bloch who it seems is a pretty loyal Bush supporter. In fact he is, or has been, under investigation for much the same sort of thing that he is now supposed to investigate Rove for. Not encouraging. For more on the sordid tales concerning Mr. Bloch check out Jeralyn at Talk Left and mcjoan at Kos. So, there seems to be little reason for hope.

Then the latest news in this story is that the investigation was started by a Hatch Act complaint filed by David Iglesias. Yes the David Iglesias of fired USA fame. You can read about it at Think Progress. This makes the whole story much more interesting. I still have little confidence in Mr. Bloch, but not quite so little as I had after reading Jeralyn and mcjoan. There are two reasons for this. One is that if David Iglesias is filing the complaint then he intends to fight the White House and fight it hard and he thinks this might work, or at least produce some results. He, at least, is not expecting a pointless whitewash. Maybe he is just wildly optimistic, but assuming he is not, something might come of this. The second reason to be hopeful again, is that while there are no doubt many Bush sycophants who will do anything to support the man, not all of the Bush "loyalists" will turn out to be quite so completely loyal. It might be that Mr. Bloch falls into this category.

So, in short, I would not start decorating for Fitzmas yet, but I also will hold out some hope that this latest investigation will help in at least a small way to bring justice to this White House (and Karl Rove in particular)

Not a Good Week for Republicans in Congress

The FBI raided a business connected to Rep. Rick Renzi (R-Ariz.) on Thursday afternoon. These raids are starting to have a broader effect than simply giving heartburn to some representatives. Committee assignments are being effected.

As a result of the raid, Renzi is stepping down from his seat on the House Intelligence Committee, according to a statement from his office obtained Thursday evening by Roll Call.

Doolittle likewise has resigned his seat on the Appropriations Committee after his home was raided the week before.

More Congressional Corruption

While were on the subject of Congressional corruption the William Jefferson case is getting a bit more active as well. The district director of Rep. William Jefferson (D-La.) has been subpoenaed to appear before a grand jury. I've been wondering what was happening with this case. Given the rather clear issue and evidence, let's face it ninety grand in your freezer is a pretty good clue that you are not on the up and up. Let's hope we see some progress on this one this summer too. As anxious as I am to see the Republican corruption brought to heel, I am no less anxious to see the corrupt in the Democratic party turned out. Jefferson is an embarrassment, this case needs to be brought to a close.

FBI Raids Congressman's home

Latest reports are that the Viginia home of Rep. John Doolittle was raided by the FBI last Friday. Now this raid would be in relation to the Abramoff scandal. Clearly, although it hasn't been in the news for several months, that investigation is still underway and still producing results. I would suspect as well that the FBI is not casually raiding the homes of Congressmen, so there is probably something pretty significant already uncovered. The Republican party can hardly continue to function with these issues popping up one after the other. None of the various scandals has been resolved completely before new ones pop up. And with the Democrats pushing their oversight role in Congress this is only going to get worse for the GOP. Keep watching is all I can say.

Update: More on the raid and the Doolittle relationship to Abramoff in the Washington Post. Incidentally the Post is claiming that the near simultaneous resignation of Kevin Ring, former legislative director to Doolittle, from the lobbying firm of Barnes & Thornburg was a coincidence. Ring was also implicated in the Abramoff scandal and it had been thought that the two events were linked.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Pleading the Fifth

Ok, so Monica Goodling, senior official at the Justice Department, will decline to testify before Congress, pleading her fifth amendment rights against self-incrimination. Now, doesn't this just leap out at you as a bad thing. I mean, senior official at the Justice Department can't talk about what she's doing because it might incriminate her. Um, shouldn't the folks at the Justice Department, that is the department in charge of identifying and prosecuting people engaged in criminal activity, have particularly little concern about incriminating themselves. Ok, I know that I'm one of Atrios' dirty fucking hippies, but isn't it kind of a big, I mean really big, problem if the folks in the Justice Department are generally engaged in criminal activity. I would describe this a surreal, except that implies too high a degree of normalcy.

On a related note, I wonder who now is our nations chief law enforcement officer. Why do I wonder that you say? Well it is kind of a semantic issue, but one which is illuminating nonetheless. For nearly all of my life, the phrase nations chief law enforcement officer has referred to the Attorney General. See for example here, here or here. This has been the meaning of the phrase, except during a brief period of the Clinton impeachment when the president became the nation's chief law enforcement officer. See, for example, the list of 81 impeachment questions. It made the whole thing seem more serious to have the nations chief law enforcement officer doing something illegal, so of course the phrase had to change meaning. So, I'm wondering, given Alberto Gonzales's recent divorce from honesty, will the problems for the Bush administration be worse having Alberto as the nation's chief law enforcement officer, and if so will the Republican approach be the same, change the meaning of the phrase.

What Liberal Media?

This tells us something about the state of the so called "liberal" media. Now Michael Kinsley is well known as a "liberal" pundit, yet it seems that he illustrates all too well how poorly progressive and liberal ideas are being represented in the major media outlets. Too often his views are more like Republican talking points than the views of a thoughtful liberal. Today he wrote this piece in reference to the growing scandal over the firing of the United States Attorneys. Mr. Kinsley's thesis is that the scandal is overblown and much ado about nothing. To make his point he links to an earlier Washington Post editorial here explaining the scandal in order to critique the editorial and show the slender basis for the scandal. The Internet being what it is, however, I went to the trouble of reading both Mr. Kinsley's piece and the Washington Post editorial to see how well Mr. Kinsley's critique held up. The answer was not very well.

To quote Michael Kinsley at length, here is his criticism of the Washington Post editorial:

An editorial in the Washington Post last Thursday, for example, avoids disingenuousness—but only at the price of utter confusion. It dismisses the Clinton administration precedent as “a red herring, not a useful comparison,” but fails to explain why. The editorial scrupulously points out that one of the US attorneys fired by Clinton was weeks away from indicting a powerful Democratic congressman—a closer connection to a more important investigation than anything now at stake. The Post concedes that Clinton’s mass firing was “unprecedented,” and “unprecedented” is the toughest adjective the Post can bring itself to apply to the recent Bush firings, too. Then it says, “But unprecedented doesn’t equal wrong.” It acknowledges that a “president…is entitled to have..prosecutors committed to his law enforcement priorities,” and is honest enough to include concerns over issues like immigration and obscenity cases as falling in this permissible-motive category. Then it runs out of steam, notes accurately that the Bushies have been lying up a storm, says this is another reason that the Clinton episode is a bad comparison, and stops.

But the editorial actually says

The Reno precedent is a red herring, not a useful comparison. The summary way she announced the move was, indeed, unusual if not unprecedented. But a turnover in the top prosecutorial jobs with a new administration taking power -- especially one of a different party -- was not.

Which most certainly consists of an explanation as to why the comparison was a red herring, contrary to Michael Kinsley's claim. Yes, as Kinsley states, the editorial points out that one of the US Attorneys fired by Clinton was weeks from indicting a major Democratic Congressional leader, but the editorial states in full about the Reno removal of this attorney is

...consider that when he was ousted by Reno, the U.S. attorney in the District, Jay Stephens, was just weeks away from deciding whether to indict House Ways and Means Chairman Daniel Rostenkowski (D-Ill.). Inconveniently for these conspiracy theorists, Mr. Rostenkowski was in fact indicted and convicted...

Not quite what Kinsley would have you believe. Kinsley, likewise, makes much of the use of the word "unprecedented" used by the Washington Post for both the Reno and Bush firings. But the Post editorial of this week describes the manner in which Janet Reno fired US attorneys to be unprecedented, not the act (she was, apparently, rather abrupt and curt). On the other hand, the Post editorial describes the Bush firings, not the manner but the act itself, as unprecedented

The question, then, is what to make of the president's move to fire several of the prosecutors. This recent group firing, in the midst of a presidential term, is unprecedented; Mr. Bush was simply incorrect yesterday when he described it as "a customary practice by presidents."

Finally, Mr. Kinsley protests that the Post editorial did not adequately explain the growing obstruction of justice charge related to the recent firings (from Kinsley)

Cohen cuts through all this, and offers several grounds for at least suspecting that the firings were part of an illegal obstruction of justice. Read it for yourself and see if you buy it. And try to be honest: would you buy the argument if it was being applied against a Democratic president? I’m afraid I wouldn’t, absent more evidence than I believe is there.

But the limitations of an editorial format, length primarily, hardly make it possible to outline the differences between the Reno and Bush firings (at which, as I've shown above, the editorial does a fine job) and give a full and detailed account of the reasons to suspect obstruction of justice charges as well. The conclusion of the Post editorial does a decent job though of laying out the basics and giving reason to believe that there are legitimate concerns (for more detail see Talking Points Memo). Specifically

(The potential for misusing the newly bestowed interim appointment authority to evade Senate confirmation is a separate, and troubling, concern.)

Internal administration e-mails released Tuesday offer some indications of those sorts of policy-related issues, from references to "woodshedding" the U.S. attorney in San Diego, Carol C. Lam, over immigration cases to complaints about whether Paul K. Charlton in Arizona and Daniel G. Bogden in Nevada were balking at obscenity prosecutions. But there are also ample grounds for suspicion about improper motives, including the involvement of White House political aides and telephone calls from lawmakers to prosecutors about politically sensitive cases. The dishonest conduct of the Justice Department has only served to deepen suspicions, to underscore the importance of figuring out exactly what transpired here and to distinguish this situation from the Reno precedent.

In short, once again, one of our foremost "liberal" pundits demonstrates himself willing to plainly mislead and distort the writings of someone else, in order to advance Republican talking points. Do folks in the press really wonder at the growth of daily Kos, TPM and the rest.

Accountability and Corruption

MyDD :: Direct Democracy for People-Powered Politics
MyDD :: Direct Democracy for People-Powered Politics

There have been a few posts over on MyDD over the past few days (see Democratic Leaders to Run on Iraq War Accountability and Republican Corruption Back in the Fore?) Republican corruption and Republican lack of accountability and how that the Democrats can make use of these issues. To my mind, one of the most striking aspects of this discussion, here on MyDD and elsewhere, is the tendency to treat these issues as two separate issues. They are not. The Republicans have been claiming for the past few decades that they are inherently more virtuous (using as evidence their overt Christianity, or their attitudes towards sex, or their wealth, etc.). The Democrats cannot, and should not, being trying to argue that they have the greater inherent virtue and furthermore must make clear that they are not arguing that. The liberal position has been for centuries that the thing needed to keep corruption at bay is accountability and oversight. As long as humans are involved in government, relying upon their virtue is a mistake. And not because there are no virtuous people, but rather because in the absence of oversight even the most honest will loose their way,

The Democrats can capitalize on the Republican corruption, but they need to make clear that the reason for the growing Republican scandals is the lack of oversight, the lack of accountability. The Democrats will restore that accountability but make no claim to inherently superior virtue.

The point of this for the upcoming election is that the issue the Democrats need to focus on accountability. The Republicans have abandoned that principal and as a result we see the problems in Iraq, growing corruption in government, the failures of the Katrina response, the growing deficit. The Democrats will return to the vital principal of holding the government accountable. So corruption should be part of the Democratic talking points, but as an example supporting the main talking point of accountability.

One other thing on using corruption as an issue. We Democrats suffer horribly from impatience. The 'Culture of Corruption' as an election issue was started earlier this year. So far, having been used for six months and not bringing victory in the one case where it was used, we are thinking that it needs to be dropped. The Republicans started pushing the Democrats as weak on defense in the 1964 election and finally archived that as a fundamental view on Democrats by maybe 1972 (1968 at the earliest). Could be give it a little more time, with a little more variations in how we use it before giving up. We do tend to come up with these ideas that are very good, but abandon them very quickly when they don't bring immediate success. The culture of corruption will be a fact of Republican governance for as long as they abandoned oversight. We need to make it an issue for that same period of time.

Why Pick One Issue

In this post, Matt Yglesias points out that you don't always get to pick the issues that dominate an election. The Republicans will have some success making the 2006 elections about national security even if the Democrats want it to be about corruption. But why the hell do the Democrats have to pick only one of these? The main issue, as I see it, is that those who are systematically corrupt and always place their own personal gain above the welfare of the nation cannot be trusted with national security. We are seeing the consequence of having entrusted our security to this Republican leadership so lacking in integrity and ethics and the results are not pretty. The long, brutal attrition that is the Iraq war is a direct consequence of the corruption which pervades the Republican party. Going back, we should not have been surprised that the September 11 attack was able to do as much damage as it did, and kill as many Americans as it did, given the corruption which pervades this White House. Why cannot Democrats argue that the revelations of Abramoff and Savavian and the rest demonstrate a culture of corruption and that that culture of corruption is the most serious threat to national security that we face.

Indeed, given the Martin Luther King address given by Al Gore, see here, it is clear that Democrats can argue this point. Why then are so many on the left arguing that we can only make one point at a time?

How to Reform Congress

Josh Marshall provides and excerpt from James Dobson. Calling for more ethical people to purge congress of corruption is a hopeless task, we cannot rely upon the goodness of mankind. What is needed is a return to oversight and critical review. What we need is a diverse group of independent actors who can and will criticize and challenge the actions of the President and leaders of Congress.

Control of Congress

Via ThinkProgress we learn that
the Wall Street Journal is reporting that “Mr. Abramoff says he has information that could implicate 60 lawmakers,”

Now this could be quite significant. The Republicans currently control the House of Representatives by 30 seats (232 - 202) and, at this point, all the lawmakers implicated in this scandal are Republicans. Certainly all who have taken money from Mr. Abramoff are Republicans. If half of the number quoted above are indicted and resign before next fall, we could face an historic event. The Republican party could loose control of the House prior to the next election, solely due to indictments. At this point it is still and unlikely scenario, but it does say something of the state of corruption that the Republican party has fallen to that it is even a remote possibility.

Mark is Right

Mark is right. Fight Alito and fight hard, but use every opportunity to link the scandals. Cheney and Plame is a good one during the Alito fight.

Also, keep in mind that there is still the distinct possibility of other indictments. The Plame issue will come back up, even during the Alito fight, if another indictment comes down. The Democrats need to show that they are willing to fight even if they are not certain about the situation. Refusing to fight on Alito out of fear of loosing the Plame issue and never getting it back is, I believe, exactly the kind of thing which leaves people seeing the Democrats as weak.

Final point on loosing the Plame issue. How many times so far has the Plame issue gone off, and come back on, to the front page. It may well do so again.

Keeping Track of the Indictments

It's getting hard to keep track of all the Republicans getting indicted. At first it was just Tom DeLay, then most of the White House staff is under the gun, although we're still waiting to hear about those indictments. Now while we were all watching the White House, a leading Ohio fundraiser gets indicted for money laundering. At this doesn't even touch on Larry Franklin, Leandro Aragoncillo, Bill Frist, Safavian or Abramoff. Where does the criminality of the Republican party end?

Followup

I have an ulterior motive in putting together the previous list titled Republican Leadership. I wanted some place to try and keep track of the various failures and scandals that have been plaguing this nation the past five years. But I also think that it would be very beneficial for Democrats if they would try and link these scandals together whenever possible. It has been frustrating to watch each of these scandals come and go, and sometimes reappear, but without reaching the kind of critical mass that it seems they should. I believe that a problem the Democrats have had, has been treating these as separate events. The Republicans have been able, so far, to deal with each issue individually. The Democrats would do well to keep the pressure on, on as many fronts as possible.

So, for example, any mention of the Plame investigation should also mention Katrina Leung or Larry Franklin or Leandro Aragoncillo. As various scandals have fallen in the memory hole, Democrats can include them as asides in talking up other issues. So, a brief mention of Nick Smith in the midst of a discussion of Delay or Frist or Abramoff would be helpful.

This linking technique could be very valuable for the Sunday talking heads. A lot can be gained by a brief mention of one of the other scandals while discussing the main issue. So on a discussion of Karl Rove, mention Katrina Leung or Nick Smith is some appropriate way. A number of things are gained.

• Otherwise forgotten scandals are brought back to the forefront, even if only briefly


• The opposition is put in a tough place. They must either let the reference to the side scandal go unchallenged, or they must take time away from addressing the main point.


• It helps build in the public mind that there exists a general climate of scandal around this administration

In this strategy I would like to see Democrats all over making reference to these many scandals as often as can be done. Perhaps there could be some coordination, so that the same four or five ancillary scandals are being mentioned by many people each week. At any rate, I encourage all who wish to see actual honor and actual integrity in the White House, to make as much use of these issues as can be done.

Republican Leadership

I am accumulating a list of the criminal misconduct, ineptitude, failure and embarrassments that have characterize Republican leadership for the past several years.

• Corruption


• Tom Delay


• Conspiracy to violate Texas campaign finance laws


• Bill Frist


• Insider trading
• Insider trading
• Insider trading


• Abramoff


• Various corruption charges
• More on the story


• Safavian


• Indictment


• Flanigan


• Withdraws nomination


• Nick Smith


• Bribery


• Espionage


• Valerie Plame


• Exposing an undercover agent


• Katrina Leung


• Chinese Spy
• Chinese Spy
• Losing the case against a Cinese Spy


• Larry Franklin


• Spying for Israel


• Leandro Aragoncillo


• Philippine Spy in the White House


• War on Terror


• September 11


• Congressional Report


• Leadup to the War in Iraq


• Ten lies


• The aftermath in Iraq


• Failure in planning
• Calls for withdraw


• Abu Graib


• Torture


• General Government


• Hurricane Katrina failures


• FEMA in New Orleans


• Social Security Privatization


• Problems with Bush's plan


• Medicare bill


• Problems


• No Child Left Behind


• Rethinkings Schools


• NCSL


• Restoring America


• TV Week


• Propaganda


• Buying the News
• Charges to be filed


• Cronyism


• Michael Brown at FEMA


• unqualified


• Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court


• Less qualified than others
• Conservatives too

In addition to the above list with links to specific articles on each topic, I want to recommend the following sites for overall coverage of the listed topics. As new information comes up on each issue, these folks will have useful commentary.

PERRspectives Repository Great source of documents on many issues.
Mark Kleiman on Plame.
Josh Marshall on Plame, Abramoff, Safavian, as well as others.
Kevin Drum Plame.
Talk Left lots. Look on the right side bar for the "Category Archive". Follow the links.
Daily Kos for all kinds of info and discussion.

Delay indictment

Just a perspective on the Delay indictment. We Democrats are not gloating because we finally "got" Delay. We are pleased that, like the other many members of the Texas corruption team, he will not escape justice. The right wing is already tying to play this as some kind of vendetta against Delay. But there is a whole crew who have already been indicted and a wide range of ethical and criminal violations that have been recorded. This last step is just getting the top guy.