David Corn

Washington Bureau Chief

Corn has broken stories on presidents, politicians, and other Washington players. He's written for numerous publications and is a talk show regular. His best-selling books include Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War.

Get my RSS | Follow @davidcorndc

A Mole in Huckabee's Campaign?

—By David Corn

| Wed Jan. 2, 2008 8:44 AM PST

Is there a mole in Huckabee HQ?

How else to explain two bizarre last-minute decisions of Mike Huckabee's campaign. First, the former Arkansas governor held a near-meltdown of a press conference on Monday, during which he decried negative campaigning but then played for the assembled camera crews the anti-Romney ad he had commissioned and had decided not to use. Then on Wednesday, Huckabee was scheduled to leave frosty Iowa--the day before the caucuses--for sunny L.A. to appear on the Jay Leno show. So he was trading a day of campaigning in the Hawkeye State for several minutes of chuckles on a national television show that probably is not watched by many of his potential voters, older social conservatives (unless these Iowans have a secret lust for Paris Hilton jokes). Huckabee certainly could reach more caucus-goers by working the Iowa media. And Iowan voters, as you know, expect to be treated like royalty by the candidates. Spurning them for laughs with Leno is not a show of respect. It looked as if Huckabee was more concerned with me-time than kneeling before Iowans--a true sin in presidential politics.

It practically seems that someone calling the shots in the Huckabee command is trying to sabotage his almost-a-miracle campaign. Whom might that be? Well, longtime readers of mine know that I am usually quite skeptical of conspiracy theorizing. But in this case, let me suggest a culprit: Ed Rollins. The veteran Republican strategist and operative recently signed on as Huckabee's campaign chairman. Rollins, who ran Ronald Reagan's wildly successful reelection campaign in 1984, has had a bumpy relationship with the GOP establishment. He worked for Ross Perot (as opposed to President George H.W. Bush) in 1992. But he has usually been a loyal GOPer. In the 1990 election, he ran the National Republican Congressional Committee. In 1993, he was campaign manager for Republican Christine Todd Whitman's successful gubernatorial effort in New Jersey. The following year, he helped Republican George Nethercutt, a Republican, unseat Democratic House Speaker Tom Foley. And he has assisted several Republicans since then.

It's been pretty clear--even if you don't read the National Review and watch Fox News--that the GOP elite is not keen on Huckabee ending up as the Republican nominee. So could Rollins be a double-agent? A plant of the GOP high-and-mighty, which would be delighted to see Huckabee crash and burn? Rollins does have a rep as an underhanded operative. After the Whitman race, he disclosed that he had had secretly paid black ministers and Democratic campaign workers in New Jersey to suppress the black vote. (He then partially retracted the remark, saying the comment was "an exaggeration that turned out to be inaccurate.") And in a 1996 book, Rollins claimed that he had learned (after the fact) about an illegal $10 million contribution to Reagan's 1984 campaign from Philippine dictator Ferdinand Marcos, but Rollin has refused to disclose details about this supposed crime.

So is it possible that Rollins is the GOP's Man in Huckabee Land? That may be fanciful speculation on my part. (Few high-profile strategists would want to be seen losing a campaign.) But the only other explanation is that after years of skillful politicking, Rollins has lost his game and gone stupid. Can you believe that?

Advertise on MotherJones.com

Selling His Foreign Policy Experience, Thompson Mispronounces Musharraf

—By David Corn

| Sun Dec. 30, 2007 7:24 AM PST

This Sunday morning, the Iowa presidential race hits the television talk shows. Most of the leading candidates of both parties are appearing on one of the Sunday gabfests. Fred Thompson chose Fox News Sunday. In comparing himself with Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee, who both lead him in the iowa polls, Thompson repeatedly cited his foreign policy experience, noting that he had served on the intelligence committee during his eight years in the U.S. Senate.

But there was one problem with this sales pitch: Thompson mispronounced the name of Pakistan's leader. He called Pervez Musharraf "MOO-SHA-rav." The right way to say his name, according the Voice of America's Pronounciation Guide, is "moo-SHURR-RUHF." If Thompson is hoping for a late surge on the basis of his purported experience in national security matters, he ought to be more careful when drawling about current foreign policy crises.

Drop Dead Fred: Why Republicans Once Hated Thompson

Ten years ago, Fred Thompson turned a Congressional anti-Clinton crusade into a forum for a campaign-finance reform debate. A lot of fellow GOPers never forgave him.

—By David Corn

| Fri Dec. 21, 2007 1:00 AM PST

On a summer day in 1997, in a wood-paneled hearing room, Senator Fred Thompson, the chairman of the Senate governmental affairs committee, peered down from the dais at that afternoon's witness: Haley Barbour, who until recently had headed the Republican National Committee. Thompson, a lawyer and actor elected to the Senate three years earlier, was conducting hearings probing the fundraising excesses of President Bill Clinton's 1996 reelection campaign—especially the allegation that the president's operation had been infiltrated by agents of Beijing. But now one of Thompson's fellow Republicans was in the hot seat. In 1994, Barbour had arranged for a $2.1 million loan guarantee from a Hong Kong businessman to a conservative policy outfit Barbour had founded. Barbour's group used the money to repay a $1.6 million debt to the rnc. (It later defaulted on the loan.) Press accounts suggested that the rnc used these funds to help finance its historic takeover of Congress in 1994. Given that it was illegal for foreigners to contribute to congressional and presidential campaigns, the question was, had the gop won power with laundered money from an overseas source?

[Read the full article]

Would the New OPEN Government Act Really Open Anything?

—By David Corn

| Thu Dec. 20, 2007 7:44 AM PST

After the House on Tuesday passed the OPEN Government Act to bolster the Freedom of Information Act and sent the bill to George W. Bush, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi proclaimed,

The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) has a vital purpose: to inform American citizens about the conduct of their government. However, the Bush Administration has greatly expanded the veil of secrecy and undermined the Freedom of Information Act. The Administration's actions run counter to the values of our democracy, the public's right to know, and the ability of American citizens to hold their government accountable. The passage of the OPEN Government Act takes a first step toward strengthening FOIA and restoring transparency and accountability to our government.

FOIA has long been broken--even before Bush. It sometimes takes years--even a decade--to get a FOIA request fulfilled. And, of course, much information is often withheld. I've had the State Department respond to requests nine years after I've submitted them--and long after I had any need for the documents. And recently I asked the Department of Interior for records related to a contract covering computer services provided to Vice President Dick Cheney's office by a company run by a fellow who paid more than $1 million in bribes to Republican Representative Duke Cunningham. (Don't ask why the Interior Department was involved.) I was told the material would be withheld under one of FOIA's many elastic exemptions. So will the new legislation make any real difference?

For an answer, I turned to Steven Aftergood, who produces Secrecy News. He says:

The new legislation makes several valuable procedural changes. It will increase pressure on agencies to answer FOIA requests in weeks rather than years. It will make it easier for requesters to track FOIA requests and to win fee waivers. It will strengthen the position of those requesters who litigate denials of their requests.

On the other hand, it does not alter agencies' ability to withhold information, which is of course the heart of the process. Whatever was withheld from requesters previously can still be withheld. So even if the law is faithfully implemented, it could just mean speedier denials.

Well, at least I won't have to wait so long to be turned down.

Playing Politics with Health Care

A major union supporting Hillary Clinton has slammed Barack Obama for not including mandates in his health care plan. But AFSCME has argued that mandates make health care unaffordable.

—By David Corn and Jonathan Stein

| Thu Dec. 20, 2007 1:00 AM PST

Last April, Gerald McEntee, the international president of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), took a seat in a congressional committee room and testified before a House subcommittee on the pressing need for health care reform. Noting the growing number of uninsured and soaring health care costs, he declared, "America's working families demand relief from this crisis." He laid out his principles for the universal health care coverage that his powerful union favored. He also made clear what his union opposed when it came to health care reform, most notably so-called individual mandates. McEntee explained,

[Read the full article]