The Cool Blue Blog

Wrong, wrong, wrong

Senator Chris Dodd voted to go to war in Iraq. Then, when it became fashionable among Democrats to oppose every single thing Bush did, he was against the war. Then he was against the "Surge".

Now, when asked about getting preferential treatment from a home mortgage lender, he said he thought this occurred not because he was the Chairman of the Banking Committee in the Senate, but because he was a good customer.

I think he might be wrong about that. I mean what does it take to become a "good customer"? Does it take paying your mortgage on time? I do that and I'm not a VIP. Does it take buying lots of homes financed through Countrywide? How many homes has Senator Dodd bought using Countrywide as his lender?

Or maybe you become a VIP through legislation

A broad bipartisan coalition supporting a massive foreclosure rescue beat back GOP efforts to gut it yesterday, defying a White House veto threat and quashing a bid to make it a victim of revelations about two senators' VIP mortgages.

 

Administration officials said they oppose the inclusion of $4 billion in the measure to help states buy and rehabilitate foreclosed properties, and a plan to have government-sponsored mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pay for the rescue.

They voiced those and other objections as two GOP senators said they would try to block the package until a committee can investigate how much Countrywide Financial Corp. and other lenders stand to gain from it.

House and Senate Republicans are voicing reservations about the bill in light of allegations that Senate Banking Committee chairman Christopher J. Dodd, a Connecticut Democrat, one of its architects, and Senate Budget Committee chairman Kent Conrad, a North Dakota Democrat, got cut-rate home loans through a VIP program at Countrywide, a leading subprime lender at the center of the mortgage meltdown.

Now it seems to me that people in such important positions can not get by with merely avoiding impropriety, but need to avoid even the appearance of impropriety.

Because, you know, Senator Dodd may be wrong about why it was Countrywide gave him such favorable interest rates.

It's not like Dodd has never been wrong in the past.

But "special friends" of Countrywide's co-founder Angelo Mozilo extends further than just the Chairmen of the Senate Banking and Budget Committees

"James Johnson, one of three people tapped by Mr. Obama recently to oversee the search for his running mate, took at least five real estate loans totaling more than $7 million from Countrywide Financial Corp. through an informal program for friends of the company's CEO, Angelo Mozilo, the Wall Street Journal reported Saturday."

More: "The Journal said at least two of the mortgages, among a series of loans made available to people Countrywide officials called "friends of Angelo," were at rates below market averages, though it is difficult to predict a market rate without access to nonpublic information about a borrower's credit history and other factors that can reduce interest charges on a loan."

James Johnson is

part of the permanent government of this country, a long-time Democratic fixer (Mondale and Kerry campaigns), former CEO of Fannie Mae, and as such a big buyer of Countrywide loans. He's a guy who sits on a bunch of corporate boards, etc.

In 2006, Democrats promised to end Republican Rule and what they called the Culture of Corruption.

That failed to come to pass.

But the current situation would seem to qualify as a full blown scandal, but the media doesn't seem to think so.

I think they might be wrong.

Don't give them any ideas

The Washington Post today reported on some of the mechanisms used by Iraqi legislators to avoid corruption investigations

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki reinstated the law, under which no governmental corruption case can be instituted against an Iraqi minister or former minister without the minister's permission. The ministers can, in turn, selectively immunize their subordinates, thus protecting them from being prosecuted for corruption.

As a result, more than 48 investigations or prosecutions initiated between September 2006 and February 2007 by Iraq's Commission on Public Integrity (CPI) were stopped, according to the March 11, 2007, memo prepared for the embassy's Anti-corruption Working Group.

Of course there are a number of members of Congress who will point to this as evidence that Iraq is simply not worthy of our support. But back in May, they were singing a different tune

Leaders of both parties on Capitol Hill accused the FBI on Tuesday of overstepping constitutional boundaries designed to protect Congress when it raided a Democratic lawmaker's office over the weekend.

The Justice Department's bribery investigation of Louisiana Rep. William Jefferson has turned up $90,000 in his freezer and won guilty pleas from two associates, but Republicans and Democrats alike said investigators went too far when they ignored long-standing precedent and executed a search warrant on his office on Capitol Hill....

The House's No. 2 Democrat, Maryland Rep. Steny Hoyer, said it was another example of the Bush administration's disregard for limits on its power.

"No member is above the law, but the institution has a right to protect itself against the executive department going into our offices," Hoyer said.

If we're not careful, the US Congress will be learning from Iraq instead of the other way around.

Or maybe, it is the other way around

Congressional credibility

On Thursday, Democrats will take control of Congress for the first time in 12 years. I have stated before, that at least with regards to ethics and corruption, I am cautiously optimistic about the prospects of reform.

The House, at least, has an ambitious agenda

On the first day back, Democrats plan to change House rules on what members can accept from lobbyists. On the second day, they'll vote on other rules changes requiring that new spending or tax cuts be paid for and that pet projects tucked into larger bills be publicly disclosed.

So far, they have skirted disaster by rejecting John Murtha as Majority Leader and Alcee Hastings as Intelligence Committee chairman. But it seems they are still considering John Conyers as the chairman of the Judiciary Committee even though he was sanctioned by the Ethics Committee just a few days ago

The ethics inquiry began in December, 2003 when former staff members complained to the ethics panel, formerly named the House Committee on Standards and Official Conduct, that Conyers had required his official staffers to work on campaigns, babysit his children, and run personal errands....

So Conyers claims that his staff misunderstood his communications to them

Conyers told committee investigators there was a "lack of clarity" in his communications with staff about their official duties and responsibilities.

Right. Like his staff just decided they had signed up to babysit and help his wife gain a law degree when they took the job. So to square things with the Ethics Committee

Conyers agreed to prohibit his congressional staff from performing any paid or voluntary campaign work during the coming term of Congress, unless the staff member takes a paid position on his campaign while on leave without pay from the office and obtains prior written approval from the ethics committee.

He also agreed to have an annual meeting with staff to go over the rules regarding work responsibilities; maintain detailed records of staffers' work hours; and require all staffers to attend a briefing with ethics committee lawyers to explain rules regarding congressional and campaign work.

But shouldn't it be Conyers who has to submit to annual ethics briefings to remind him of the rules? Does anyone seriously believe that this indicates a lack of ethics on the part of the employees? Clearly it is not his staff that needs monitoring so much as the Congressman.

Yet, this is the man Democrats are choosing to chair the Judiciary Committee.

How will this instill credibility in the new, more ethical Congress?

Scrappleface's Scott Ott takes a stab at the "reasoning" Democrats may be employing

Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi today defended Rep. John Conyers’, D-MI, as “the ideal pick for judiciary committee chairman” after the House Ethics Committee sanctioned Rep. Conyers for using taxpayer-funded staffers for political campaign work, babysitting and personal errands.

“I can think of no one better to head up oversight of the federal courts and law enforcement,” said Rep. Pelosi, “than a man like John Conyers who understands the subtleties of the law, the gray areas of ethics, and the potential for corruption even in the hearts and minds of those with legal training, who have sworn to uphold that law.”

“The country doesn’t need a naive neophyte,” she said, “but rather someone with demonstrated experience in pushing the ethical envelope, blurring the line, and in fact stepping over that line. Only a mind forged in the cauldron of ethical transgression will have the insight to spot opportunities for corruption in our judiciary system.”

Mrs. Pelosi, who has already said that impeaching President George Bush is “off the table”, nevertheless noted that if circumstances should change her mind, Rep. Conyers could “boldly lead the charge in drafting articles of impeachment thanks to his deep, personal understanding of what makes a politician unfit to serve.”

Wouldn't surprise me.

Democrats! Make me a believer that you are serious about reforming Congress.

Dump Conyers.

Crook contituency

This weekend, voters in Louisiana's 2nd Congressional District reelected a crook to the House.

Voters looked past a federal bribery investigation of Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-La.) and reelected the eight-term congressman in a runoff election Saturday...

"I guess the people are happy with the status quo," [opponent Rep. Karen Carter] said [in her concession speech]...

Jefferson, Louisiana's first black congressman since Reconstruction, has been the target of a wide-ranging investigation into allegations that he took bribes -- including $90,000 allegedly found in his freezer during an FBI raid -- from a company seeking lucrative contracts in the Nigerian telecommunications market. He has not been charged with any crime and denies any wrongdoing.

Now this is a guy who not only had $90,000 in cash hidden in his freezer, but also commissioned National Guard troops to help him move it during the height of the hurricane Katrina evacuation.

I guess it's not surprise, then, that during his capaign, Jefferson was endorsed by the man who left scores of busses sitting in a municiple parking lot instead of using them to evacuate people.

Carter raised nearly five times as much money as Jefferson, but she was largely outflanked in endorsements as Jefferson picked up the backing of Mayor C. Ray Nagin and other prominent black politicians.

The endorsements spoke to Jefferson's solid footing in New Orleans politics.

Well, the Islamists have their constituency and representative in Congress, why shouldn't crooks?

Maybe because they're over-represented already...

Good on them

It seems the Democrats are going to be proactive on dealing with the corrupting influence of lobbyists and pork when they take over the Congress in January according to the Washington Post

Despite divisions among Democrats over how far to go in revising ethics rules, House leaders plan a major rollout of an ethics reform bill early next year to demonstrate concern about an issue that helped defeat the Republicans in the midterm elections.

But they will do it with a twist: Instead of forwarding one big bill, Democrats will put together an ethics package on the House floor piece by piece, allowing incoming freshmen to take charge of high-profile issues and lengthening the time spent on the debate. The approach will ensure that each proposal -- including banning gifts, meals and travel from lobbyists as well as imposing new controls on the budget deficit -- is debated on its own and receives its own vote. That should garner far more media attention for the bill's components before a final vote on the entire package.

...Democratic leadership aides said the proposal to break up the package and reassemble it is virtually a done deal.

Under that plan, freshmen would offer, over as many as five days in January, separate amendments to ban gifts, meals and travel financed by lobbyists, said Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), incoming chairman of the House Democratic Caucus. New rules mandating the disclosure of all contacts with lobbyists would be another vote, as would a rule requiring that the sponsors of funding for home-state pet projects be identified. The House would also vote on whether to reinstate budget rules, known as pay-as-you-go, or "paygo," requiring that any new spending or tax cuts be offset by equal spending cuts or tax increases.

I think this is terrific. Democrats may, and likely will, deconstruct themselves on other issues, but if they do nothing else right in the next two years but this, I will consider the 110<sup>th</sup) Congress a success (unless of course, other decisions by Democrats wind up replacing the Constitution with the Quran). And such reforms will affect the way Congress does business for decades to come, which will be just peachy.

And consider; if Democrats get this done, and they don't screw up on the War, they may retain power for a while to come.

At which point, minority Republicans will just have to sit back and reflect on what they could have done when they had the majority...

and didn't.

Resurgence

While the Democrats flirt with ignoring the electoral exit polls and propose ethics-challenged members to their leadership, the Republicans have decided to reinstall Mr "I'm getting damn tired of hearing about porkbusters" Trent Lott as GOP minority Whip

I guess he's good at counting votes, it's just the amount of wasted taxpayer money spent in the name of currying favor with his constituents he has a problem counting.

Republicans? Democrats? What else have you got to show me?

Setting an example

The new crop of legislators, mostly Democrats, are having their orientation classes up on Capitol Hill

The Capitol, meanwhile, buzzed with the energy of House members-to-be and senators-in-waiting attending freshman orientation.

More than 50 incoming House freshmen spent the day in meetings focused not on big legislative items or the Iraq war but rather on office logistics and ethics — a key issue after a season of scandal that had, at least in part, led to the election of the new members.

Yes, according to the National Exit Poll, 41% of voters thought that corruption was extremely important in their selection of a candidate while another 33% thought it was very important. (I guess these people didn't vote for John Murtha or Bob Menendez not that that mattered).

And it seems that no less than 9 House Republicans lost their seat due to a personal scandal and Democrats have promised to clean up politics in Washington.

You would think then that the leadership would want to set an example for what politics without corruption would look like. Yet instead, the presumed House-Speaker Nancy Pelosi has endorsed the ethically-challenged, and AbScam allumni John Murtha.

So here is representative Murtha, an unindicted co-conspirator in a plan to get Arab Muslims false identities so they can enter the US undetected. That was a bad thing in 1978 and it has even more ominous implications today.

Not only is he ethically challenged; but he was willing to take money from Arabs who wanted

• To purchase asylum in the U.S.
• To involve them in an investment scheme
• To get help in getting his money out of his country

Given what we know today, I'm not sure it is setting a good example for the young'uns to put Rep Murtha in any position of power, let alone Majority Leader.

The Democrats have, in addition to sweeping out corruption, have promised to be bi-partisan. Which bings us to the issue of the House Intelligence Committee and who should be Chairman. By all accounts, the most senior Democrat on the committee, Rep Jane Harman is doing a great job and is a very informed and thoughtful person. However, the presumptive Speaker, feels she is too bi-partisan.

Pelosi, who represents San Francisco and often is a proponent of liberal causes, thinks Harman would be too partisan.

For the wrrong side, that is. So who does Pelosi want? A former Federal Judge she helped get impeaced for corruption; Alcee Hastings.

According to The Washington Post, in 1981 when Hastings discovered the FBI wanted to interview him, he left his hotel without checking out; headed not to the closest airport with the earliest flight, but to a nearby alternative; and engaged in a complex series of calls to his girlfriend, getting her to leave her home to call him from a payphone, then calling her back there from a third number.

  "This is not the behavior of an innocent man," wrote Post columnist Ruth Marcus, who covered the impeachment.

These are early, but disturbing signs.

People want Democrats to clean House and get things done. We don't want new and better corruption, just like we don't want cut and run.

It's beginning to look like Democrats will be having a short run at leadership if this continues. But we can deal with the corruption thing in two years. But they had better get it right in Iraq.

'Cause the problem is, that at least with regards to the War against Islamists, two years may be too long to wait.

Sexual immunity

Given the historical record, the latest page sex scandal involving House members and pages is a gift to Democrats because it is the one type of scandal which hurts Republicans and from which they are immune.

Back in 1983, when Democrat Gerry Studds and Republican Dan Crane were found to have abused their trust with underage pages, the Democrat continued a successful career in the House while the Republican resigned. Rep Studds was found to have had sexual relations with a 17 year-old male page and Crane with a 17 year-old female page. Newt Gingrich demanded both be expelled from Congress, instead both were merely censured by the Democrat-controlled House.

Crane resigned, while Studds, unapologetically held a newsconference with his 17-year-old lover and told everyone to screw off, this was a private affair.

I don't know if most Democrats don't care about the whole "sex with minors" thing or were just showing themselves how tolerant they are but Studd's home district continued to re-elect him until he retired in 1996. Crane's career ended when his district found his actions unacceptable for a Congressman.

The Kos version of Wikipedia states "The anti-gay crew had worked hard to demonize him" but there is no similar description about what happened to Dan Crane.

Similarly in 1990, when it was discovered that Representative Barney Frank's live-in lover Steve Gobie was found to be running a prostitution business from Frank's apartment, the Democrat controlled House merely reprimanded him and his district continued to re-elect him.

When it was discovered that Republican House Speaker Robert Livingstone had had an affair, he resigned.

When it was discovered that President Clinton had an affair with an intern, he was re-elected despite the public's knowing that. Granted he got less than a majority and the Right side of the ticket was split, but that simply means that it was the minority left that re-elected him.

Through all of this it is clear that switching the subject from homeland security and war, where Democrats are open to criticism, to sex, where Democrats are immune from prosecution, is a gift.

Even if the Republicans find similar sex scandals to pin on Democrats, so what? Sex scandals are tolerated by Democratic voters where they are not so tolerated by the Republican base.

The big stink by Democrats now is simply trying to exploit the damage. Foley is gone. A seat that was safe is now in contention. Democrats now would like to make as many seat vulnerable as possible so this will continue to be brought up as often as possible.

It's not like they care about the pages well-being. It is pretty clear that the IMs were around in some operative's hands for a very long time but were released not to protect pages but to gain political advantage.

The less talk about security and the economy and the more talk about Republican sex, the better it is for Democrats.

And it's clear that all their talk about privacy is just politics as well. Because while terrorist communications should remain private, Republican communications should be monitored with abandon.

And that's just the way it is.

The bi-partisan hold on transparency

S. 2590 is titled Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006.
According to the summary, it's purpose is to direct

the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to ensure the existence and operation of a single updated searchable database website accessible by the public at no cost, that includes for each entity receiving federal funding: (1) the amount of federal funds received in each of the last 10 fiscal years; (2) an itemized breakdown of each transaction; (3) the entity's location and primary location of performance; and (4) a unique identifier for the entity and its parent entity.

Introduced by Senator Corbin, it garnered 29 cosponsors including Senators Obama, McCain, Santorum, Clinton, Frist, and Boxer.

But there are those who don't want thir pork to be so transparent to the public. Someone placed an anonymous "hold" on the bill, preventing it from making any further legislative progress. Cox news reported

In an ironic twist, legislation that would open up the murky world of government contracting to public scrutiny has been derailed by a secret parliamentary maneuver. An unidentified senator placed a "secret hold" on legislation introduced by Sens. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., and Barack Obama, D-Ill., that would create a searchable database of government contracts, grants, insurance, loans and financial assistance, worth $2.5 trillion last year. The database would bring transparency to federal spending and be as simple to use as conducting a Google search.

The measure had been unanimously passed in a voice vote last month by the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. It was on the fast track for floor action before Congress recessed Aug. 4 when someone put a hold on the measure.

Now the bill is in political limbo. Under Senate rules, unless the senator who placed the hold decides to lift it, the bill will not be brought up for a vote.

When this was uncovered, the cry went out among the blogosphere to discover who had put the hold. The folks at porkbusters had people call their Senators and have them declare on way or another, whether or not they placed the hold, and if so why.

It took a while, but the concerted effort smoked out the culprit

The identity of the blogosphere's "secret senator" has been revealed.

CNN has confirmed that Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, has placed a hold on a bill that would require the government to publish online a database of federal spending.

"He does have a hold on the bill," Stevens' spokesperson Aaron Saunders told CNN. "At the time he placed the hold he notified Sen. [Tom] Coburn and his staff and identified several questions we had with the bill. Two weeks ago Sen. Coburn named Stevens as having a hold on the bill, so we don't consider it a secret."

So it is revealed that Mr "Bridge to Nowhere" is the guy.

But, was he the only one?

According to Porkbuster Mark Tapscott

On Aug. 29, Coburn staff is told by Frist leadership staff that at least one Democrat senator has placed an anonymous hold on the bill.

But who?

More transparency in government spending is essential to subvert both corruption in government and responsible management of government funds.

The pressure is on and the porkbusters are on the case.

UPDATE: Senator Byrd admits he was the Senate Democrat who placed a hold on the porkbuster legislation

West Virginia Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd admits that he placed a “secret hold” on legislation that would make uncovering the Byzantine world of federal contracting as easy as typing a Google search.

Tom Gavin, spokesperson for Byrd, confirmed to Cox Newspapers that the senator placed the hold on legislation introduced by Sens. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., and Barack Obama, D-Ill., before voting on the measure.

Byrd joins Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, for holding up the bill right before Congress left town on August 4....

Byrd has released his hold, now that there “has been time to better understand the legislation,” Gavin said.

The bipartisan “secret hold” surprised everyone on Capitol Hill because the measure has the support from heavy hitters of both political parties, including Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., and Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

No real surprise given that both Byrd and Stevens were the top two porkers in Congress.

Ooops

Corruption in the City of Chicago? No way. Way.

Excerpts of a list of more than 5,000 names that was never supposed to see the light of day were projected on a large overhead screen in federal court Monday as part of the criminal trial of Mayor Daley's former patronage chief, Robert Sorich.

The 60-page list gives the most detailed snapshot yet of politicians, powerbrokers and mayoral friends vying for city jobs or promotions for their families, friends and support...

Patricia Molloy, a former secretary of Sorich, testified Monday that the computerized list she kept ran from 1989 to 1997 and that Sorich later told her to shred paper copies of similar lists.

Prosecutors call the scheme illegal. Defense attorneys for Sorich and three other former city employees on trial contend their clients were following orders as part of a long city tradition and never intended to commit crimes.

Ah. Tradition.