Syndicated

Yesterday, Jim Johnson stepped down from Barack Obama’s VP selection committee. It turned out that he had received potentially improper loans from Countrywide Financial, which Obama had attacked. But it turns out that Johnson isn’t the only sketchy person on the VP selection committee.

I would like to introduce you to Eric Holder, Bill Clinton’s former Deputy Attorney General. Holder was involved in the pardon of Marc Rich, the Democratic donor who had fled the country. In March of 2003, the NYT wrote about the case. They make it clear that Holder is awash in cronyism, skirts ethics laws, had horrible judgement, and is simply incompetent. He also advocated for clemency for terrorists. And this is Obama’s primary advisor on his first decision as the Democratic nominee. Read on for details.

From the NYT:

A forthcoming Congressional report on the last-minute pardons by President Bill Clinton says Deputy Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. was a ”willing participant in the plan to keep the Justice Department from knowing about and opposing” a pardon for Marc Rich, the financier.

Holder met a representative of Rich’s at an event, where Holder recommended his friend Jack Quinn for the job:

Mr. Holder recommended hiring ”a lawyer who knows the process, he comes to me, and we work it out.” […] Pressed for a name, the report says, Mr. Holder pointed to Mr. Quinn nearby, saying: ”There’s Jack Quinn. He’s a perfect example.”

Why Quinn? Well, the favor factory was in play:

The panel criticized Mr. Holder’s conduct as unconscionable and cited several problems. It cited his admission last year that he had hoped Mr. Quinn would support his becoming attorney general in a Gore administration.

There was one little catch. It was illegal for Quinn to lobby, meaning that as Deputy Attorney General, he recommended someone for a job that they could not legally do to curry favor with that person:

The report faults Mr. Quinn for lobbying the White House at all in light of prevailing ethics rules that barred top aides from lobbying former colleagues for five years after leaving government. Mr. Quinn argued that the rules allowed flexibility for judicial proceedings. But Judge Denny Chin of United States District Court in Manhattan ruled in December that Mr. Quinn’s role was more lobbying than lawyering.

Dick Morris reminds us that Rich was quite well connceted:

Rich’s ex-wife, Denise Rich, was a generous benefactor of the Clintons, providing campaign funds to both Bill and Hillary, contributing at least $400,000 to the Clinton Library, and buying thousands of dollars worth of furniture for the Clintons. So it was not hard for Rich to get Clinton’s attention.

So Quinn and Rich start shopping the idea around. First they don’t go through Holder, instead goind directly to the White House. In a meeting on the subject, Clinton rejects for the good reason that Rich sold weapons to our enemies:

Several days before the pardon was granted, Clinton met with Nolan and two other top aides who all urged him not to grant the pardon.

Nolan was particularly concerned about allegations that Rich was involved in arms trading after he left the U.S.

So Quinn heads back to Holder and tries again. What does Holder do? He falls asleep at the wheel when presented with a pardon request for a known felon who fled the country and who was believed to be an international arms dealer. How did that happen? Obama’s Vetter didn’t Vet because:

When Holder received the Rich materials, he did no independent research to determine their veracity and appears to have barely reviewed them. […]

But he never took the time to check anything and simply told the White House that he was “neutral to positive” on the pardons.

He must really have wanted Quinn’s help with his next job.

So this is the change Obama brings. Warmed-over shady operators from the Clinton administration. These guys do favors for each other for jobs. They give favored access to donors. They skirt around ethics rules. And they don’t do their jobs.

Oh yeah. And he argued that members of a terrorist organization should get clemency.

This isn’t a hypothetical. This is the change that Obama is bringing to Washington right now. This is the guy that Obama is putting in charge of his first major decision, after his previous choice was found to be ethically flawed.

Jon wrote an excellent post on the need for more war-room like functionality on the right. Rob Bluey, a friend, the editor of Heritage.org, one of the few trained journalists on the right, and an all-around great guy, disagreed with some of what Jon had to say:

We started The Foundry at Heritage to serve as a rapid response policy blog in January. Our focus was Congress and our objective was to write about policy. Isn’t that the same stated mission of Wonk Room, which debuted two months later?

Rob makes a good point. But he also, perhaps inadvertantly, demonstrates the problem with his argument also. Heritage exists to drive Congress. They have succeeded on an extraordinary number of levels. Heritage provided an informational advantage and a logistical efficiency. The 1-pager and the analytical apparatus gave conservatives a significant information advantage on the Hill. When the GOP took the House in 1994 and cut by a third the staff on the Hill, the Democrats lost all of their analytic ability on the Hill, amplifying the GOP advantage. This efficiency has also been part of the mythical message discipline that has somewhat collapsed.

I think that Jon’s point is that the new institutions of the left have these same advantages in new spheres. There are gaps that we are not currently addressing. Read on after the jump, if you want to know what these advantages are.

<!–break–>

Compare this for a second to Podesta’s description of CAP from a 2003(!) NYT Magazine piece by Matt Bai:

Podesta laid out his plan for what he likes to call a ”think tank on steroids.” Emulating those conservative institutions, he said, a message-oriented war room will send out a daily briefing to refute the positions and arguments of the right. An aggressive media department will book liberal thinkers on cable TV. There will be an ”edgy” Web site and a policy shop to formulate strong positions on foreign and domestic issues.

These guys are communicating. Heritage was created to operate on Congress. CAP was created to operate on the media and public opinion. Who books righty analysts on talk-shows? People book their own people. But who is thinking strategically about this?

The Foundry, which I love and which everyone should read, is not a "message-oriented war room". It is a 501(c)(3) that has to play very carefully within the legal limits of a 501(c)(3). All of the "edgy" emails come out of a 501(c)(4), CAP Action Fund, as does ThinkProgress.

I have heard that CAP devotes 40% of its budget to media activities. I would like to confirm that number.

But it doesn’t stop there. The Foundry discusses issues, like "Family and Religion", "Budget and Spending", "Education", "Energy", etc. These are about categorizing information. ThinkProgress discusses themes. They come in two categories: "what we are fighting for" and "what we are fighting against". They are fighting for "Healthy Communities"  or "A Secure America". They are fighting against a "corrupt establishment", a "braindead media", a "radical right wing agenda". These are about categorizing arguments.

This messaging advantage is comparable to Heritage’s information advantage. Not only do they have research, but they are spending money to move that research. Furthermore, the stuff is all on message.

There is also a comparable logistical efficiency. If you are a lefty interest group, you can shop info to Think Progress and (I suspect) they will move it, if it is good. This increases the likelihood of people seeing it. (Think Progress is a lot more interesting then the alphabet soup of lefty groups) And when they post it, it will be bottled up to be on message with the rest of the stuff they are pushing. This is a sort of force-multiplier effect.

The upshot is that, for the most part, the institutions on the right have been targetted towards the debate inside Washington. (Perhaps the most interesting exception is MRC and Newsbusters which are well tied into the talk radio ecosystem) At least CAP has been targetted towards the desimination of their message.

We need to go back to operating on public opinion. I don’t think that Jon’s original piece was so much an attack on conservative institutions, as it was arguing that our institutions are not necessarily focused on the right projects. Or, perhaps more correctly, that there are clear gaps that need to be addressed.

This is so awesome. The Chairman of Iowa Students for Hillary endorses John McCain in a big ole letter to his organization. Needless to say, they don’t like Barack Obama. Here’s how much they don’t like him:

We will put up someone who has been to Iraq once for a photo-op against someone who has a son serving in Iraq and has been there countless times, with Senator Clinton in some instances.

They don’t think that Obama is qualified:

Senator Obama is unqualified for the job of Commander in Chief. He has said this himself at a press conference after the 2004 election after winning his Illinois seat. He has said he would invade Pakistan if necessary to attack al-Qaeda elements, which is a bad idea seeing how Pakistan has nuclear weapons and is unstable right now. His remarks on Pakistan sparked rioting there last year.

They point out that if you can’t stomach John McCain, there is always Cynthia McKinney:

We think the endorsement will make more impact if it goes to John McCain, but we see Cynthia McKinney as a viable alternative and someone more qualified than Senator Obama to be President having served for longer in Congress.

Read the whole thing. It’s a riot.

Yesterday, the intellectually dishonest left sliced and diced John McCain’s statements. Marc Ambinder got it right. And Joe Scarborough just ripped these people on Morning Joe:
What is wrong with these people that they insist on being so dishonest?

Yesterday, I talked to Glenn McCall, the Republican National Committeeman of the South Carolina Republican Party. Previously, I had written about his election. McCall was the 2nd Vice Chairman of the SC GOP and the Chairman fo the York GOP. York is the county across from Charlotte, NC.

I asked him why he ran for NCM He said that there was "not enough focus on energizing the party overall." In general, he said that we need to do better with African Americans and young people. His general principle is that "what we believe is right and works for all segments of our society."

Focusing on the the African American vote, he said that we "left the American American vote to the Democrats. Ten to fifteen percent should be achievable." He focused on "professionals who believe in lower taxes and personal responsibility." As these people "move into the middle and upper class" they appreciate the Republican message more.

McCall warned however that "outreach without relationship doesn’t work." He insists that we go t groups like the NAACP and genuinely engage in debates.

McCall did say that John McCain is "doing what we should be doing", and that "Ken Mehlman did it" also.

About Barack Obama, McCall said that "it is great that we made history, but it is time to end it."

On the issue of young people, McCall had some interesting observations. He saw two significant groups of young activists. The supporters of Mike Huckabee, who endorsed him, had significant young supporters. McCall suspects that over 50& of Huckabee supporters who attended events were young. At the same time "over 2/3rds of people were young families" at Ron Paul events in York County.

McCall agrees that we have to reach out to Paul supporters. He said that they had been reaching out to Paul supporters who were also loyal Republicans, and slowing reaching out to other Paul supporters. The key message is that they are welcome in the GOP. Many "have not felt welcome into the Republican Party." I suspect that much of the reaction against them has not helped this situation. It is certainly my sense that we need to do a better job here.

In general, McCall is quite optimistic about the future of the GOP. He sees that we can make real progress with both young people and African Americans.

McCall’s observation about revitalizing the grassroots resonates with my own experience. Unfortunately, it leaves two different answers. On the one hand, there are the Huckabee supporters who correspond to a new generation of envangelicals. On the other hand, there are the Ron Paul supportrers who are typically very pro-limited government, but also for a limited foreign policy.

Resolving this tension at the grassroots level is likely to be one of the issues that we have to resolve over the next several years. Hopefully we can find a way to include everyone in ths solution.

This morning on the Senate floor, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell drops the hammer on Barack Obama:

“Yesterday we heard the Democrat nominee for President suggest that rising gas prices aren’t the problem. Let me say that again: the Democrat nominee for President suggest that rising gas prices aren’t the problem. The problem, he suggested, is that they’ve gone up too fast. He said he would prefer a ‘gradual adjustment.’

I had somwhow missed that Obama supported higher gas prices. But it’s true. Watch it:

Incidentally, I find it odd that Obama would say that “the President hasn’t had an energy policy” when he voted for President Bush’s energy bill.

McConnell’s full statement after the jump.

American Families Need Relief, Not More ‘Gradual Adjustment’ in the Price at the Pump

‘Yesterday we heard the Democrat nominee for President suggest that rising gas prices aren’t the problem. The problem, he suggested, is that they’ve gone up too fast.  He said he would prefer a ‘gradual adjustment.’ 

Washington, D.C.— U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell delivered the following remarks on the Senate floor Wednesday regarding the Democrat majority’s failure to address the need for increased production and support for a ‘gradual adjustment’ upward in the price at the pump:

 “Yesterday we heard the Democrat nominee for President suggest that rising gas prices aren’t the problem.  Let me say that again: the Democrat nominee for President suggest that rising gas prices aren’t the problem.  The problem, he suggested, is that they’ve gone up too fast.  He said he would prefer a ‘gradual adjustment.’ 

“The position outlined by the Democratic nominee shouldn’t be a surprise to most Americans, given that Washington Democrats have repeatedly refused to allow increased energy production here at home — even though, as we all know, increased supply leads to lower prices.

“It’s as if they are doing everything in their power to keep gas prices from going down.

“Whether it’s shutting down domestic exploration in large areas both onshore and offshore, instituting a moratorium on oil shale development, increasing the gas tax, or refusing to pursue coal to liquids, Democrats long ago implemented a ‘gradual adjustment’ on gas prices that’s reflected today in the $4.05 Americans are paying for a gallon of gas.

“I know that Kentucky families don’t need a ‘gradual adjustment’ to their pocketbooks. 

“They need a solution for their pain at the pump.

“We’ve seen a lot of recent converts over the last few months suddenly advocating for lower gas prices.  But their longtime advocacy of limiting domestic supply and increasing the gas tax has brought us to where we are today.   

“And recycling the same failed ideas from the 1970s and increasing our reliance on Middle Eastern oil only makes the problem worse. Let me be clear, at a time of record high gas prices, we don’t need to tax them higher or make American consumers more reliant on Middle Eastern oil.

“The American people want us to address high gas prices.  And we should do so in the only way that will have a lasting impact—by increasing domestic supply in an environmentally responsible way and increasing American jobs in the process. 

“When our friends on the other side agree to the same, we’ll believe that they’re serious about lowering gas prices. Until then, we’ll be left to conclude they all support the ‘gradual adjustment’ advocated yesterday by their nominee.”

Candidate	%	Q1 FEC
Gorman	25	$368,929
Fleming	14	$253,125
Thompson	10	Did not file?
Bowen	2	Did not file?

This is almost certainly a safe GOP seat. There is, basically, a 3-way primary. Chris Gorman‘s campaign releases polling that puts them ahead. He is running against John Fleming and Jeff Thompson. Jim McCrery, the retiring incumbent, is endorsed Thompson. The numbers are from the memo, and the fundraising numbers from the Green Papers.

I don’t know much about this race, but I can’t imagine that McCrery’s endorsement is super-valuable. I imagine that Jindal’s might be a game changer. Anyone have some more info? I believe that we have some Louisiana readers.

CBS releases a new poll:

McCain leads Obama by 8 points among registered independent voters, considered a key voting block in November. The Arizona senator leads Obama 46 percent to 38 percent, with 11 percent of respondents undecided.

But.

Obama leads McCain 48 percent to 42 percent among registered voters, with 6 percent of respondents undecided.

Do we really  believe that Democratic turnout is going to be that much higher? I am skeptical. Thoughts?

Lots of attention has focused on Jim Johnson, who Barack Obama picked to guide the VP selection process. We have already talked about a number of the problems. It comes down to this: just as Tony Rezko helped Obama with a sweetheart deal to buy his house, Countywide Financial, which Obama rails against, helped Johnson buy his.

But there is more on Johnson. In 2001, he joined Persueus LLC as a Vice Chairman. Perseus has a number of funds. Among them:

PERSEUS-SOROS BIOPHARMACEUTICAL FUND, L.P., which Perseus co-manages, was formed in 2000 with capital commitments totaling $449 million to make investments in life sciences companies

So Perseus is a business partner with George Soros. And Johnson is the Vice Chairman …

Incidentally, as Say Anything Blog notes, Perseus also seems to own the publisher of the Scott McClellan book:

Public Affairs Books (editor at large Peter Osnos: About The Century Foundation.)

Public Affairs Books is owned by Perseus Book Group.

Perseus Book Group is in turn owned by Perseus Funds Group, (holding company Perseus LLC). Perseus has enjoyed growth of assets over the last 13 years of 10,000% (100 x 1995 value).

Are we looking at the finance empire of the Vast Left Wing Conspiracy?

The Pritzkers are one of the leading business families of Chicago. They run Hyatt and have a reputation for particularly cut-throat business practices. (sometimes outside of honorable) So it isn’t entirely surprising to find Penny Pritzker at the center of Barack Obama’s hypocrisy over his relationship to subprime lenders. Earlier today, I wrote about Jim Johnson, who got a sweetheart deal from Countrywide which Obama had attacked. And then there was UBS, which his campaign shopped a story about, and the reporter didn’t point out that the CEO of UBS has raised a quarter million for Obama.

And then there is Penny, Obama’s Finance Chair. She was the former Chairwoman of a bank that failed, according to regulators via a 2001 Chicago Tribune article, due to “poor oversight by its board.” The depositors felt so screwed, that they filed a RICO suit against Penny and other directors. The Pritzker family eventually settled with regulators for $460m.

So Obama is attacking CEOs of subprime lenders. And his Finance Chairman was the Chairman of a subprime lender that went under because of poor oversight. One of his major donors is the CEO of another one. And the person making his VP recommendation got a sweetheart deal from another.