Inspired by the works and writings of two of my political heroes, John and Robert Kennedy, today I offer up the first installment in a new series of posts we’ll aptly refer to as “Profiles in Courage.”
I hope readers will come to enjoy this new effort to specifically highlight powerful quotes and recent rhetoric in the news attributed to great leaders from across the political spectrum that are strengthening the notions of accessible democracy and responsible citizenship — the pillars of The Project Manifesto.
To get started, it only seems fitting to begin with one of my favorite quotes from then-Senator Kennedy’s “Profile in Courage” memoir which really sums up our goals more artfully than I can:
“In a democracy, every citizen, regardless of his interest in politics, ‘holds office’; every one of us is in a position of responsibility, and, in the final analysis, the kind of government we get depends upon how we fulfill those responsibilities. We, the people, are the boss, and we will get the kind of political leadership, be it good or bad, that we demand and deserve.” – John F. Kennedy
During last night’s Colbert Report, filmed at the Clinton Global Initiative University meeting in St. Louis, Colbert segued a discussion of whether young people should get into politics into Clinton’s social media presence. After Clinton discussed how new email was during his presidency, Colbert decided to get Clinton into the 21st Century. “Well, sir, I took the liberty of opening you a Twitter account,” he said, explaining that “PresidentClinton” and “WilliamJeffersonClinton” were taken, but “PrezBillyJeff” was available.
You’ll note the switch to the “more dignified” social networking moniker he’s using now from the original @PrezBillyJeff handle he was originally assigned by Comedy Central’s king of sarcasm. Watch Colbert’s update to all of these developments here:
GOP golden boy, AR-04 Rep. Tom Cotton, added his voice to the recent media flurry of George W. Bush revisionism that has preceded today’s Bush Center opening ceremonies. Though Cotton’s remarks on the House floor yesterday were a clear attempt to score a few cheap political points out of the Boston Marathon bombing events by blaming them on President Obama, his brief diatribe revolved around the rather peculiar argument that President Bush actually had a pitched a perfect game when it come to keeping the country from being victimized from terrorism on our own soil . . . you know, except for that 9/11 thing.
From The Last Word (linked above):
A week after the Boston Marathon bombings, the first successful terrorist bombing on U.S. soil since 2001, a Republican freshman Congressman made an invalid argument that President George W. Bush did a better job keeping America safe from terrorism but failed to mention the 9/11 attacks.
What gall, huh? Now let’s take a quick trek down memory lane, shall we?
This since 9/11 rhetoric seems to be a pretty convenient starting point for rewriting recent history, especially considering the line of attack Cotton directed towards the current commander-in-chief. You know, the only POTUS out of the two being compared here that actually made it a priority to find Bin Laden and destroy Al Qaeda’s leadership. Facts and irony being what they are, here is the most recent contribution to the annals of the Congressional Record and C-SPAN video archives from Arkansas’s freshman congressman:
“I rise today to express grave doubts about the Obama administration’s counterterrorism policies and programs. Counterterrorism is often shrouded in secrecy, as it should be, so let us judge by the results. In barely four years in office, five jihadists have reached their targets in the United States under Barack Obama: the Boston Marathon bomber, the underwear bomber, the Times Square bomber, the Fort Hood shooter, and in my own state — the Little Rock recruiting office shooter.In the over seven years after 9/11 under George W. Bush, how many terrorists reached their target in the United States? Zero! We need to ask ‘why is the Obama Administration failing in its mission to stop terrorism before it reaches its targets in the United States?”
Despite his best effort to deliver a soldier’s impassioned plea, Cotton’s selective memory and overly-prepared remarks sure have the feel of being just another dose of typical GOP template-politics, complete with the standard list of talking points that have no doubt been distributed to Fox News & Co. to be subsequently repeated by every Rethug making the media rounds right now. And I’d venture to guess there’s a real good chance it’s Lil’ Billy Kristol behind this push as another way to raise the profile and national ambitions of his shining star from Yell, AR. Because otherwise it’s awfully hard to believe that one could claim Mr. Obama has been “failing” when it comes to protecting the American homeland, then attempt to “yada, yada, yada” the fact that on 9/11 that same homeland lost nearly 3,000 innocent people because of Al Qaeda reachingitstargets.Presidential leadership amounted to some spoiled twit who had opted for “My Pet Goat” instead of briefings like “Bin Laden Determined to Strike Inside U.S.” that day, did it not?
On top of the blatant hypocrisy of ignoring that failing, this disengenious “since 9/11” count also leaves out the anthrax attacks that soon followed, the Richard Reid shoe bombing, dirty bomb schemer Jose Padilla, the shooting at LAX in 2002, as well as the horrific shooting spree of murderers Mohammed and Malvo, the two Beltway-area snipers.
You can watch the fuzzy math play out in Cotton’s screams of “FIVE!” and “ZERO!” from the House of Representatives below:
Look out, it’s Mike Ross 2.0! The reinvented version, who was brought out of a very short political retirement by the party establishment, is forging ahead with a campaign strategery where he’ll tout himself as a “champion” for the rights of women in this state. Someone who will be able to defend them against those wacky GOP social ideologues who wasted no time in coming to power and enacting an agenda that seemed to offend the otherwise practical and sensible nature of Arkansans from all political stripes. By sharing his outrage about these legislative controversies to voters, he seeks to prove his bonafides as Arkansas’s new Ladies’ Man, one might conclude.
Yes, really. He’s going there.
What’s that, you say? Everything he’s done as an elected official prior to his announcement of campaigning for governor tells us something entirely different?
Oh, I agree. Because your claims of the rhetoric not at all matching the reality is the one thing here that actually istrue.
Now wipe that completely confused (and slightly constipated) look off your mug and walk through this with me.
Over at Arkansas Blog today, Max Brantley discussed the move from Planned Parenthood to highlight some of the former AR-04 congressman’s controversial and disconnected votes concerning the rights of women to control their own bodies and the funding for programs that support their overall health needs, and to press him on how he squares those actions with his recent rhetoric that tries to make his votes appear different than those cast by Republicans (and some Democrats) in the General Assembly:
Democratic gubernatorial candidate Mike Ross made encouraging sounds about looking out for women’s medical services and the ability to choose abortion when he announced last week. But his past record has included votes to restrict abortion and funding for Planned Parenthood, which recently survived a legislative attack on funding for its sex education work in Little Rock.
Republicans, who LIKED Ross’ past record, have been hooting about Ross’ pitch to women. Bill Halter, his Democratic opponent, has been beating up Ross as the next Jason Rapert. Ross himself has explicitly said 1) he’d have vetoed the abortion restriction bills Gov. Mike Beebe vetoed and 2) he would NOT support defunding of Planned Parenthood’s non-abortion services in Arkansas.
An issue for the long-term? Republicans arguing that Mike Ross isn’t as liberal as he wants to you believe? Maybe not. But the Democratic primary is something else.
The facts: Mike Ross co-sponsored a controversial bill, long with Missouri’s infamous Todd “Legitimate Rape?” Akin, that sought to redefine the definition of rape and would have prevented women from obtaining important medical care, and has also twice voted to stop federal funds from going to groups like Planned Parenthood, who provide women with myriad health services beyond those related to pregnancy and abortion.
“Let me be clear about my position and what it has always been. I am personally opposed to abortion. I do not believe, I do not support government-funded abortions with state or federal dollars. But like Gov. Beebe, I believe, from a public policy perspective, it should be safe, legal and rare,” [Ross] said.
Despite his politically-expedient “evolution” on these issues, and his accompanying public display of “outrage” towards the likes of Sen. Jason Rapert and the rest of the ARGOP’s in leading the Arkansas Legislature to enact these sorts of restrictions, Boss Ross has an accessible voting record we concerned citizens can review which paints a very different picture of where the man actually stands. Indeed, his was a very shameful showing of bi-partisanship at its worst when it comes to siding up with Republicans in their “War on Women” crusades.
After announcing that he would not run for reelection to Congress and less than two months after saying he was not going to run governor, Mike Ross showed his true colors and voted for this ban. Only now that he is running for governor, has he chosen to flip-flop to suit his own political ambition. Mike Ross’s statements are not consistent with his own previous actions.
Mike Ross talks about believing in Arkansas values, but yesterday he demonstrated a determined willingness to ignore those values when it served his own political ambition.
With Bill Halter, Arkansans know where he stands. He would have vetoed the abortion bills and he never would have supported the attacks on women that Mike Ross promoted by cosponsoring and voting for legislation that would have restricted women from receiving important medical care.
Mike Ross’s record of denying women access to medical care is only one of many aspects of an overall record that Arkansans will find troubling. I am confident that the Arkansas press corps will do their homework and hold Mr. Ross accountable for his own record, rather than allow him to run on someone else’s record.
This state — and the floundering state party who, by any reasonable account, have been unable to regroup and come to grips with how to still have some relevance while in the minority, needs a leader with authentic convictions that understands how to build support for real reform so we can move ahead. In my mind, Democrats here should be lining up to support someone who is, at the very least, a consistent “D” in the way they generally approach policy. Hell, one day we may even learn to raise those expectations enough to get beyond some of the same unresponsive establishment do-nothing-ness that has allowed the party to drift aimlessly into the political wilderness.
More inspiring would be to see the calls for real reform led by someone that is not only bold enough to offer innovative ideas, but also has the conviction and know-how to effectively rally the masses against GOP priorities that thwart Arkansas’s economic and social progress. For my money, Bill Halter is the only person that provides a chance for this to happen.
We’ll never be able to truly move this state forward if we accept anything less than the best we have to offer. The days where we are able to collectively say “Thank God for Mississippi” may be dwindling, you know.
Make no mistake, Arkansas Republicans campaigned on, almost exclusively, an anti-Obama platform, mostly premised on the promise to prevent implementation of his most notable legislative initiative — the Affordable Care Act — here in Arkansas.
Then, they had to actually govern and come up with justifications in rejecting federal Medicaid funds under the Affordable Care Act while still helping to subsidize its implementation to other states via tax dollars.
Next, here came the powerful hospital and insurance lobby, long eager to find a way to be able to capitalize financially on Medicaid patients. What’s an Arkansas Republican to do???
Obamacare, as the law is popularly known, once seemed doomed in Arkansas, where Republican candidates ran hard in the 2012 election campaign on the promise of stopping reform, and won majorities in both state legislative chambers for the first time since the Civil War era.
Then [Representatives] Dismang, Sanders, House Majority Leader Bruce Westerman and House member John Burris started sounding out whether the Obama administration would allow Medicaid expansion funds to be used to purchase private coverage through an online healthcare exchange that Arkansas will run in partnership with Washington beginning Jan. 1, 2014.
Under Obamacare, people earning from 100 percent to 133 percent of the federal poverty level would qualify for Medicaid. But they could also receive federal premium tax credits to help purchase private coverage through an exchange. States such as Wisconsin have already opted for that route.
The Arkansas plan would utilize Medicaid funds instead of tax credits and cover everyone who qualifies for the expansion, including those living below the federal poverty level – currently $23,550 for a family of four.
But yesterday, as Medicaid expansion (via a private health insurance exchange) in Arkansas became a foregone conclusion one step closer to being reality, for the betterment of our state, however ironic this notion may be considering the rhetoric of the past couple of years. From ThinkProgress.org:
Arkansas came one step closer to expanding Medicaid under Obamacare on Thursday after the state senate advanced a modified expansion bill by a 27-8 vote. The bill now heads to Gov. Mike Beebe (D), who is expected to sign it promptly.
In March, Beebe and the Obama Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) struck a first-of-its-kind deal that would allow Arkansas to expand Medicaid while also privatizing the state-federal partnership program. Under the tentative deal, the federal government will subsidize the entire cost of Arkansas’ Medicaid expansion, but allow the state to use that federal money to buy poor people private insurance, rather than expand the existing public program. The compromise — which has been dubbed “the private option” — was appealing to both Beebe and the Obama Administration, since conservative Arkansas legislators are skeptical of public entitlements, but the state has a high number of poor and uninsured residents who will benefit from expanded access to health coverage.
The development is particularly significant since the private option could serve as a template for Republican-controlled states. Conservatives who are adamantly opposed to public health entitlements like Medicaid are being fiercely lobbied by hospital associations and advocates for the poor, who are warning them that safety net hospitals and state budgets could buckle under the weight of uncompensated medical care costs barring expanded insurance access for the poor. The private option could allow Republicans to heed those warnings without endorsing a program they have historically slammed.
Rep. David Sanders, R-Little Rock, left, and Rep. Jonathan Dismang, R-Beebe, helped lead the GOP’s change of heart.
Funny how things once undebatable can quickly change when faced with reality, isn’t it? But at least this time it was for an improved way of doing things, even if it might’ve not necessarily been the ideal way of doing them.
But now I have to ask, what of the politics of this moment? How can Arkansas Democrats both take credit for the enactment of the Obamacare Medicaid expansion AND still remind voters of the political posturing and subsequent flip-flopping on the issue by their anti-all-things-fed counterparts on the other side of the aisle?
My take is that Ark Dems generally have a small window to do something creative and positive with this. While I’ll admit to you readers that the more idealist “Third Way” notions in me find it a bit disingenuous that Democrats would now be snarking about a GOP flip-flop on the ACA’s Medicaid implementation here, when we should really just be making the most of this seemingly grand compromise and revel in the fact that SOMETHING got done in this otherwise nutty legislative session to improve the lives of thousands of needy Arkansans. I say this primarily because these same Democrats played no real part in the substantive debate in the legislature — the entire discussion and associated compromises — at least once the general blessing for a “private option” was granted by Kathleen Sebelius to Governor Beebe — was controlled by Arkansas Republicans. The whole thing hinged on whether or enough of their members would toe the line on often ridiculous campaign rhetoric, or would give in to a common sense and get the legislation passed.
That being said, I figure Dems going on the offensive with this outweighs the risk of some people having a reaction like mine and backfiring. I mean, Dems haven’t had much part in any debate because these Republicans have been passing whatever they want and blocking whatever they want. So turn that on it’s head. “You clearly could pass anything you wanted, so thank you for passing Obamacare.”
As I was talking with a friend last night about the passage of healthcare expansion, it dawned on me that this moment actually presents a great opportunity for the ArkDems to seize control of the discussion, attempt to take the moral highground, and define the debate going forward. Rather than letting the Republicans tout how they “avoided Obamacare” by passing the “private option,” I think you guys could turn the whole thing on its head by embracing the term “Obamacare” and literally thanking, by name in a press a release, all of the Republican legislators who voted for the expansion “and made healthcare available to 250,000 Arkansans that did not have it before the passage of Obamacare.”
If they want to scream and holler about how it’s not Obamacare, then they are going to have to be able to explain how the private option is appreciably different than what would have happened under the ACA anyway. That’s like trying to explain why French vanilla ice cream is completely and totally different from regular vanilla, or why scallions are not the same as green onions. It’s a distinction without a difference, and most Arkansans will see through it. This is great on two levels for our side.
First, by embracing the term “Obamacare,” if the Republicans can’t satisfy various constituents that there is a difference in the private option, then they run the risk of being primaried, almost certainly by someone even more crazy and right wing, which should help moderate Dems have a shot in those areas.
Second, if you control the message, the attempts in 2014 by House and Senate members to campaign on having “avoided implementation of Obamacare in Arkansas” will ring hollow and will have about 18 months of rebuttal messaging to contend with.
I think this is a golden opportunity for the party. Heck, it even allows you to praise the “bipartisan effort that brought the benefits of Obamacare to Arkansas.” But selling that idea probably requires getting out front with this message almost immediately.
Very disappointing to see so many Arkansas House Democrats (six, to be exact) jumping on board and/or calling in sick to work today (a total of seven didn’t even bother to vote)regarding the vote to override Governor Beebe’s appropriate veto of holy rolling Sen. Jason Rapert’scontroversialHeartbeat Protection Act, Senate Bill 134,which would place a ban on all abortion procedures at the point of 12 weeks of pregnancy and thereafter.
Unfortunately for the women and taxpayers (here come the lawsuits) of this state, the House GOP steamrolled the party of presumed common sense on this one, with so little public pressure extolled from Dem leaders in the legislature that they even picked up a few of the more spineless ones along the way.
Arkansas adopted what is by far the country’s most restrictive ban onabortion on Wednesday — at 12 weeks of pregnancy, when a fetal heartbeat can typically be detected by abdominal ultrasound.
The law, the sharpest challenge yet to Roe v. Wade, was passed by the newly Republican-controlled legislature over the veto of Gov. Mike Beebe, a Democrat, who called it “blatantly unconstitutional.” The State Senate voted Tuesday to override his veto and the House followed suit on Wednesday, with several Democrats joining the Republican majority.
The law contradicts the limit established by Supreme Courtdecisions, which give women a right to an abortion until the fetus is viable outside the womb, usually around 24 weeks into pregnancy, and abortion rights groups promised a quick lawsuit to block it. Even some anti-abortion leaders called the measure a futile gesture.
[. . .]
“As much as we would like to protect the unborn at that point, it is futile and it won’t save any babies,” said James Bopp Jr., a prominent anti-abortion lawyer who opposed the Arkansas law. Mr. Bopp, who lives in Indiana, is general counsel of National Right to Life.
He said that lower courts are virtually certain to affirm existing Supreme Court rulings and, like many other legal experts, he predicted that the Supreme Court was very unlikely to agree to hear such a case.
Mr. Rapert originally proposed setting the Arkansas ban even earlier, at about six weeks after a woman’s last menstrual period. But the nascent fetal heartbeat can be detected at that point only by using intrusive technology like a trans-vaginal ultrasound.
Wary of the national firestorm that erupted last year after Virginia tried to require the intrusive procedure, Mr. Rapert and his allies revised the bill to specify that a fetal heartbeat should be detected by abdominal ultrasound or other external methods, which are not feasible at six weeks.
[. . .]
The state currently has only one clinic, in Little Rock, that performs surgical abortions; a second, run by Planned Parenthood, offers medicinal abortions, which are done only within the first eight weeks of pregnancy.
The final approval of the bill on Wednesday was a surprisingly unemotional event, with the House consideration of the override taking only moments — less time than it took just before to recognize a college volleyball team.
With the outcome, at 55 votes to 33, a foregone conclusion in a state that has turned steadily to the right in recent years, two House Republican leaders spoke briefly in favor of the bill, and not a single legislator spoke against it.
Profiles in Courage, Mr. Wardlaw? Hardly.
“Not a single legislator.”
Wow. And after all that public outrage. It almost seems…I don’t know…phony? Lazy? What do you think? Regardless of how you answer that right now, let’s be clear: House Dems should fully expect some fallout:
Yes,we noticed. And we’ll definitely remember come primary election time, or even if you try to take credit when this thing gets overturned later on.
“Tim Griffin should be in jail.”–Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. [Source: Truthout.org, August 27, 2012]
In 2010, Koch interests dumped $167,183 into Griffin’s campaign for Congress.
[. . .[
In Congress, he’s Rove-bot No. 1, owned and operated by Koch Industries.
Said Ernie Dumas in his piece entitled The Real Tim Griffin (Arkansas Times, July 2010):
Griffin made the group’s list of delinquent aspirants for his part in a sleazy scheme to keep blacks and other potential Democratic voters in Florida away from the polls in the 2004 presidential election when he was an operative for the Republican National Committee and for his unsavory role in the U.S. attorney scandal in 2006, which forced the resignation of seven top Justice Department officials, including the attorney general of the United States.
Wild allegations from the always-reliable Dumas? Hardly.
TIMMYWATCH brings you a more in-depth look at both of the unsavory ordeals that was directly involved with prior to launching his new political empire as Congressman from Arkansas’s Second District.
EPISODE 1: Voter Caging Scandal
As Dumas notes in the above-linked article, Griffin’s antics in the 2004 election did not get much in the way of airtime from Arkansas media, so let’s begin at the beginning.
Voter caging is the act of getting voters bumped from voter rolls if they were unable to sign for registered mail marked “do not forward” and sent to addresses where they were not present (including, say, those absent because they are in college or in the military). The returned letters are then used as “proof” to prevent the voters from obtaining a ballot at their respective polling places or to prevent absentee voters ballots from being counted. While there is nothing per se illegal about this act, it is illegal under the National Voting Rights Act of 1993.
Which brings us to Griffin.
In 2004, when Timmy was a Karl Rove sycophant research director for the RNC, he sent out an email to other Republicans, the subject line of which read simply “Caging,” and attached to which were excel spreadsheets full of voters’ names and addresses. How do we know this? Because Timmy sent them to addresses ending in “@georgewbush.org,” rather than “@georgewbush.com.” GeorgeWBush.org was a parody site, and the owner forwarded the emails to BBC Television Newsnight, where Greg Palast broke the story.
Here is one of the emails (click to enlarge):
Here’s where it gets sticky (and theoretically criminal): if you plot the addresses in the attached Excel spreadsheet, you quickly realize that there’s a racial component involved. As TPM explained (emphasis added):
The result? Our comparative analysis of the spreadsheet with Duval County voter rolls shows that most names were of African-Americans. (For more on the analysis, see below.) Such a finding, voting rights experts told me, strengthened allegations that Griffin, working for the Republican National Committee, was involved in an effort to target African-American voters. “It is difficult to explain other than an effort to target Democrats and by extension, minority voters,” Toby Moore, a former political geographer with the Justice Department, said.
Michael McDonald, an Associate Professor at George Mason University and an expert on elections statistics, said that the chance that the list is randomly so different from the population is less than 1 in 10,000. It is illegal to target voters based on their race under the Voting Rights Act. Griffin resigned earlier this month as the U.S. attorney for Little Rock after a six-month stint.
Griffin’s defense against these allegations falsely claimed that there was “not even a scintilla” of proof, did not explain the emails bearing his name, and basically attempted to attack the message by attacking the messenger.
Astute readers will note that Griffin claimed not to even know what “caging” meant, despite the fact that he sent emails with “Caging” as the subject and “caging-1.exl” as an attachment. Weird, that. I generally don’t title emails and Excel files with words that I don’t know the meaning of, but my methods may vary.
As mentioned above, this story didn’t get a lot of play in Arkansas for whatever reason. That said, I would not go so far as to claim that it was “debunked.” Timmy never explained the emails, nor did he even claim they were forgeries or were sent by someone other than him, and he did not offer an explanation for the racial bias inherent in the caging lists. All he did was offer a ridiculous and implausible denial in which he cast himself as the martyr.
EPISODE 2: George W. Bush, Karl Rove, and the U.S. Attorney Scandal
In Timmy’s denial, he mentioned that the caging allegations did not come to light until he “became embroiled in the U.S. Attorney thing.” That “thing,” as he puts it, was the sudden firing of U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Bud Cummins, and his replacement with Timmy Griffin as “interim” U.S. Attorney. (Similar firings and replacements in other states occurred around the same time, which is what the whole thing noteworthy.) These new appointments came after the USA PATRIOT Act was re-authorized with changes to the appointment process — the 120-day limit on “interim” U.S. Attorneys was removed and was replaced with a provision that would have let Griffin remain in the post for the remainder of President Bush’s tenure without ever being confirmed by the Senate — and this timing was no coincidence. Even Timmy knew that he was appointed in this way so as to avoid confirmation hearings, according to Bud Cummins.
Alberto Gonzales and others at the Justice Department have been desperately claiming for months that they’d never intended to circumvent the Senate in the confirmation of U.S. attorneys.
But apparently Timothy Griffin, the former aide to Karl Rove who was appointed as the U.S. Attorney for Little Rock, didn’t know it was so taboo.
In written response to questions from Congress made public today, Griffin’s predecessor Bud Cummins says that Griffin had been telling a number of people in Arkansas that he would remain as the U.S. attorney there for the remainder of Bush’s term whether he was confirmed by the Senate or not. An obscure provision in the Patriot Act reauthorization bill, of course, had made just such a thing possible.
Cummins writes of a conversation he had with Michael Elston, the chief of staff to Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty, in late January, the day after Alberto Gonzales had testified to the Senate. Gonzales had said, among other things, that the Justice Department would seek a presidential nomination for the U.S. attorneys in every district. Cummins had called Elston to contest this idea, because “it appeared to [him] that there was no intention to put Tim Griffin through a nomination.” Elston disagreed…
Elston rejected that notion and assured me that every replacement would have to be confirmed by the Senate. I told him if that was the case, then he had better gag Tim Griffin because Griffin was telling many people, including me, that officials in Washington had assured him he could stay in as USA pursuant to an interim appointment whether he was ever nominated or not. Elston denied knowing anything about anyone’s intention to circumvent Senate confirmation in Griffin’s case. He said that might have been the White House’s plan, but they “never read DOJ into that plan” and DOJ would never go along with it. This indicated to me that my removal had been dictated entirely by the White House. He said Griffin would be confirmed or have to resign. I remember that part of the conversation well because I then said to Elston that it looked to me that if Tim Griffin couldn’t get confirmed and had to then resign, then I would have resigned for nothing, and to that, after a brief pause Elston replied, “yes, that’s right.”
Remember that emails show that Kyle Sampson didn’t want Bud Cummins testifying to Congress because he worried that Cummins would testify that Griffin had been blabbing about the Patriot Act provision.
Griffin took over the post from Cummins in December 2006, though the caging-related whispers continued. Senator Pryor said that he was concerned with how Griffin was appointed sans confirmation, as it was nothing more than a ploy to avoid having Griffin’s legal and political background thoroughly vetted. Other blurbs about the incident, especially as it related to the attorney firings, continued to bubble up from time to time thereafter. However, in May 2007, the wheels really began to come off for Timmy. First, Monica Goodling, who had worked alongside Griffin at the RNC before taking a position at the Attorney General’s office, testified before the House Judiciary Committee that Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty had not been 100% accurate in his testimony to that same committee. Goodling stated:
Despite my and others’ best efforts, [Deputy Attorney General, Paul McNulty]’s public testimony was incomplete or inaccurate in a number of respects. As explained in more detail in my written remarks, I believe that the Deputy was not fully candid about his knowledge of White House involvement in the replacement decision, failed to disclose that he had some knowledge of the White House’s interest in selecting Tim Griffin as Interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas, inaccurately described the Department’s internal assessment of the Parsky Commission, and failed to disclose that he had some knowledge of allegations that Tim Griffin had been involved in vote “caging” during his work on the President’s 2004 campaign.
[***]
I don’t … I believe that Mr. Griffin doesn’t believe that he, that he did anything wrong there and there, there actually is a very good reason for it, for a very good explanation.
So, in sum, Goodling said that Griffin had possibly been involved in vote caging, that she thought Griffin thought that his actions were legal, and that Dep. A.G. McNulty both knew and misrepresented to the House committee about Griffin’s actions. This led John Conyers, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee to request the aforementioned caging emails from the BBC as part of the Committee’s investigation.
Less than 24 hours after learning of Conyers’s request, Griffin announced that he was resigning as interim U.S. Attorney, noting that going through confirmation would “be like volunteering to stand in front of a firing squad in the middle of a three-ring circus”. Maybe it’s just me, but those sound like the words of someone who knows that some questionable stuff would come out during his confirmation. But I digress.
Anyway, despite ongoing looks into caging as well as who knew what, and when, vis-a-vis Karl Rove and any voter caging plans, little has ultimately been done about the firings. Thus far, Griffin’s quick resignation has managed to save him from the scrutiny he so clearly hoped to avoid. Yet, again, I don’t know how anyone can say that allegations against Griffin and his role in the U.S. Attorney scandal have been “debunked.” Because, as Donald Rumsfeld told us in the run-up to an unnecessary war, “the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”
Decision 2010: Tim Griffin and Allegations of Voter Caging [October 2010]
Who is Tim Griffin? [March 2007]
BBC Newsnight Report on GOP Voter Caging [October 2004]
Osama bin Laden is dead, completely caught off guard and shot and killed by some of the USA’s finest warriors some ten years after his cowardly murderous attacks were carried out against this country.
/pinches self to remember that this really did just happen
Forget any of that “we shouldn’t rejoice at our enemy’s demise” noise — the past day and a half since President Obama announced a select U.S. Navy SEAL team, acting on our Commander-in-Chief’s directive, had shot and killed the world’s most notorious terrorist has been a tremendously proud time for a country that suffered so much at the hands of Al-Qaeda terrorists.
As the President confidently marched down that East Room hallway Sunday night to personally confirm the news we had all been buzzing about for nearly an hour beforehand, I, like many of you, couldn’t help but take myself back to 2001 — not just the sadness and vulnerability felt from seeing all the human suffering and carnage on the day of the attacks, but how President Bush vowed that we’d eventually serve the ultimate justice on this bastard and launched the “War on Terror” against the Taliban in Afghanistan to do just that. More importantly, though, I found myself fondly remembering the way the country completely stood as one for the first time in my life — much like it must have felt like following Pearl Harbor and the Kennedy Assassination, I thought — and how partisanship, at least for a while, was put aside because we were all Americans first.
Indeed, while the president stood there speaking, and later as the networks showed the impromptu crowds of people outside the White House and at Ground Zero shouting “USA!” many of these same strong feelings were again alive and well in my mind and heart. I couldn’t help but think of those who had actually lost loved ones on 9/11 and how they must be feeling now that could finally have closure in their lives. In this moment, just as happened in the weeks following 9/11, there were neither political parties nor any need for their spinmeisters to tell us what we should take from the president’s remarks. Considering how complicated homeland security issues and our course in foreign policy has been over the past decade, it was truly telling just how uncomplicated this moment was for us. The good guys rode rappelled in on their white horses from their helicopters, and the bad guys got got. No real collateral damage, either.
Ballgame. We win.
Yes, we can. Yes, we did.
It was one of those moments in history that we take in collectively as a nation but never forget as individuals.
iting the public reaction to the news on Monday, Obama said it reminded everyone of the pride shared by Americans in “what this nation stands for and what we can achieve that runs far deeper than party, far deeper than politics.”
But, alas, we are in a very different environment today — even one far different than what we lived in some ten years ago. Back then, a shared national purpose and pride could still last for a few weeks and months…or at least until one administration could be verifiably seen as exploiting the unity to fulfill other foreign policy interests. Back then, we just thought our political discourse was contentious. Nowadays, the good feelings will probably only last until the very next news cycle, at best.
Roll that beautiful partisan-bickering footage!
Says birther-truther-nutter-than-squirrel-turds Alex Jones:
[T]here will be no independent verification that Osama was actually killed.The only evidence at this stage is an obviously doctored photo.
If true, there will be no DNA check to verify if the body was indeed that of Osama bin Laden. Once again, we will be forced to either accept the government’s version of events or be denounced as conspiracy theorists.
Just as Islamist extremists sought to use Ground Zero as a triumphal place to build their mosque, the United States should use the site to display Osama bin Laden’s naked body for all Americans to see. We have a right to view our nation’s tormentor face to face, to make sure he is dead, and to spit on him if we choose.
Then the U.S. should unceremoniously destroy the carcass, flush it into the Manhattan sewer, and start grinding up bin Laden’s legacy among his followers.
Here are some immediate thoughts of what the U.S. must do. 1. Display the body. The free world, particularly the United States, has a right to make sure Osama bin Laden is really dead. Every American has a right to walk right up to bin Laden’s corpse and view it. We are entitled to know for a fact that the witch is dead.
Never one to miss a chance to have her ignorance writ large, Rep. Michele Bachmann chimes in:
Tonight’s news does not bring back the lives of the thousands of innocent people who were killed that day by Osama bin Laden’s horrific plan, and it does not end the threat posed by terrorists, but it is my hope that this is the beginning of the end of Sharia-compliant terrorism. [Editor’s somewhat exasperated note: WTF?!
Attempting to give their version of moderate, reasoned argument, Tiernan Kincaid of ChristWire.org writes, sans adequate punctuation:
You dumb, retarded Reddit loving, crack toking and drug thought induced liberals, listen up. President Bush received hell for trying to capture Osama bin Laden. Like HELL you are going to give credit for this to a man who tried to make friends with Iran on his first dark day in our nation’s White House.
Credit for the Osama kill goes to President Bush. It was President Bush’s policy for our military that lead to this kill. So President Bush gets all credit for putting Osama down like the desert dog he is. Let us look at what a real woman of God Sarah Palin has to say on this subject.
<
To be fair, there was much celebration in Washington yesterday, and many prominent Republicans stepped up to praise the Democratic President’s actions and decision-making in directing our commandos to kill bin Laden. From House Speaker John Boehner, to outspoken critic Rep. Peter King of New York, some of the 2012 presidential contenders and, to a lesser degree, even radio kingpin Rush Limbaugh, comments from the Right were devoid of the typical Obama-bashing and were, instead, focused on the President’s decision to launch the successful mission that took out bin Laden. That evening, Obama even received a prolonged standing ovation from his dozens of White House dinner guests, who included Cabinet members and top Senators and U.S. Representatives from both parties.
And why not? While the commandos who executed Sunday’s operation deserve the most credit for taking down the world’s most wanted fugitive, we know the trigger-pull was authorized by President Obama. Just as importantly, that trigger-pull occurred in a moment of opportunity resulting in no small part from Obama’s vision as a candidate in 2008 — a call to re-focus the military’s attention out of Iraq and into Afghanistan and Pakistan, where bin Laden and Al Qaeda operated — and after taking over as Commander-in-Chief in 2009, when he directed the CIA to make capturing or killing bin Laden their number one priority from that point forward.
“[S]hortly after taking office,” Obama informed the American public Sunday night, “I directed Leon Panetta, the director of the CIA, to make the killing or capture of bin Laden the top priority of our war against al Qaeda. I met repeatedly with my national security team as we developed more information about the possibility that we had located bin Laden hiding within a compound deep inside Pakistan. And finally, last week, I determined that we had enough intelligence to take action….”
We have now learned that Obama has been working closely with his national security team and the CIA since receiving intelligence last August of bin Laden’s possible hiding place, all while leading NATO bombing raids to stop Ghadaffi’s violence in Libya, natural disasters left and right, budget proposal squabbles, and the unique b.s. only reserved for this President when it comes to questions about his birth in Hawaii, his background, and his patriotism.
More importantly than the ability to multi-task under fire were the wise decisions made along the way. While being briefed on several potential strategies to take out bin Laden over the past few months, including a plan to drop large bombs on the bin Laden compound in March, the president ultimately insisted on using a Special-Ops team in order to ensure that the mission would be successful.
In March, President Obama authorized the development of a plan for the U.S. to bomb Osama bin Laden’s Abbottabad compound with two B2 stealth bombers dropping a few dozen 2,000-pound JDAMs (Joint Direct Attack Munitions) on the compound.
But when the president heard the compound would be reduced to rubble he chose not to pursue that option.
That would mean there would be no evidence bin Laden was dead to present to the world – no DNA evidence, as the administration anticipates it will have.
Plus all 22 people in the compound including women and children, plus likely many neighbors would be killed.
The president wanted proof. And he wanted to minimize collateral damage.
So instead the president authorized this incredibly daring and difficult operation, scheduled for a time of “low loom” – little moon luminosity – so the US helicopters could enter into Pakistan low to the ground and undetected.
Simply put, President Obama just made one of the gutsiest calls by an American president in recent history. He made the call to send a military force into a foreign nation without their approval or notification in the middle of the night in order to carry out an assassination (of sorts), just as he promised he would do given the opportunity when he campaigned for President.
Yet, here we are. The same ol’ Obama-bashing goes on, at least for some who just cannot bring themselves to give the President credit for anything positive. You want to point out that the previous administration laid the groundwork for taking out bin Laden? I have zero problem with that. We have now learned that without information from detainees at the Guantanamo Bay prison and elsewhere, U.S. officials would never have tracked the courier who led them to bin Laden’s compound. (Though, to be entirely accurate, we’ve also learned that it was well after any waterboarding had ceased that this information came to light.)
To be sure, much of the intelligence and logistical groundwork was laid during the Bush era. In fact, while the current administration assumed power strongly opposed to aspects of the Bush administration’s anti-terrorism policy, vowing to prohibit torture during interrogation and to close the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, we know that the President has since changed course about closing Guantanamo under public and political pressure.
That being said — and I’m really attempting to remain in the upbeat mood I first started writing this post with, as I want to avoid falling into the same typical partisan grandstanding I’m lambasting here — it has been well-documented that U.S. forces had an opportunity to capture or kill bin Laden at Tora Bora in the immediate aftermath of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. Conspiracy theories aside, it was a huge missed opportunity and a failure of leadership. Even more dire for Republican revisionists than that, however, were the words of the previous Commander-in-Chief himself, who, while trying to turn revenge-seeking Americans off of bin Laden and the war against the Taliban and on to the new potential “crisis” in Iraq, laid out just how important he thought killing or capturing bin Laden was.
(Feel free to compare this policy stand to that of President Obama’s directive to the CIA upon taking office.)
Lastly, in terms of pure politics, it’s clear that the Obama administration’s successful hunting of the world’s top terrorist shifted the 2012 electoral landscape. Sure, politics has the attention span of a two-year-old, and it’s entirely possible that the first shiny object that flashes will relegate the killing of Osama bin Laden to the backburners. That said, if nothing else, this event gives the President and Democrats a new-found credibility on a potent issue as violence rages across the Middle East. Maybe, just maybe, the President has a good idea about what he’s doing.
At this point, it’s hard to argue with the results.
The Huck 2.0 Media Blitz raged on today, this time with our former Gov and would-be 2012 presidential contender appearing on The Steve Malzberg Show. It seems that Mr. Huckabee is a bit confused about the upbringing of the man the next GOP nominee will face in two years, twice claiming during Monday’s interview that President Obama was raised in Kenya, where his biological father hailed from. Huckabee said the president, “having grown up in Kenya,” would have a “more hostile” perspective regarding British foreign policy based on its history with the African nation.
I would love to know more. What I know is troubling enough. And one thing that I do know is his having grown up in Kenya, his view of the Brits, for example, [is] very different than the average American.
He later repeated the claim, saying:
…and if you think about it, his perspective as growing up in Kenya with a Kenyan father and grandfather, their view of the Mau Mau Revolution in Kenya is very different than ours because he probably grew up hearing that the British were a bunch of imperialists who persecuted his grandfather.
As you know, our president, is a United States citizen, having been raised by his mother (a Kansas native), and later his grandparents. The President grew up in Hawaii, where he was born, and also spent four years as a young boy in Indonesia after his mother married an Indonesian man she met while in college.
While clearly misinformed, geographically challenged, or just outright lying to further perpetuate the “Obama isn’t one of us” rhetoric, it should be noted that Huckabee did not go as far as to say the president did not grow up in the United States or that his birth certificate was forged, as the nutjob “birthers” would have you believe. When directly asked if he would be willing to ask the president about his birth certification in a debate, Huckabee said:
The only reason I’m not as confident that there’s something about the birth certificate, Steve, is because I know the Clintons [inaudible] and believe me, they have lots of investigators out on him, and I’m convinced if there was anything that they could have found on that, they would have found it, and I promise they would have used it.
Audio for the full interview is available here, with this particular part of the conversation starting around minute 13:00.
Typically, it’s the inane and oft-incoherent ramblings that former half-term Alaska Gov. and GOP superstar Sarah Palin tweets that makes news. This time it’s what she’s re-tweeted that has people re-thinking where she stands on a social issue still dear to many on the Far Right.
On Monday, Palin relayed a comment posted by gay conservative pundit Tammy Bruce, who was expressing her frustrations with the smoldering bits of GOP opposition to the military’s now-overturned “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. Bruce’s original tweet (see below) was subsequently relayed by Palin.
“But this hypocrisy is just truly too much. Enuf already–the more someone complains about the homos the more we should look under their bed”
Bruce was immediately thrilled with Palin’s re-tweet, saying it constitutes a clear sign to voters that the former Republican veep choice is a friend of the gay and lesbian community.
“I think @SarahPalinUSA RT my tweet is her first comment on DADT, treatment of gays & attempts to marginalize us–thank you Governor,” Bruce replied.
After the story started picking up national interest this morning, Bruce took to her website to further explain her take on what Palin meant to say with the re-tweet, heralding Palin as a gay friendly Libertarian:
When it comes to Sarah Palin’s position on DADT, I have never asked her about it and she has never spoken to me about it–but I assess her as a Conservative with Libertarian influence. Both her husband and son are Independents, with Mr. Palin serving as his wife’s primary adviser. I will remind people of things already in the public realm about the governor–she refused to veto partner benefits legislation as governor of Alaska and is a firm believer in fairness and “live and let live.” She is not a Culture Warrior, however. She is, which should be apparent by her Facebook postings and opinion pieces, a Policy Wonk. She is also, which is clearly evident, a charismatic leader who remains grounded by her character, faith and family.
Some have suggested this ‘completely changes the 2012 election.’ Not really–perhaps for some who believed the LSM and Gay Gestapo lie that Sarah Palin was somehow a bigot or homophobe, I hope this does cause some to take a second look at Palin, away from the left’s predictable “She’s a Hater!!” meme.
Knowing the governor somewhat and having made my assessment, I support her specifically because she is a decent person grounded in a patriotism and appreciation for the American tradition that allows all of us to pursue the American dream however we each see fit. “Live and let live” is also only possible when government is small and off our backs. It is only possible when conservative ideals prevail in this nation and through our government. No one should be surprised by the fact that a conservative Alaskan woman has a libertarian streak and believes all Americans have a right to live the lives that best suit them.
Team Palin has yet to say anything further on the issue since this story started generating interest, so it remains unclear exactly what she meant to convey. Regardless, the re-tweet seems to be a highly unusual comment from Palin, who most assume toes the Far Right’s line of formal bigotrylimiting gay rights, especially when DADT and gay rights in general will likely once again be a hot-button issue in the upcoming GOP presidential primary battle royale. It could also be a sign the former Alaska governor’s stance on social issues (at least beyond her staunch opposition to abortion) is less understood by both Republicans and Democrats than was previously thought, and could be a way to seperate herself from the pack of other GOP contenders.
I’ll admit, I’m extremely intrigued by this bit of strategery and will keep you posted on how it plays out.
Inspired by the works and writings of two of my political heroes, John and Robert Kennedy, today I offer up the first installment in a new series of posts we’ll aptly refer to as “Profiles in Courage.”
Most of you know that the genesis of Bubba on Twitter come from his recent appearance on The Colbert Report to tout Clinton Global Initiative efforts.
Despite his best effort to deliver a soldier’s impassioned plea, Cotton’s selective memory and overly-prepared remarks sure have the feel of being just another dose of typical GOP template-politics, 
Make no mistake, Arkansas Republicans campaigned on, almost exclusively, an anti-Obama platform, mostly premised on the promise to prevent implementation of his most notable legislative initiative — the Affordable Care Act — here in Arkansas.
The Woodmansee Project© 
What Say You?