« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
The Daily Muck
After reports came out that the research findings of Bush's previous surgeon general might have been stifled by one William Steiger, Rep. Waxman (D-CA) asked to see exactly what changes had been made to official documents. Yesterday, Waxman wrote that the report written by former SG Richard Carmona "thoughtfully covers a wide range of global health topics. Mr. Steiger’s draft ignores or glosses over serious global health problems and emphasizes the achievements and policies of the Bush Administration." (The Gavel)
Democrats are at the final push to pass an ethics and reform bill that was unveiled Monday before the start of the August break. The bill focuses mostly on lobbying, but the idea of an independent Office of Public Integrity that could bring charges against violators has unfortunately been scrapped. (Roll Call)
June 3, 2008. According to the New Yorker, this might be the most important date in next year's election. That's because a California ballot-initiative will be voted on that, if passed, will award electoral votes by district, rather than as a winner-take-all block for the entire state. The likely result would be a swing of as many as twenty California electoral votes to the party who usually loses the bid for the state; we'll give you two guesses who that is. (New Yorker)
"You could open an ice rink between the buildings." That's how one Mueller aide describes the current relationship between the FBI and main Justice after Mueller gave testimony that undermined that of the Attorney General. Via ThinkProgress. (NY Daily News)
Gov. Eliot Spitzer (D-NY) turned over records to an ethics panel yesterday because of last week's report that found several of his staffers provided misleading reports to local papers in efforts to embarrass a prominent Republican. Spitzer and his office are currently facing up to four separate investigations drawing from the imbroglio. (Associated Press)
Zalmay Khalilzad, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, yesterday called Saudia Arabia to task for not doing what it can to help stabilize Iraq. He went so far as to suggest that regional U.S. allies were pursuing destabilizing policies, alluding to Saudia Arabia in the same sentence in which he excoriated Syria and Iran. (AFP)
Paul McNulty, former deputy attorney general who left the department just in time to be thrown under the bus by Alberto Gonzales, has found a job. (Roll Call)
Comments (10)
gussmith wrote on July 31, 2007 9:47 AM:What a world when testimony given in front of a Congressional committee causes a snit in the work place. As Bush would say:'get over it..' Of curse I'm talking about Muellar's truths; Gonzales is refuted by too many honest people.
drational wrote on July 31, 2007 10:06 AM:Mueller contradicted the overall impression of the Gonzales testimony, but did so without using the Administration "TSP" terminology.
Mueller did not use the TSP terminology because he knows the "TSP" did not exist in 2004- it was a made up term to dissemble the December 2005 NSA Program leak. Mueller was being honest and refusing to become entangled in the administration ambiguation, knowing full well that "TSP" is an artificial construct in which the administration has invested heavily, but which is not the full truth. He knows the extent of the NSA-surveillance programs and why they were controversial, and is not getting dragged into the cover-up.
Anna S. wrote on July 31, 2007 10:26 AM:And has the notes to prove it.
That California ballot initiative is worrisome. One of the state's major papers needs to pick up the
Troll Patrol wrote on July 31, 2007 11:06 AM:New Yorker article, and run a series on it.
***Public Service Announcement***
A Project to Save the Constitution through e DoJ, Gonzo-Lies fiasco seems to have been the source understanding how "audits" of procedures (mandated by law) can protect us from malicious officials, administrations, department, branches of government is currently underway.
This is a way to catch the bad guys in the act - even now! - and prevent it in the future!
You can help. Read or contribute by clicking "Troll Patrol" and that will take you to the Cafe blog set up to understand, post, and analyze the thoughts of an anonymous tpm contributor.
This is a group project. Click on "Troll Patrol."
Seek wisdom. Strive to do good.
Anonymous wrote on July 31, 2007 11:07 AM:***Public Service Announcement***
Should have read:
A Project to Save the Constitution through understanding how "audits" of procedures (mandated by law) can protect us from malicious officials, administrations, department, branches of government is currently underway.
Sorry.
Troll Patrol wrote on July 31, 2007 11:13 AM:Now I look like a troll. So sorry.
(maybe I should ban myself!)
Please click, read, and maybe help!
Eric Ferguson wrote on July 31, 2007 11:57 AM:I hate the electoral college and I used to think assigning votes by congressional district was still bad, but an improvement since it would get closer to how the voters of a state really felt. Reading Hertzberg's column, I was made suspicious when it turned out California's initiative was a Republican idea, and being pushed by an astroturf group no less. Motivations aside, Hertzberg used an opposing argument that made sense to me when I realized how badly gerrymandered most House districts are. Instead of the election being decided by voters in a few swing states, not it would be swing districts, and even fewer voters would get to decide the presidency. Why is there so little support for electing the president in a direct popular vote? The founders didn't think the public could understand national politics, but they were wrong from the start, or at least that's not true now. Voters know the president more than they know their city council.
Xenos wrote on July 31, 2007 12:23 PM:If California becomes more representational, then the RNC will have to start fighting over it, and spending money there. That might offset the effects of California being the only state to do this. I doubt we would ever see small, rural states following California's example.
Shadow Wolf wrote on July 31, 2007 12:59 PM:The RNC wouldn't start fighting over the state - they would get those 20 votes even if they completely *ignored* the state - and 20 electoral votes be a *huge* boost to the Republicans. This could easily throw the election to the Republican candidate. (For example, if this law had been in place in 2004, Bush wouldn't have needed Ohio to win).
Threegoal wrote on July 31, 2007 1:39 PM:If this change is made only in California, it is bad for the Democrats for reasons previously stated.
If it is made nationwide, it evens out, as there would be districts worth fighting for even in "red" states, and a campaign strategy like Kerry's in 2004, which was to spend almost all resources on some swing states in hopes of a narrow victory, would not work. I'm a Democrat and thought the way the 2004 campaign was run was wrong for this country, with a few states over-saturated with "effort", and so many others taken for granted.
I think the only advantage it has over a direct popular vote is that it leads to a majority decision, rather than a less than 50% plurality decision that often comes from the popular vote. Recall that all the presidential elections from 1992 to 2000 resulted in a winner getting less than half the vote, and probably the only reason W got a bit over 50% in 2004 was that Kerry really wasn't trying in the states he had written off, and he wasn't trying that hard in the solid blue states.
I agree with Dean that our Presidential nominee needs to show all of America the respect of asking for their vote, and any system changes that leads toward that situation is worth examining.