MotherJones.com | MoJoBlog - Social Issues and Political Commentary: November 25, 2007

« November 18, 2007 - November 24, 2007 | Main | December 2, 2007 - December 8, 2007 »

December 1, 2007

Giuliani Corruption/Sex Scandal Metastasizing

This Giuliani scandal keeps getting better and better. First Politico found that when Rudy Giuliani was mayor of New York, he billed the costs of his extramarital love trysts with Judith Nathan, his then-girlfriend and now-wife, to obscure city agencies. It was also shown that Giuliani billed his 2000 campaign expenses and his then-wife Donna Hanover's travel expenses to the same obscure agencies. The Giuliani campaign has had a hell of a time explaining the mayor's actions.

Then ABC discovered Nathan, as the mayor's girlfriend, was given a city car and police driver that she used as a personal "taxi service." Then CBS found an anonymous source who claims "Nathan forced police to chauffeur her friends and family around the city—even when she wasn't in the car."

And then the Daily News decide to pile on. They went to current mayor Mike Bloomberg's girlfriend/partner (they've lived together for six years) and asked her if she has a driver or security detail. "I don't have security in Bogota or Nairobi or Moscow when I travel there on business," Diana Taylor said. "Why would I need security in the safest city in the world?" An investment banker, Taylor takes the bus to her office and rides the subway to business appointments.

This thing could keep going through Christmas. It's the scandal that keeps giving and giving.

November 30, 2007

What Would You Ask Senator Obama?

I'd like to second Kate Shepherd's sentiment over at TAPPED. She writes, "Time has an interview with Obama that really could use some better questions..." Time offered up seven less than thought-provoking questions, so uninspiring in fact that I was moved to poll several of my fellow Mother Jones edit staffers for some better queries. Here's a few we came up with:

1. Why does your health insurance plan include mandates for kids, but not adults?

2. Ethanol is increasingly viewed as a wasteful form of fuel that sacrifices nourishment for gasoline. How would you move the U.S. away from defaulting to ethanol as an alternative fuel and towards cleaner, more sustainable options?

3. What's the first question you'd ask Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?

It's fairly frustrating when the people with the best access to the candidates aren't delivering.

What would you ask Obama? Tell us, in the comments.

Edwards' Message to Dem Insiders: Tear Down the Wall!

Most of the Democratic presidential contenders took a break from campaigning in Iowa and New Hampshire on Friday to gather outside of Washington D.C. and make their pitches to Democratic Party bigwigs.

Before the news broke that Hillary Clinton campaign workers had been taken hostage in Rochester, New Hampshire, Bill Richardson, John Edwards, and Barack Obama addressed the Democratic National Committee's fall meeting in a hotel ballroom in Tysons Corner, Virginia. None of them altered their messages dramatically for the insider crowd, and John Edwards, who had all of the day's best moments, broke out a new speech that even intensified his attacks on the Washington system that included many of the people in the audience.

At the start of his speech, Edwards declared, "There's a wall around Washington and we need to take it down. The American people are on the outside. And on the other side, on the inside, are the powerful, the well-connected and the very wealthy."

America's health care woes, the economic insecurity of the middle class, even the war in Iraq—Edwards tied them all to this wall, the barrier that protects the status quo and conventional wisdom from being challenged. Seeking to distinguish himself from his rivals—he shares most policy positions with both Obama and Clinton, and shares with Obama a professed desire for reform in Washington—Edwards asserted that only he possesses the fighting spirit needed to tear down the wall. His critiques of Obama (too admiring of bipartisanship) and Clinton (too intimate with the powerful) were not that subtle:

You have to decide what kind of person you want as your next president. Do you want someone who is going to pretend that wall around Washington isn't there, or defend the people who helped build it? Or do you want someone who is going to lead with conviction and tell you the truth, and have a little backbone?

Do you want someone who is going to hope that the people who spent millions of dollars and decades building that wall, and have billions more invested in keeping it up, are going to be willing to compromise, to take it down voluntarily? Or do you want someone who is going to stand up to those people and fight for your interests, when the chips are down, when your backs are against the wall, every single day?

We have a choice in this election. We can keep trying to shout over that wall. We can keep trying to knock out a chink here and there, to punch little holes in it and hope our voices get through. We can settle for baby steps, half-measures and incremental change, and try to inch our way over that wall and toward a better future. Or we can be bold and knock it down.

This is going to be the fight of our lives. I know because I've spent my whole life fighting the powerful on behalf of hard-working people, and I can tell you this: they are not going to give up their power easily.

It was a new speech for Edwards. He has attacked the system as "corrupt" and "rigged" before, but the wall-around-Washington riff was a new construction. Unveiling this speech here was either gutsy or desperate, or maybe both: some in this audience had long been part of, and profited from, the insular Washington culture Edwards says he wants to smash. They were perhaps more accustomed to the "Two Americas" John Edwards who decried the gap between rich and poor. But now he was telling the insiders it's the people versus them.

And Edwards won the crowd over. Admittedly, there were plenty of Edwards supporters and volunteers in the room, but the general reception to his populist cry was positive. Was he previewing the speech for crowds in Iowa (where recent polling shows the race in a statistical three-way tie)? If so, he has reason to stick with a hard-hitting script he can deliver with passion and apparent conviction.

Barack Obama followed Edwards with a speech that recycled his well-reviewed address at the Iowa Democratic Party's Jefferson-Jackson Dinner last month.

"The same old Washington textbook campaigns just won't do in this election," said Obama, using coded but easy-to-decipher anti-Clinton language. "Telling the American people what we think they want to hear instead of telling the American people what they need to hear just won't do. Triangulating and poll-driven positions because we're worried about what Mitt or Rudy might say about us just won't do."

As he usually does, Obama threw some abuse at special interests and lobbyists. Not too long ago, the fact that Obama and Edwards echoed the same reformist message appeared to neutralize the Edwards campaign—or at least prevent it from overtaking the Obama effort. But now Edwards is trying to make it clear that he and Obama are not clones. One wants to transcend partisan politics and heal America. The other says that healing America is for the naïve and a fight is what's needed. Transcendence or combat—that's one choice for those Iowan who do not want Hillary Clinton.

Dreaming of a Green Xmas: Compost Bins, Carbon Offsets, and All

'Tis the season—media pubs are rolling out their holiday gift-giving recommendations (see Salon's very pricey list here and The New Yorker's even pricier male gift guide here), people can be found discussing Secret Santas, and office holiday parties are already in full swing. So, in this era of carbon neutrality, it's no wonder, retailers are already making a play for the green Christmas market. According to the Wall Street Journal many companies are looking to package their gifts in a more ecofriendly fashion by offering biodegradable packaging or none at all. Different websites are dedicating pages to greener giving ideas, pushing soy-based candles and compost containers that will be shipped to you in biodegradable peanuts. Customers of Gaiam.com can offset the carbon emissions of shipping their gifts through the company and TerraPass, a carbon offset group, has gift certificates so you can offset the emissions of your friends and families (you know, if they aren't as environmentally conscious as you are).

It's hard to not be a Grinch about this whole thing, though, because it all still seems like consumption—or ways to make yourself feel better about consuming. For instance, Gaiam.com recommends that you buy a reusable shopping bag and then offset the shipping cost for $2. So, if I send my dad a reusable shopping bag nearly 2,000 miles (Broomfield, CO, where Gaiam's HQ is, to Boston, MA, where my dad lives), it is only going to cost me $2 to neutralize the effects? I find that very hard to believe, but I suppose the whole "are carbon offsets really green?" is a whole other discussion. But, when you consider the miles driven to malls and the non-reusable/-biodegradable wrapping that goes on at the likes of Macy's, shopping online and then offsetting shipping seems like the responsible thing to do.

Although, how about just not consuming at all? That seems like the greenest possible holiday season for Mother Earth...

Rudy Finds Another Explanation for Love Trysts Billing Scandal; Again Proven Wrong

Rudy Giuliani is still coming up with new explanations for why he billed New York City agencies for extramarital love trysts in the Hamptons. The campaign have taken multiple stabs in the last few days.

According to the campaign, Rudy's security decal billed their travel and lodging expenses on these trysts to obscure city agencies (like the Loft Board) because there were unreasonably long delays in getting paid back by the NYPD. Says the AP:

Joe Lohta, who was deputy mayor and budget director under Giuliani, said the billing practice was necessary because the police officers did not make a lot of money and their department took up to two months to repay them for their travel expenses. So Giuliani's office got a credit card and paid it off with funds from the various agencies.

Except the head of the NYPD isn't buying it. According to ABC News:

The current New York Police Commissioner Ray Kelly said today he knew of no problems with the delay of payments before Giuliani was mayor, when Kelly served under Mayor David Dinkins, or since.

"I don't recall anybody, any statements about delay," Kelly told reporters.

Try something else, Rudy?

Clinton Workers Taken Hostage; Rightwingers Fast To Exploit the Crisis

This afternoon, Hillary Clinton's Rochester, NH, campaign office was taken hostage by a man claiming to have a bomb duct-taped to his chest. He is demanding to speak to Senator Clinton, who is supposed to speak here in Virginia, but has canceled her appearance. We all hope it is resolved quickly with everyone safe.

It certainly would be tasteless for anyone to exploit this event. But that hasn't stopped the nutcase commentors at the rightwing Free Republic. Here are some of their responses to this:

- "Oh this should be good............."

- "Someone trying to get their testicles back?"

- "popcorn...check... coffee....check..."

- "Staged?"

- "I wonder what nutjob they paid to pull this stunt.... like all the people who they get to hang nooses to make people think conservatives are radical haters"

- "Could be a CNN plant..."

- "From the latest Fox poll, she is leading in New Hampshire, so it would be stupid for her to have anything staged at this point. OTOH, I don't put anything past her."

- "Pray it's a Ron Paul supporter."

And that's just in the first five minutes of the posting thread. It goes on and on and on.

Creationism Kerfuffle Forces Texas Science Curriculum Head to Resign

Texas' director of science curriculum has been forced to resign over an e-mail she sent. What was in the offending message ? Trash talk about colleagues? Porn? Nope—it was about (drumroll, please) an upcoming lecture. The horror! Read more on the Blue Marble.

Matt Taibbi Hearts Seymour Hersh

If you like name-calling hyperbole, Matt Taibbi has always been your guy. He's a great and refreshing read and has an insightful wit, but he's also vicious. (Just in case you think he's the anti-Broder, keep in mind that Taibbi is an equal opportunity hater—he rips milquetoast Democrats as often as he hits right-wing Republicans. He's like Broder's mirror image or something.)

But in a new interview on Campus Progress (done by MoJo intern Justin Elliott), Taibbi has something nice to say about someone. Specifically Sy Hersh:

He's old school. He's the kind of guy who sits and pores over the newsletters of all these minor government agencies to see who retired that week so he can approach that person to see if he’s got any stories to tell on his way out of service. There are a few guys like that who are still out there, but they’re all holdovers from a lost age.

Wow. Respect.

Mother Jones did a 2005 interview with "The Bad Boy on the Bus." Check it out.

Judicial Follies

Was this guy Hitler in a previous life?

Dwayne Dail served half his life, 18 years, in a North Carolina prison for a rape he didn't commit. Given that his childhood sweetheart was pregnant at the time, he ended up spending his son's entire life so far in jail; the boy grew up without him. Free for three months now and awarded what seems to the casual observer a paltry $360,000 for what he rightly calls not wrongful incarceration but 'kidnapping', this unlucky guy is back in court. For what, you ask? His baby mother is suing him for the back child support he never paid while imprisoned and while she raised their son alone. Said Dail, "Everybody wonders why I'm not mad. Well, I'm mad now."

Again, bad cases make bad law but there is a real issue here: should settlements such as these be considered income? The judge is still pondering this doozy of a case.

Only the mother knows why she filed this suit without first asking Dail for a chunk; her son, now just getting to know his dad, reports being traumatized by all this. First his dad was a pedophile rapist (the victim was 12). Now he's not. He's out of prison, they've just met, and the mother he loves has Dad back in the place he fears most, a court room.

You gotta read to believe.

In New York, the first woman to be exonerated for murder, based on DNA evidence, has been released from prison after serving 13 years for killing her 13 year old daughter. She can muse on that ironic symbolism while they retry her for second degree manslaughter. And while the scumbag boyfriend and likely murderer enjoys the immunity he got for testifying against her. Man, that must keep him warm while the murder charge he just caught from a 1993 killing winds its merry way through the courts.

Since we're on the subject of judges, laws and court rooms, here's another one to make us citizens dread venturing into the halls of justice. A Niagara Falls judge went insane over a ringing cell phone in his court room. When no one would fess up to owning it, he turned his court room into a POW camp. The biggest surprise is that something was actually done about it; two years laters, he's looking for a new job while he works on his appeal.

Hillary Hatred on Display

I'm at the DNC's fall meeting in Vienna, VA, today. I'll hear all the Democratic presidential candidates speak and then write something up for your consumption.

On the way here, though, I got into a conversation with my cabbie about politics. We saw Hillary Clinton signs lining the road up to the meeting's venue. "I hate that woman," he said. I laughed uncomfortably. "I don't think she'll win the nomination," he said. "Too many people hate her. Even Democrats. But I think the Democrats are in a box. If they are against her, they look like they don't like her because she's a woman. And if they are against Obama, it looks like it's because he's black."

I asked for a reciept. He reached for one. As he turned to hand it to me, he said, "And then there's the fact that he's a Muslim."

I stopped. "No, he isn't. He belongs to a Christian church in Chicago." I explained that the media had investigated the rumor and proved it false. He didn't looked convinced. "What's with the funny name?" he asked. So that Muslim controversy still has legs.

But what I want to focus on is the hatred of Hillary. It is widespread and nasty, more than the media is usually willing to mention. So is she going to be a drag on the Democrats in down-ballot races? Will she hurt the Dems in Senate races, House races, local races? Democrats in conservative states say that she will, but it remains an open question.

Tom Schaller, writing in TNR, says that Hillary won't be a "drag queen."

Clinton's down-ballot drag are overwrought. Though she could have a marginal effect on a few races here and there, our electoral system has become so shock-absorbent that presidential candidates barely have a down-ballet effect anymore. In 2004 George W. Bush posted what by today's lights was a solid win, and yet what coattails did he have? The Republicans made no net gain among governors; they added four U.S. senators (their biggest achievement) and a mere four U.S. house seats; and they lost about five dozen state legislative seats overall and net control of four state legislative chambers.

He gets into the details of the polls and takes a look at some state races. If you're an election geek, check it out.

Rudy the Fibber

Love this from Michael Cooper at the NY Times:

In almost every appearance as he campaigns for the Republican presidential nomination, Rudolph W. Giuliani cites a fusillade of statistics and facts to make his arguments about his successes in running New York City and the merits of his views.

Discussing his crime-fighting success as mayor, Mr. Giuliani told a television interviewer that New York was "the only city in America that has reduced crime every single year since 1994." In New Hampshire this week, he told a public forum that when he became mayor in 1994, New York "had been averaging like 1,800, 1,900 murders for almost 30 years." When a recent Republican debate turned to the question of fiscal responsibility, he boasted that "under me, spending went down by 7 percent."

All of these statements are incomplete, exaggerated or just plain wrong.

It goes on. That's excellent, awesome journalism.

November 29, 2007

Bush's Shaky Line on Attorney Firings, Leahy Needs to Read Between the Lines

I just want to add to our take on the slow-but-steady progress of the U.S. attorney firings investigation. Today, Senator Patrick Leahy ruled illegal Bush's claim that executive privilege allows him to withhold documents related to the firings. The Senate Judiciary Chairman pointed out that if the President didn't have anything to do with the case, as the White House has repeatedly claimed, his privilege is irrelevant. The White House turned Leahy's statement on its head, saying the whole case should be invalidated: If Leahy says the President had nothing to do with it, they contend, the investigation is essentially kaput.

Au contraire. If Bush wasn't involved, why would he bother claiming executive privilege in the first place? If anything, the White House's eagerness to close the case signifies that it's far from over. Call me crazy, but methinks the Decider doth protest too much.

—Casey Miner

A Good Question for Peter Osnos

Bob Fertik of Democrats.com has a very good question for Peter Osnos. Osnos is the widely-respected head of Public Affairs, the publisher of the book by former White House spokesman Scott McClellan coming out next year.

Last week, Public Affairs put a section of McClellan's book-to-be online. It included this, regarding the outing of Valerie Plame:

I had unknowingly passed along false information. And five of the highest ranking officials in the administration were involved in my doing so: Rove, Libby, the vice-President, the President’s chief of staff and the President himself.

A brief media firestorm ensued: had McClellan directly accused the President of lying? No, said Osnos:

...the founder and editor-in-chief of Public Affairs Books, which is publishing McClellan's book in April, tells NBC from his Connecticut home that McCLellan, "Did not intend to suggest Bush lied to him."

Osnos says when McClellan went before the White House press corps in 2003 to publicly exonerate Libby and Rove, the problem was that his statement was not true. Osnos said the president told McClellan what "he thought to be the case." But, he says, McClellan believes, "the president didn't know it was not true."

This week Osnos expanded on this in his weekly column:

[W]hat was amazing about the response was that it became a huge story before anyone pursued its context. McClellan is still at work on his book...The chapter cited in the catalog has been drafted. It is a meticulous account of the period at the start of McClellan’s tenure, when he had to handle the flap over the disclosure that Valerie Plame was a covert CIA operative....

McClellan defended the White House then because, aside from that being his job, he believed what he was told by senior officials, two of whom we now know were lying. What Happened is McClellan’s forthright telling of what, on reflection, took place in that period...Before taking on his book, my colleagues and I talked to White House correspondents and reporters in Texas and were assured that if McClellan said he would write a book without fear or favor, he would. And he is...I can assure you, as anyone familiar with PublicAffairs will attest, that lucre is not McClellan’s incentive to work with us...The full story must await publication.

It's understandable any author and publisher would feel the important news in their book "must await publication." But as Bob Fertik asks, don't these unusual circumstances change the normal equation?

(Disclosure: I sometimes do research for AfterDowningStreet.org, a coalition in which Democrats.com participates.)

Kucinich Considers Ron Paul as Running Mate

They both opposed Gitmo, the Patriot Act and the invasion of Iraq; want to legalize medicinal marijuana; and look like elves. On the psycho-political level, they appeal to idealists and the disaffected with simple, consistent speech and action, a feat normally associated with third-party candidates, but which they've achieved within the shark's mouth of mainstream politics. Beyond this, however, they're oil and vinegar, a classic libertarian and a classic liberal, opposites on everything from abortion to gun control, the United Nations to health care. Yet here was Kucinich on Sunday, at the home of Joanna Dennett in Acworth, Ohio, floating the idea of a joint ticket. Is he crazy?

Probably not. Ron Paul has money, the best Internet campaign in America, and growing legions of dedicated, often rabid, supporters (they number some 60,000 on Meetup.com), many of whom have never volunteered for a political campaign or even voted. Given their disdain for the GOP, Kucinich is wise to court them, if not with his platform, then by dint of his conspicuously independent voting record. Many people support Paul less for his policy proscriptions than his courageous votes against the grain of his own party and the "Establishment." Several Paulites have told me that in past elections they voted for Nader.

But alas, Paul is not interested in this marriage of opposites. A GOP contender who is viewed by his party as too liberal gains nothing by locking arms with one. On the other hand, just by proposing the idea Kucinich appears to fellow Democrats as more moderate (Or at least that's the idea; those familiar with how Paul handles race matters might conclude Kucinich has gone off the deep end). Kucinich also appeals to the Internet energy of the Unity08 campaign, which could yet gain steam in future elections. The idea of fringe bipartisanship is just crazy enough to be a hit online, and perhaps even with Paul's techno-publicans.

The Bottom Line Six Feet Under

Good Magazine has found a way to neatly wrap up the absurdity of funeral costs into a great little YouTube video. Really. I recommend you watch minus the sound. There is something somewhat creepy about death stats accompanied by music. The figures on the other hand are informative and fairly astonishing. I mean, it's definitely not news that the funeral industry is a boon to certain markets. There's cosmetics, casketry (I'm sure that's not a word), and of course real estate. The average funeral costs $6,500 in the U.S. No wonder I vaguely remember hearing relatives complaining about money at, well, all the funerals for each of my grandparents. And that cost doesn't even include the plot of land for burial. But don't despair: While apartment hunting, you can pick up a burial plot for $1,000 on Craigslist. We happen to not be the most out of control funeral industry. An average funeral in Japan costs $45,000, which is why nearly 98 percent of its citizens opt for cremation.

Good also reminds us that death can be bad for the environment. Cremation adds to global warming and the formaldehyde leached into the ground water from burials is not so great for Mother Earth either. There are other options though. You could be buried in a forest or in an eco-friendly cardboard coffin (like the Aussies), have your ash turned into 250 pencils (like the Japanese), or if cost is not your issue, spend $12,500 and be left on the moon.

Get Ready for the Ron Paul Blimp (Blimp? Blimp!)

If you're one of the skeptics that Ron Paul supporters are for reals, you probably won't believe that they're about to launch a Ron Paul blimp. Oh, but they are. There's a posting on Daily Paul, and YouTube videos (one set to Electric Light Orchestra), and a website, which has generated nearly $500K in pledges so far—not to mention spoof videos (one set to Journey).

Get ready to see the blimp at the Super Bowl, and to accept once and for all that Ron Paulites are an incredibly devoted bunch who may be capable of doing pretty much any wild thing they put their mind to.

It's Officially the Early '90s

O.J. Simpson is on trial.

A Clinton is running for president.

The Spice Girls, the Verve Pipe, and the Verve are getting back together.

And Rodney King has been badly injured.

What's next? A 90210 reunion show? Reality Bites 2? Give us some ideas in the comments.

Free Your Naughty Bits, Free Burma

If you felt powerless to help Burma in its struggle for democracy during the country's recent, but so far resultless, protests, well, your panties may help. The Lanna Action for Burma Committee is asking women of all nations to contribute their undergarments to its Panty Power Campaign, which aims to let the generals of the ruling junta know that people around the world don't approve of its rampant human rights abuses. In addition, said generals are superstitious freaks who, according to LABC, believe that contact with ladies' lingerie can render a man feeble.

So take off your panties and send them to the embassy near you; it's easier, more fun, and more direct than writing a letter to the U.N. Try to veto this, China!

Village Voice: Giuliani Did Business With Terrorism Supporter

Wow, yesterday was really not a good news day for Rudy Giuliani. In addition to the fact that he used New York City as a private bank account to finance his extramarital affairs, it was also revealed Rudy is linked to a well-known supporter of Osama bin Laden and 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Muhammad. This was revealed by Rudy expert Wayne Barrett of the Village Voice.

The connection goes like this. Giuliani Security & Safety LLC, a subsidiary of Giuliani Partners, the consulting firm that has made Rudy Giuliani rich, worked for either Qatar's interior ministry or the state-owned company it helps oversee, Qatar Petroleum. The interior ministry is run by a member of the Qatar royal family named Abdallah bin Khalid al Thani. Giuliani went on Larry King with al Thani in late 2001 and vouched for him. The problem is al Thani is alleged to have strong terrorist ties. He is "said to have welcomed Osama bin Laden on two visits to [his] farm, a charge repeated as recently as October 10, 2007, in a Congressional Research Service study." And Barrett notes that many people, including some within the American government, believe al Thani helped "spirit [9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Muhammad] out of Qatar in 1996, just as the FBI was closing in on him." Al Thani is a defendant in 9/11 lawsuits still proceeding in Manhattan federal court.

The fact that Giuliani was working with Qatar, which is a very dubious ally on the war on terror, is troubling.

Again, Barrett notes:

The staff of the 9/11 Commission, meanwhile, noted that the FBI and CIA "were reluctant to seek help from the Qatari government" in the arrest of KSM, "fearing that he might be tipped off." When Qatar's emir was finally "asked for his help" in January 1996, Qatari authorities "first reported that KSM was under surveillance," then "asked for an alternative plan that would conceal their aid to Americans," and finally "reported that KSM had disappeared."

I'll let Barrett summarize and then simply point you to his very long and very good article: "In other words, as incredible as it might seem, Rudy Giuliani—whose presidential candidacy is steeped in 9/11 iconography—has been doing business with a government agency run by the very man who made the attacks on 9/11 possible."

Update: Barrett's previous work on terrorism here.

Hillary Clinton Says Bye-Bye to Indicted Trial Lawyer

scruggs.image Bad news for trial lawyers, and bad news for Bill and Hillary, too. Famed Mississippi plaintiff's lawyer Richard "Dickie" Scruggs, who was slated to host a Clinton fundraiser next month, was indicted yesterday for allegedly trying to bribe a state court judge. The indictment comes a day after the FBI raided his office looking for a document, and two days after Scruggs' brother-in-law, Trent Lott, announced his resignation from the Senate.

When the FBI first raided Scruggs' office, Lott said the timing of his resignation was just a coincidence. But you do have to wonder. The indictment is pretty damning, and includes apparently taped conversations between the judge and some of the other lawyers involved in the alleged scheme.

The indictment will no doubt have other political fallout. Scruggs is a high-profile figure, having just used his private jet to ferry the new University of Mississippi football coach to Oxford hours before turning himself in to law enforcement authorities. He made millions off the state's lawsuit against the tobacco companies in the 1990s and has been leading the litigation against insurance companies over denied Katrina claims, including Lott's. Scruggs has been a generous Democratic political donor, particularly in Mississippi, where he used some of his tobacco winnings to found a now-defunct PAC to help elect liberal candidates to state office.

But his political loyalties have always been a little suspect, and not just because of his in-law status. This year, for instance, he has given nearly $30,000 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and several thousand dollars to Joe Biden. But he's also contributed to Republican John McCain. Next month, Bill Clinton was scheduled to headline a fundraiser for his wife at Scruggs' Oxford home. Not surprisingly, today a Clinton spokesman tells Mother Jones that the event is "not happening."

Giuliani Straining to Defend Himself on Hamptons Trysts

By now you may have heard yesterday's big news, other than the fact that the Republicans smacked each other something vicious on CNN. When Mayor of New York City, Rudy Giuliani took trips to the Hamptons to visit his then-mistress and now-wife Judith Nathan and billed the tens of thousands of dollars in security expenses to obscure New York City agencies like the Loft Board. Giuliani was still married to his second wife at the time. Also billed to small agencies were expenses for campaign trips during Giuliani's aborted 2000 Senate campaign and trips to Los Angeles for his then-wife Donna Hanover. The full, sordid details are available at Politico.

What's less well known is that Giuliani is having a hell of a time explaining himself.

At the debate yesterday, Giuliani pinned the blame on the cops who were assigned to protect him. "They put in their records. They handled them in the way they handled them. I had nothing to do with the handling of their records," he said.

In the Politico story, a Giuliani campaign aide said the problem was due to "accounting."

On a CBS News follow up, the campaign said "this is common practice." A top aide named Tony Carbonetti told the media "these were all legitimate expenses."

But Carbonetti seemed to reverse himself later, saying that he had ordered an investigation.

In 2001 and 2002, Giuliani handled this differently. When city auditors questioned the expenses, the Mayor's staff refused to provide them by citing "security."

The Giuliani campaign clearly was not prepared for this, meaning that the former mayor's New York City staff, who has been dealing with questions over this behind the scenes for over five years, chose not to brief them. Or the campaign's research department didn't ask the right questions. Or Giuliani himself didn't tell them to look into it.

No matter what, though, Giuliani had better figure out what his position is, because every time he takes a new stance, he extends the story through another news cycle. And this is so damaging, he'll want it to go away as soon as possible. If it ever does, and here's betting it doesn't.

The French Nuclear Connection

The deal between the French nuclear behemoth Areva and the Chinese to build two nuclear power plants and run others in China may be part of an answer to that country’s growing energy demand. Not to mention gross pollution. It also gives the now struggling nuclear business a big shot in the arm, and brings a little known, and growing power into focus as a major energy player: Sarkozy’s France.

The Bush administration has hoped it could pump up nuclear as a clean alternative fuel. Since Three Mile Island the business has been in the dumps, mired in controversy over waste disposal and overall safety. As part of its expanding operations, Areva now wants to enter the U.S. market and has cut a deal with Constellation Energy, a Baltimore utility, to sell power plants here. The French, of course, have long played an important role in the oil and gas business with historic interests in Algeria, where the first major LNG exports to the U.S. originated; in West Africa, where the Gulf of Guinea has become a hot spot in the search for what’s left of the world’s oil and gas; and the Middle East.

But the country’s role in reviving the nuclear power business is not so well known. Currently France produces 80 percent of its electricity from nuclear power. Areva builds reactors, but also is engaged in mining and processing uranium in Gabon, Niger, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, Russia, Finland, Australia, Canada, and the U.S. According to the company's web site, it has built 100 of the 303 light water nuclear reactors in the world—throughout France and in South Korea, South Africa, and Argentina.

In Canada it owns a major share in the Cigar Lake project in Saskatchewan, which has been billed as an enormous uranium mine, potentially supplying about one tenth of the world’s consumption. And it has numerous uranium interests in British Columbia, Manitoba, Alberta, and in the Arctic archipelago in Nunavut. In the U.S., Areva has uranium mining holdings in Texas and Wyoming and, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, is considering building an enrichment facility in New Mexico.

The deal could give China another foot in the door of the North American energy business. Previously the Chinese have been interested in participating in the oil sands business in Alberta and now with France as a partner can play a larger role in producing and processing uranium not only in Canada but in the U.S.

What next—will we start exporting uranium to China?

November 28, 2007

Republicans Feud Over Immigration at the Debate: What It Says About the GOP Field

Ernie Nardi from Dyker Heights, Brooklyn, did us all a service. The question on sanctuary cities that Nardi asked at last night's Republican YouTube debate—the first question of the night—set the stage for an epic confrontation between the candidates that included some of the sharpest attacks of the campaign season. The fight over immigration, quickly becoming the most contentious issue of the race, lasted for almost twenty minutes, long enough that each candidate got to say his piece. That meant something insightful could be learned about the entire field.

Giuliani began by insisting that "New York City was not a sanctuary city." Giuliani then went on to detail and defend three ways in which New York City was in fact a sanctuary city: the Big Apple opened education and health services up to illegal immigrants, and allowed them to report crimes without fear of deportation. Giuliani stuck up for these three policy moves, while repeatedly insisting that they didn't make New York a sanctuary city (a term, by the way, that is largely meaningless). He didn't help his case by saying "we reported thousands and thousands and thousands of names of illegal immigrants who committed crimes to the immigration service."

Mitt Romney fired right back, saying, "How about the fact that the people who are here
illegally have violated the law?" He went on to say that as Mayor, Giuliani welcomed and protected illegal immigrants.

Throughout the night, host Anderson Cooper gave anyone who was attacked 30 additional seconds to respond. This meant that anyone who got into a tit-for-tat got the lion's share of the airtime. And it meant that fights got extended, as this one did.

Giuliani shot back at Romney, saying, "Mitt generally criticizes people in a situation in which he's had the worst record." Giuliani claimed that there were multiple sanctuary cities in Massachusetts when Romney was Governor. Then it got personal. "There was even a sanctuary mansion," Giuliani said. "At his own home, illegal immigrants were being employed."

Romney, drawing himself up to full height, said, "Mayor, you know better than that… I think it is really kind of offensive actually to suggest, to say look, you know what, if you are a homeowner and you hire a company to come provide a service at your home—paint the home, put on the roof—if you hear someone… with a funny accent, you, as a homeowner, are supposed to go out there and say, "I want to see your papers.""

Romney's position is a reasonable one, though he was lying when he claimed illegal immigrants did not work on the Governor's mansion. They did. Illegal Guatemalans tended the lawn there.

The fight between Romney and Giuliani went on. At some point one of the other candidates, off camera, said "Let us jump in here." Romney accused Giuliani of "pursuing a sanctuary nation," which is clearly false in light of Giuliani's newly invigorated hatred of illegal immigration. Giuliani tried to defend himself but the spat had gone on too long. The crowd began to boo.

Fred Thompson was given a chance to speak and looked excellent merely by looking calm and parroting Republican talking points. He called legal immigrants "some of our better citizens." He said, "We've got to strengthen the border. We've got to enforce the border. We've got to punish employers who will not obey the law. And we've got to eliminate sanctuary cities." It came as a relief at the Giuliani-Romney slugfest.

John McCain followed Thompson, looking disgusted with his rivals. "You know, this whole debate saddens me a little bit," he said. McCain doesn't do well in the debate format—he acts frequently as though the sniping and the soundbite messaging is below him. His frustration shows in his body language. It did here. But perhaps that was only because immigration is an issue on which McCain has taken a beating recently. He looked chastened for his previous support of bipartisan immigration reform bill and acknowledged at the debate that you've got to "secure the borders first."

But the side of McCain that urged him to take the lead in a compromise plan that offered a pathway to citizenship to illegal immigrants eventually came out. McCain closed his comments by saying, "We need to sit down as Americans and recognize these are God's children as well. And they need some protection under the law. And they need some of our love and compassion."

McCain was followed by Tom Tancredo, who is running a campaign almost exclusively on his hardline opposition to illegal immigration. Asked about Romney and Giuliani fighting over who has the stronger anti-illegal credentials, the Colorado congressman was gleeful. "All I've heard is people trying to out-Tancredo Tancredo," he said. "It is great."

Asked a question about small businesses who want the sort of low-wage immigrant workers that would be available as guest workers under the McCain Senate bill, Tancredo was dismissive, saying, "I'm not going to aid any more immigration into this country."

Duncan Hunter, a congressman from the San Diego area, spoke next. As someone who has taken the lead on Congress' efforts to stop illegal immigration, Hunter could speak on substance. The double border fence he built south of his district "reduced the smuggling of people and drugs by more than 90 percent and the crime rate in the city of San Diego went down by 53 percent," he said. Rudy Giuliani's empty attacks on "sanctuary mansions" weren't necessary.

The newly ascendant Mike Huckabee spoke last. He repeatedly defended his decision as governor of Arkansas to give college scholarship opportunities to the children of illegal immigrants. He took a compassionate tack. "We're not going to punish a child because the parent committed a crime. That's not what we typically do in this country." Later he said, "We're a better country than that."

When Romney oversimplified Huckabee's scholarship program—which demands that a student meet certain academic standards, be drug free, stay out of trouble, and be applying for citizenship—Huckabee said, "I know how hard it was to get that degree. I am standing here tonight on this stage because I got an education. If I hadn't had the education, I wouldn't be standing on this stage. I might be picking lettuce."

As a Governor, Huckabee didn't need to take a position on the now-defeated comprehensive immigration reform bill pushed by McCain, Ted Kennedy, and George W. Bush. Aside from the scholarships and a couple of occasions in which Huckabee was literally nice to immigrants, little is known of his position on the issue. But one line from the debate might offer a clue. His scholarship plan "accomplished two things that we knew we wanted to do," Huckabee said. The first: "Bring people from illegal status to legal status."

Update: Romney and Giuliani have a history of fighting over this stuff.

Telling Moments from the GOP Debate: Romney Freezes, Rudy Slashes, McCain Shines

Wednesday night's CNN/YouTube Republican debate contained no Hillary Moment--that is, no time when a leading candidate muffed an answer in a manner that created an opportunity for the others to pile on. (Remember Clinton's triple-reverse answer to that question about issuing driver's licenses to illegal immigrants?) But this latest face-off did produce telling moments.

Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney had the most difficult ones. He froze more than once--which is odd, considering he's had ample opportunity to ready himself for this Republican Party-sponsored debate. In one video query, a fellow named Joseph from Dallas held up a Bible and said, "How you answer this question will tell us everything we need to know about you. Do you believe every word of this book? Specifically, this book that I am holding in my hand, do you believe this book?" The question first went to former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani. He seemed unsure of how to start, and former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, who was ordained as a Baptist minister, quipped, "Do I need to help you out, Mayor, on this one?" Giuliani recovered quickly and offered the obvious answer: It's "the greatest book ever written....I read it frequently," some parts are "allegorical," some are "meant to be interpreted in a modern context."

Then came Romney's turn. "I believe," he said, "the Bible is the word of God, absolutely." CNN's Anderson Cooper reminded him of the question: "Does that mean you believe every word?" Romney stuttered: "You know--yes, I believe it's the word of God, the Bible is the word of God." He then repeated that answer twice and said, "I don't disagree with the Bible." In other words, he stumbled through a question about the Holy Book. When Huckabee fielded the question, he handled it, naturally, with natural aplomb: "As the only person here on the stage with a theology degree, there are parts of it I don't fully comprehend and understand, because the Bible is a revelation of an infinite god, and no finite person is ever going to fully understand it. If they do, their god is too small." For any social conservatives who care about a candidate's relation to the Bible, Huckabee had slammed Romney.

Later in the debate, Romney hit another bad spot in an exchange during which Senator John McCain shined. A college student from Seattle named Andrew offered this question: "Senator McCain has come out strongly against using waterboarding as an instrument of interrogation. My question for the rest of you is, considering that Mr. McCain is the only one with any firsthand knowledge on the subject, how can those of you sharing the stage with him disagree with his position?" Romney went first: "I do not believe that as a presidential candidate, it is wise for us to describe precisely what techniques we will use in interrogating people. I oppose torture. I would not be in favor of torture in any way, shape or form." It was a non-answer, and Cooper pressed him: "Is waterboarding torture?" Romney repeated himself: "I don't think it's wise for us to describe specifically which measures we would and would not use."

McCain moved in:

MCCAIN: Well, Governor, I'm astonished that you haven't found out what waterboarding is.

ROMNEY: I know what waterboarding is, Senator.

MCCAIN: Then I am astonished that you would think such a -- such a torture would be inflicted on anyone in our -- who we are held captive and anyone could believe that that's not torture. It's in violation of the Geneva Convention. It's in violation of existing law. And, Governor, let me tell you, if we're going to get the high ground in this world and we're going to be the America that we have cherished and loved for more than 200 years. We're not going to torture people. We're not going to do what Pol Pot did. We're not going to do what's being done to Burmese monks as we speak. I suggest that you talk to retired military officers and active duty military officers like Colin Powell and others, and how in the world anybody could think that that kind of thing could be inflicted by Americans on people who are held in our custody is absolutely beyond me.

People in the auditorium cheered. Romney stuck to his talking points, reiterating that he does not favor torture but will not say "what is and what is not torture." McCain fired back that Romney would then "have to advocate that we withdraw from the Geneva Conventions" because under that agreement waterboarding is considered torture. McCain added, "I would hope that we would understand, my friends, that life is not 24 and Jack Bauer....This is a defining issue and, clearly, we should be able, if we want to be commander in chief of the U.S. Armed Forces, to take a definite and positive position on, and that is, we will never allow torture to take place in the United States of America." More applause. McCain had come across looking committed and principled. Romney had appeared tethered to an index-card response.

Minutes later, Romney was tripped up by a question about a statement he had once made. After retired Brigadier General Keith Kerr, an openly gay man who apparently is working with the Hillary Clinton campaign, posed a question about gays and lesbians in the military, Cooper noted that in 1994 Romney had said he looked forward to the day when homosexuals could serve "openly and honestly in our nation's military." Anderson then asked the former Massachusetts governor, "Do you stand by that?"

Romney should have been well prepared. He wasn't:

ROMNEY: This is not that time. We're in the middle of a war. The people who have...

COOPER: Do you look forward to that time, though, one day?

ROMNEY: I'm going to listen to the people who run the military to see what the circumstances are like....

COOPER: So, just so I'm clear, at this point, do you still look forward to a day when gays can serve openly in the military or no longer?

ROMNEY: I look forward to hearing from the military exactly what they believe is the right way to have the right kind of cohesion and support in our troops and I listen to what they have to say.

People in the audience booed at this point--though it was unclear which Romney position they were booing. While Romney had earlier been able to explain his reversal on abortion (from pro-choice to pro-life), he was unable to say what had caused him to switch regarding gays in the military. In fact, he looked flummoxed by what was an obvious question. It was very un-CEO-like.

Representative Ron Paul had a revealing moment. When asked by a YouTuber if he believes--as does some of his followers--that the Council on Foreign Relations is part of a secret conspiracy to merge the United States with Canada and Mexico, he did not say, "No way, Jose." Instead, he noted that there is "a move on toward a North America Union, just like early on there was a move on for a European Union" and that "they" don't talk about it. He cited Nafta and a "Nafta highway." The problem: the Nafta highway is a myth. So Paul continues on as the black helicopter candidate. Later in the debate, Paul referred to "the people in the north" of Iraq and called them Shia, not Kurds.

Giuliani, who (by his standards) barely mentioned 9/11, had his red-meat moment when he advocated cutting 5 to 10 percent from the budget of every federal agency. Would that meaning cutting back on consumer safety, education, environmental protection programs? Presumably. Giuliani didn't address the consequences of such slashing.

Giuliani didn't pander every chance he got. Asked about gun control, he said he backed the notion that individuals (as opposed to members of militias) have the right to possess guns but the government has the right to impose "reasonable" though limited regulations. Audience members hissed. Yet when GIuliani said he would not sign a bill imposing a federal ban on abortion, there were scattered applause.

Former Senator Fred Thompson put in a competent though hardly inspiring performance. But he serve up a head-scratcher of an answer to a question from Texan Leroy Brooks, who asked if the Confederate flag is a symbol of racism or of Southern heritage. "I know that everybody who hangs the flag up in their room like that is not racist," Thompson responded. "I also know that for a great many Americans it's a symbol of racism....As far as a public place is concerned, I am glad that people have made the decision not to display it as a prominent flag...at a state capitol." So far, so good. Then Thompson added, "As a part of a group of flags or something of that nature, you know, honoring various service people at different times in different parts of the country, I think that's different." So it's not kosher to fly the flag over a state capitol, but it's fine to hoist it among a group of other flags to honor soldiers who fought to divide the Union and protect slavery?

Despite these particular moments, the debate is unlikely to shift voter sentiment. No one soared, no one flopped--though Romney came closest to the latter. The debate opened with