9/11 REPORT'S BIGGEST OBSTACLE: A GOP CONGRESS

DCCC Press:

9/11 REPORT'S BIGGEST OBSTACLE: A GOP CONGRESS

Once Again, the Republican Congress Wants to "DeLay" Needed Changes

Washington DC - - Fourteen days after the release of the 9/11 Commission's Report, congressional Republican Leaders are gearing up to be a huge impediment to passing needed reforms that could help prevent future terrorist attacks in the United States. House Armed Services Chairman Duncan Hunter, Intelligence Chairman Porter Goss and Republican Whip Roy Blunt have suggested that either the reforms will be delayed or halted entirely.

House Armed Services Chairman Duncan Hunter (R-CA) on the establishment of an Intelligence Czar: "'It makes sense that you shouldn't have that intelligence stopped or impeded by some guy back in Washington, D.C., who says, 'I want to use that platform for something else,' Hunter said. 'We are not going to be steamrollered in the Armed Services Committee.'" [Los Angeles Times, 8/5/04]

House Intelligence Chairman Porter Goss (R-FL): "Rep. Porter Goss, R-Fla., retiring chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and a candidate to head the CIA, said it's tough to move quickly on such an issue. He said he could implement an intelligence overhaul in two months, ''but you'd have to make me king to do it,' Goss said." [Aberdeen American News, 07/30/04]

Republican Whip Roy Blunt: "said reforms were unlikely this year. Republican Majority Whip Roy Blunt said that because the report was delayed for two months, any reforms it proposes are unlikely to be made until next year. 'If this would have come out in the spring, I would have hoped we could have had, by Labor Day or so, some actual changes to take to the House and Senate floor and put on the president's desk,' he said." [CNN.com, 7/22/2004]

The bipartisan 9/11 Commission held several hearings, reviewed reams of classified and unclassified information and heard expert testimony from various officials, including the current and former Presidents of the United States. The panel came up with a strategic, well-informed reform plan that seeks to correct some of our government's failures prior to 9/11. These reforms could be implemented almost immediately by Congress, as there already exists legislation that reflects the majority of the commission's recommendations.

Congress must move forward quickly to act on the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission before adjourning in October. That is why House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi has called House Democrats back to Washington on August 10th to discuss the Commission's work directly with Commission members.

"We need legislation that seeks to correct our failures leading up to 9/11," said DCCC Chair Robert T. Matsui. "The Senate is already working in a bipartisan way to implement these reforms, but Republicans in the House have decided, once again, to take the low road and play politics with these important recommendations."

It is not surprising that the Republican Congress is standing in the way of the commission's proposals as they were against the creation of the commission in the first place. On July 25, 2002 former Representative and Commission member Tim Roemer (D-IN) brought up an amendment that would create a bipartisan panel that was opposed by all but 25 Republicans. [RC Vote #347, 7/25/02]

At the time, Republican Leader Tom DeLay told CNN:

"We're at war. And when you're at war, you have to worry about making public a lot of things that should be kept private, as you fight the war. An independent commission, by its very nature, is very public. Frankly, it's only been asked for by people that are running for president. We should use the Congress. The Congress has plenty of the capabilities to investigate what went on, why it went on, what are the things that we need to do better. And they can do it under the cloak of secrecy when we are dealing with classified information." [CNN, 5/22/2002]

And then when the 9/11 Commission needed an extension to conduct their investigations properly:

"The stumbling block is Mr. Hastert, an Illinois Republican. He has said through his spokesman that he will prevent a House vote on any bill to extend the life of the commission, arguing that any extension would risk turning the commission's findings into a political issue in the midst of this summer's political campaigning." [New York Times, 2/26/04]

Ethics Investigation for Harris Requested

Christine Jennings, one of Harris' possible opponents, writes a letter:

August 5, 2004

Hon. Joel Hefley, Chairman
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct
Washington, DC 20015

Hon. Alan B. Mollohan, Ranking Member
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct
Washington, DC 20015

Dear Congressman Hefley and Congressman Mollohan:

I am writing to request that the Standards of Official Conduct Committee initiate an investigation of Congresswoman Katherine Harris’ (FL-13) with regard to possible violations of the Classified Information Oath.

On August 3, the Sarasota Herald-Tribune reported that Rep. Harris shared classified information obtained in her capacity as a Member of Congress before a crowd at a Republican fundraiser in Venice, Florida. Rep. Harris stated that the U.S. has “literally defeated 100 (potential) terrorist attacks on this country” over the past three years. Rep. Harris cited classified briefings she received as a Member of Congress as the source for her claim.

Rep. Harris also told the crowd that she recently learned of a plot in which a “Middle Eastern” man plotted to destroy Carmel, Indiana’s power grid with explosives. The mayor and police chief of Carmel say they know nothing of Rep. Harris’ account. When asked by reporters about it, Rep. Harris responded by saying “I probably said too much.”

As you are aware, if Rep. Harris revealed classified information it is a serious breach of our national security and the rules of the House. Before any Member may obtain access to classified information they must take the following oath:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will not disclose any classified information received in the course of my service with the House of Representatives, except as authorized by the House of Representatives or in accordance with its Rules.

Conspiracies, Hidden Agendas, and Credibility

Hey folks - trying to keep my head above water here, but have enjoyed reading all of the comments on the threads Kos and I created yesterday over the MO-03 primary. I apologize that I can’t post as quickly as I would like, but there are many facets to the DCCC that compete with Online for time. Thanks for the dialogue -- keep it coming!

I want to hit a couple quick points and answer some direct questions:

First, why didn’t Bonham just say up front that $2500 of the $3500 that was given to Carnahan came from Matsui’s leadership PAC? Sorry if I created an impression that I was trying to hide something, I wasn’t. But I’m a big boy and will take the criticism - so, my bad. For the record, I wish now I had said it up front, because it seems to have caused some people to doubt my intentions. Here’s the deal - I am trying to be as open and as responsive as I can, as quickly as I can. The point of my post was to be clear that, despite what had been alleged, the DCCC had not “played favorites” in the MO-03 primary election by making a contribution to Russ Carnahan. The DCCC did not - that is fact. But, even moreso, the purpose of my post was to explain the FEC laws on conduit contributions, which, until I posted, was not clear or understood and we were getting the crap kicked out of us. I should have noted in my first post that one of the contributions came from SAC PAC. But then again, the whole reason that disclosure would even be relevant is that it is now being suggested that because it was Matsui’s PAC and not some other PAC, the DCCC was playing in the primary. We didn’t, and the suggestion that SAC PAC was acting as a “proxy” for a DCCC contribution is faulty as well (see below). I’m quite certain that if I had the foresight to say that in the first post, somebody would have then gone into the FEC and found some other member of the House Leadership who had contributed in some primary and said, “AH-HAH! Gotcha! Why didn’t Bonham tell us about THIS??! Those damn D-Trip people, they never tell us the whole story!” I dunno, maybe somebody else made a contribution to Carnahan as well - maybe Pelosi’s PAC, maybe Hoyer’s PAC, Menendez, Charlie Rangel… who knows. But I’m pretty sure somebody did because the Carnahan family is well connected and have a lot of friends here in DC. Point being: members of the leadership became part of leadership by being supportive of their current colleagues, former colleagues, and future colleagues. No conspiracy, no subtle signals being sent under the table. People give political contributions to people they know and they give contributions to people who ask.

That leads me to the second issue here: many people are suggesting that Matsui’s PAC is serving as a “proxy” for the DCCC when he makes a contribution and thereby sends a signal that the institutional support is behind a particular candidate. Nice thought, seems credible, but not true. Here’s why. First, it would be illegal for the DCCC to direct where Matsui’s PAC funds go - those decisions are made independently of us, and have to be. Second, let’s say he was trying to send a signal… then why didn’t he write the darn check in January when others had a chance to see it rather than wait until June when most people had already committed to one candidate or another? Third, for some perspective, let’s just examine how the NRCC plays in primaries - if they want to “send a signal” that one candidate is the party candidate, they fly The Chosen One out to DC, they parade him (its almost always a him) in front of the GOP conference, they schedule a whole day’s worth of meetings with every business PAC in town, and they send out a fancy gold-embossed invitation all over town with everybody from the Speaker, to Tom DeLay, to Tom Reynolds, to the state’s delegation listed as “Honorary Hosts” for a cocktail reception honoring the Chosen One that night. THEN, they invite Roll Call or The Hill to the event and talk about how much money the candidate raised - and let me tell you, it is always a heckuva lot more than $2500! So, the point? If Matsui wants to send a signal, he need not be so subtle as to write a $2500 check a month before a primary election is held -- he has a bigger megaphone than that.

Folks, if there is one thing I have learned here at the DCCC it is that this institution - or any National Party Institution - is a BIG, FAT, Lumbering target for criticism. When anything goes wrong, its our fault, when anything goes right, somebody else was responsible.

But here’s the upside: these discussions are helping. I think you are starting to get a better understanding of what we do and don’t do. We are getting better at communicating and interacting with the grassroots. And, hopefully, together we reach some common goals: more Democrats in office and a different future for our country and our children than what the Republicans have in mind.

Alright....Ready...Set.....GO!

Tell me everything that is wrong about what I just said! (I am kidding about that part -- this IS supposed to be somewhat fun, right?)

But seriously, we are still trying to make this "Open House Week," and we'll be trying to address a lot of the misunderstandings and questions we've seen out there - so we're going to try to move on from this particular issue a bit. But we're open to whatever questions you might have about any aspect of our operations, just lay them out in the comments section. We may be more responsive to those who can ask in a way not laced with insults, but do what you've gotta do!

The 9/11 Commission and Duncan Hunter's Pursestrings

Duncan Hunter, the GOP Chairman of the House Armed Services was the single biggest player in squashing the Abu Ghraib investigations in the House. Now he aims to do the same with the 9/11 Commission's recommendations:

"It makes sense that you shouldn't have that intelligence stopped or impeded by some guy back in Washington, D.C., who says, 'I want to use that platform for something else,' " Hunter said. "We are not going to be steamrollered in the Armed Services Committee."

Hunter's comments were the first opposition from a chairman of a congressional oversight committee to the sweeping reform recommendations made by the Sept. 11 commission in its final report last month. The Senate and House armed services committees would have jurisdiction over major portions of reform legislation.

Commission members had predicted there would be resistance from the Defense Department and the committees that oversee it, because the military stands to lose control over billions of dollars in intelligence spending, as well as control over satellites and other espionage equipment and resources.

Duncan Hunter's top contributor?

1 Titan Corp $18,000

Yeah, you know Titan:

Taguba was clearly worried not only that some translators had abused prisoners but also that sensitive intelligence information could fall into the wrong hands. Under sharp questioning last February 21, Lt. Col. Steven Jordan, a senior intelligence officer at the prison, acknowledged that there had been problems with some translators supplied by the Titan Corp., a San Diego company.

The rest of the list does little to allay suspicion either. Oh, my precious pursestrings...

Update: His opponent: Brian Keliher, who links to this Daily Show transcript along with his press release on the matter.

Update II: Rep. Mike Rogers calls Commission a "traveling circus"?

On Farrell and Shays

A decent rundown, even if it ignores some of Shays' dirtier moves. For example:

“Iraq is a terrorist nation. … [Al Qaeda] and Iraq, they’re like peas in a pod. They’re like-minded.”

Pay her a visit.

Poor Harris

Local TV:

Congresswoman Harris faxed us a statement sticking to her guns, but adding, "I regret that I had no knowledge of the sensitive nature of this situation and any undue concern this may have caused."

Bottom line?

Congresswoman Harris insists a terror plot was uncovered in Indiana.

Everyone else we've talked to says there's no proof at all of what Harris claims.

We'll keep you posted.

And on the AP wires:

She told the audience that while in the Midwest recently, the mayor of Carmel told her how a man of Middle Eastern heritage had been arrested and hundreds of pounds of explosives were found in his home.

[...]

Nancy Heck, a spokeswoman for Carmel Mayor Jim Brainard, said, "The mayor never talked to Katherine Harris. They never had that conversation."

Shoot First, Ask Questions Later?

Kos again alleges the DCCC is up to some sinister plot by pointing to some funny looking business at opensecrets.org, but as much as we like Kos (and we *really* do), he got this all wrong and I think he should be big enough retract what he incorrectly alleged.

Opensecrets.org gives the appearance that we gave $3,500 to Russ Carnahan’s campaign in the very competitive primary campaign to fill Dick Gephardt’s seat in Missouri. Unfortunately, despite the ability to just ask us what the deal was, he instead assumed we were up to mischief and painted us as bad guys once again. Not true.

The DCCC has a policy of not contributing in contested primary elections unless it is an incumbent - and those are mostly in-kind contributions in the form of candidate services such space to make phone calls at the headquarters office or assistance stuffing mailings).

Here’s what the $3500 to Carnahan was: the DCCC provides a courtesy to any candidate or contributor who asks to simply pass along checks from donors for the sake of convenience and security. If ANY donor hands a check to the DCCC to then hand over to a candidate, Federal Election law requires that we disclose that as a “Conduit Contribution”. Opensecrets.org does not break down contributions into “conduit” contributions - they just say "DCCC gave $3500 to Russ Carnahan" without saying it was a conduit contribution. And, for the record, the $3,500 to Carnahan were two checks from two PACs that cut a whole bunch of checks to candidates, and then gave them to us to send out to the candidates. The DCCC provides this courtesy to any contributor or candidate that asks. So, Kos, the money was not from the DCCC.

Here's the Federal Election Commission (FEC) report of itemized contributions to Russ Carnahan for that time period. See? Nothing from DCCC!

No mischief. No sinister plot. Nobody here is out to get any Democrat.

Hope that helps. Keep up the dialogue - we’re making progress here!

P.S. - thanks for the note from Archpundit in comments and thanks to Kevin Thurman for helping mediate at MarchSeventh.

Perceptions Clash at Bloggers Bash: Bonham and Kos

- DCCC Exec Director to take unprecedented steps to create dialogue with netroots -

In the heat of the last night of the Convention, an interesting discussion was sparked when Kos posted a story on the DCCC and the netroots, which hinged on this statement:

“They don't want netroots support of candidates.

“Well, that's not exactly true. They would love for blogs to funnel money into well-funded, battleground candidates. But as for the marginal districts, they think it's counterproductive.”

In attempting to explain our logic, Kos wrote:

“…raising an ‘easy’ $40K for Ginny Schrader could act as disincentive to do the hard fundraising work that will get her to the $500K to $1 million she'll need to win the district.

“Hence, it's best to let candidates flail, and the ones that can somehow manage to raise the early money -- those are the ones that we should be supporting.”

And then he gave his verdict:

“…Which I think is absurd.”

Within two hours or so, our executive director, Jim Bonham, posted a lengthy response,

“I’ll pick up where you suggest we let candidates ‘flail’ around rather than help them raise money to become credible. That is uninformed, and we discussed that. Nobody is left to flail -- unless they refuse help or we are out of resources to spend. The DCCC has a staff of seven professional fundraisers who spend every day, every week traveling the country teaching candidates how to generate lists, do call time, make effective pitches, and raise funds through other mediums like direct mail and events… The old saying, ‘Teach a man to fish…’”

The conversation that ensued was not only genuine enough to surprise many of those observing, but vitally important at a time when so much is at stake. Fortunately, the encounter sparked as much light as heat. As Ezra noted at Pandagon:

“I don't believe Kos and the DCCC are as far apart as they think.”

Kevin Thurman wrote perhaps the most extensive contribution to the dialogue:

“I firmly believe it is a struggle that the netroots and the internet may be able to help solve.”

Both posts are well worth reading in full, certainly including the comments at Pandagon, which include Digby and one of our oldest blogger friends praktike. Interestingly, though, one of the best insights came from Kos in his comments. Kossack Mogolori noted an apparent (and actual) logical flaw in Kos’ argument:

“Why would any responsible DCCC official (who doesn't support public financing) want Democratic aspirants to ‘flail’ for lack of money in a money-based political system?”

Unfortunately, few of those commenting, including Mogolori, were driven by that logic to consider whether Kos’ thesis was wrong altogether. After all, every dollar to every candidate does something to help us win back the House, so why would we ever actually discourage it? Would we really rather see candidates “flail” just for the sake of some kind of survival of the fittest competition?

Sadly, the opinions of some on Kos’ comments thread evolved to a more sinister interpretation of the DCCC’s position:

“…unfortunately Markos gave them [the DCCC] the benefit of the doubt and assumed they were serious... rather than having ulterior motives.” (CDReid)

To his credit, defending both himself and us, Kos pinpointed what is probably the biggest difference between us two:

“The difference, in large part, is that the DCCC has to win races. We are supporting candidates for a variety of reasons. To widen the field. Annoy GOP leadership. Help turnout at the presidential level. Reward courageous stances. And pin prodigious GOoPer fundraisers at home so they can't fundraise for other competitive Republican candidates.”

Kos’ goals are noble and good – but they are not first and foremost about recapturing control of Congress. That said, there is obviously an important place for those goals, and they are by no means frowned upon any more than the similar goals of groups such as Emily’s List or any other constituency that supports candidates for specific reasons. Such things are not a threat to us; along with the local grassroots generally, they are the perfect storm that allows us to sweep behind, parachuting in to add a quick hit in strategic locations.

Kos is absolutely right that raising money for candidates that are likely to lose is a way of pinning down GOP money where they don’t expect it, although at times he seems to make the incorrect assumption that this truth has escaped us. We will fund our battleground districts first, but thinning out the GOP is always part of the strategic plan, and it is also why we attempt to help every candidate in every way we can - and in every way they will accept our assistance.

Altogether, though, this discussion was invaluable, and convinced us that we can and should do more to make ourselves transparent and clear up some misconceptions, if only to solidify some bonds of trust with the unprecedented and inspiring pool of activists paying attention to Congress this year.

Tomorrow, Jim Bonham will be begin posting a series of articles that will provide you with a much fuller understanding of the work we do in and out of the public eye. This is as important as it is unprecedented.

We sincerely hope that you will be a part of this dialogue. See you tomorrow!

Update: Charles Kuffner weighs in.

GOP Values

Courtesy of Julia, who has been churning out great stuff lately like it's goin' out of style, we find the one GOP candidate who might make Tom DeLay blush:

NASHVILLE, Tenn. -- Republican congressional candidate James L. Hart acknowledges that he is an "intellectual outlaw."

He is an unapologetic supporter of eugenics, the phony science that resulted in thousands of sterilizations in an attempt to purify the white race. He believes the country will look "like one big Detroit" if it doesn't eliminate welfare and immigration. He believes that if blacks were integrated centuries ago, the automobile never would have been invented.

He shows up at voters' homes wearing a bulletproof vest and carrying a gun, and tells them that "white children deserve the same rights as everyone else."

Despite his radical views, Hart may end up winning the Republican nomination because he is the only GOP candidate on the ballot in Thursday's primary. His presence in the campaign has embarrassed Republican leaders, who were blind-sided by Hart after they didn't bother fielding a candidate. Democratic Rep. John Tanner has held the seat for 15 years and is considered safe in November.

Republicans now desperately hope that a write-in candidate will stop Hart.

[...]

"Every person who opens the door -- as long as they're white -- I'll say, 'I'm James Hart. I'm running for Congress. My name will be on the ballot in the Aug. 5 Republican primary. I think white children deserve the same rights as everyone else.'"

What, no spot at the Convention?

Update: Not a good day for Tennessee.

Update II: Oh my. He has a website (with a poll).

Bush v Commission: Round 1

AP:

Two Sept. 11 commission members questioned President Bush's proposal for a national intelligence director, saying Tuesday that whoever holds the job should have the power to control spending and staff at all 15 U.S. spy agencies.

Two others, meanwhile, declined to criticize the president and said they wanted to avoid being seen as overly political.

Former Republican Sen. Slade Gorton of Washington and Richard Ben-Veniste, the former Watergate prosecutor, said the post would be weakened by anything less than full budget authority and the ability to hire and fire.

"Providing a figurehead is not what we intended," Ben-Veniste said.

Oy. Here we go...

Update: From CNN,

"We always drag our feet," said a Bush campaign adviser, referring to the Administration's initial opposition to creating the commission and to giving it access to presidential intelligence briefings and testimony by Condoleezza Rice. In each case the Administration ultimately relented. "Why not agree now to what we're going to be for later?"

Good point. Did I say Round 1? Round 35? 302?