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.
The White House doesn't want its activists to disrupt the backroom deals its aides cut with lobbyists and legislators, nor does it want them putting too much pressure on obstructionist Democrats, lest it alienate key swing votes in Congress. When MoveOn.org ran ads targeting conservative Democrats who were blocking healthcare reform, Rahm Emanuel memorably called the ads "fucking retarded." And, indeed, the White House has expended considerable political capital denouncing the "professional left" and defending apostate Democrats like Blanche Lincoln in Arkansas from insurgent primary challengers, which has further undermined Obama's reformist brand.
"I'm not looking to pick another fight with Rahm Emanuel, but the contempt with which he held the progressive wing of the party was devastating and incredibly demoralizing," [former Democratic Party chief Howard] Dean says. "That's basically saying to your own people, You got us here, now F-you."
Emanuel received a standing ovation in the East Room from the White House staff on Friday morning when President Barack Obama officially announced his departure.
Did Rahm Emanuel and Rupert Murdoch huddle together at the Obama White House?
On the day that Emanuel is departing the West Wing to run for mayor of Chicago, the Sunlight Foundation is releasing a list of the visitors he had at the White House. The usual suspects on this roster: Chicago power players (Sam Zell, Leo Melamed), lots of members of Congress, Hollywood celebs (Kevin Costner, Judd Apatow), a bunch of journalists (Jonathan Alter, Karen Tumulty, Noam Schieber, Fred Hiatt, Ryan Lizza, Ron Fournier, Candy Crowley, Tom Friedman, Susan Page, David Ignatius, David Wessel, Mark Halperin, Katty Kay), and one possible surprise guest. The foundation's blog reports:
One meeting that appears in the White House visitor logs that may seem unexpected is a June 9, 2010 meeting with one Keith R. Murdoch. Does the “R” stand for Rupert? In his book The Promise Jonathan Alter revealed that Emanuel kept a back channel open to NewsCorp owner Rupert Murdoch, who’s real name is Keith Rupert Murdoch. I have not yet confirmed whether this is actually Rupert Murdoch, but I will let you know when I do.
Perhaps Emanuel showed Murdoch a copy of Obama's birth certificate.
With their 48-page "Pledge to America," House GOPers have called for tax cuts for the wealthy and downsizing government—and for repealing President Obama's major initiatives, such as his health care overhaul. The campaign booklet also contains what might perhaps be a more ambitious promise: to reinvent the political culture in Washington and end the business-as-usual wheeling and dealing in the nation's capital. But on Wednesday—the day before he was scheduled to deliver a speech called "Reforming Congress in the People's House"—Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio), who will likely become House speaker if the Republicans triumph on November 2, would not say whether the GOP will do anything about lobbyists or lobbying, should he and his comrades gain control of the House.
In the preamble to the "Pledge," Boehner and the Republicans present a fundamental promise: "We pledge to make government more transparent." The document goes on to state,
The most important decisions are made behind closed doors, where a flurry of backroom deals has supplanted the will of the people. It’s time to do away with the old politics: that much is clear.
But what would this mean for lobbyists and the future of lobbying on Capitol Hill? On Wednesday morning, at a House GOP leadership press conference, we asked Boehner if he and the Republicans were to control the House would they disclose their meetings with lobbyists and reveal what is discussed in these behind-closed-door sessions. Boehner replied:
Think about how the House has worked over the last couple of years. There are about five members who decide what the outcome of the bill is going to be, the whole process. Five members. And there are 430 of us who sit on the sidelines. I just think it's time for all members to have a chance to represent their constituents when laws are being created in the US House of Representatives.
This certainly was a non-responsive reply. He said nothing about lobbying or lobbyists. He didn't even say anything about transparency. He was merely griping about the internal workings of the House leadership.
A dying journalist. He has one final assignment: Find out if President Richard Nixon ordered him assassinated.
That's what occurred at the end of the life of the infamous columnist Jack Anderson, one of the most influential Washington reporters of the 1950s, '60s, and '70s. This intriguing and poignant tale is recounted by Mark Feldstein, a former investigative correspondent for CNN and ABC (and onetime Anderson intern) in his marvelous new book, Poisoning the Press: Richard Nixon, Jack Anderson, and the Rise of Washington's Scandal Culture.
First, some background: After writing for the military newspaper Stars and Stripes during World War II, Anderson hit Washington, DC, and eventually became a "legman" for Drew Pearson, whose muckraking "Washington Merry-Go-Round" column was carried by more newspapers than any other column at the time. Over the course of the next three decades, Richard Nixon would be a constant target of the column as he rose from House member to senator to vice president to president. (Pearson and Anderson's discovery of a Nixon slush fund in 1952 led to Nixon's famous "Checkers" speech.)
Are Republicans getting their wires crossed when it comes to tracking the secret communications of suspected terrorists?
On Monday, the New York Times broke a story that lit up the Internets—especially those quarters inhabited by privacy advocates and social media mavens: the Obama administration, noting that criminals and terrorists are increasingly communicating online instead of over the telephone, wants to enact legislation compelling all online communication services to be open to wiretapping. This would mean ensuring that the feds could intercept encrypted or non-encrypted communications sent by BlackBerry and similar devices, through Facebook and other social networking sites, and via Skype. In other words, any Internet communications system or service would have to have a backdoor that could be exploited for government-approved monitoring.
Republican legislators are backing the administration on this. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), a member of the armed services and homeland security committees, told Mother Jones, "I'm open-minded about making sure terrorist activities are being followed," and that "if I can help" with this legislation, "I will." Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.), who sits on the armed services and select intelligence committees, said of Obama's plan: "I think he's dead on target...We need to give the intelligence community all the tools they need."
But privacy fans and technophiles have howled. James Dempsey, vice president of the Center for Democray and Technology, noted the administration was challenging "the fundamental elements of the Internet revolution," especially its decentralized design. Technology writer Dean Takahashi pointed out, "If companies such as Skype and Facebook were forced to design holes in their networks so that FBI officials could listen into conversations, that would re-centralize the networks, raise costs, and possibly introduce vulnerabilities to the software that could be exploited by hackers." Progressive blogger Marcy Wheeler decried this "power grab." And the Republican National Committee joined the assault.
Wait, the RNC? On Tuesday morning, the GOP HQ zapped out an email blasting Obama: "Quick To Jump On Civil Liberty Concerns In The Past, Obama Administration Now Wants To Read Your Emails And Monitor Facebook." The GOP asserted that Obama had opposed the Bush-Cheney administration's warrantless wiretapping program as "unconstitutional and illegal," but now he "seeks authority to 'wiretap the Internet.'" Citing the Times article, the RNC insisted that implementation of this policy would cause "huge technology and security" headaches and leave holes that could be "exploited by hackers." Despite the fact that top Republican lawmakers are backing Obama's proposal, the press release made it seem like a truly lousy idea. Had Michael Steele and the Gang become passionate civil libertarians opposed to government snooping supposedly designed to protect the United States from terrorists?
Not quite. RNC communications director Doug Heye says the party outfit is not taking a position "one way or the other" on the proposal. He adds: "We're just letting people know what the president is doing. A lot of people who support him are seeing he's not what they thought he was…A lot of people who are supporters of the president are concerned about wiretapping and things like monitoring Facebook, and we want to make sure they have this information." Translated: we're doing what we can to foment disappointment within Obama's base.
The GOP's slam unfairly compared Obama's proposal to the warrantless wiretapping program of the previous administration (which was vociferously defended at the time by Vice President Dick Cheney, who always referred to its official name: the "Terrorist Surveillance Program"). The eavesdropping that the Obama administration is looking to enable would presumably be subject to warrants. So this proposal—good or bad—is not inconsistent with Obama's criticism that President George W. Bush "abused" his authority and "undermined the Constitution by intercepting the communications of innocent Americans without their knowledge or the required court orders."
When we pressed Heye on whether the Republican Party supports or opposes legislation that would allow federal investigators to intercept the online or BlackBerry-type communications of suspected terrorists, he refused to say: "It's not a question I was expecting today. Our job is not to make policy pronouncements. Our job is to point out where the president has fallen short on his promises. This is one example of this. Obama supporters do not like this."
Still, the RNC's press release highlighted the potential problems with the Obama administration's proposal, making it appear as if the RNC has abandoned Cheney-like vigilance (or excess) when it comes to tracking the bad guys. But perhaps there's a greater mission: to score political points against another enemy—the president of the United States.