Comments (45)

Peter Principle wrote on October 2, 2007 1:11 PM:

I really don't get this. Blackwater is the closest thing we have to a GOP paramilitary movement (i.e. the modern American equivalent of the SA, Falange, Republican Guard, etc.) and a REPUBLICAN is the only one making an issue out of it?

I guess Waxman's going soft in his old age.

moondancer wrote on October 2, 2007 1:13 PM:

ROFL I wrote just about the same thing about an hour ago below where Issa is on the video.
But he has to be the biggest a**hole in congress since Joe McCarthy.
I just hope if I ever run afoul of the law that Issa is my prosecutor.

Bill B. wrote on October 2, 2007 1:14 PM:

Yes. Thank goodness the Republicans are more stupid than the Democrats are incompetent (at least on this point).

Slim Pickins wrote on October 2, 2007 1:17 PM:

I wish I could slap Issa... I really wish I could just travel through the toobz and slap him. What an incorrigible a**hole.

Anonymous wrote on October 2, 2007 1:30 PM:

I love it. Prince consults with his attorney when asked a question by a friendly interrogator (Issa). That's usually done when the questioner is perceived as hostile.
Thanks, Darrel, for bringing up the GOP-Blackwater ties. The Dems couldn't have done it better and have avoided the "partisan" label they would have received if, say, Waxman had asked. A quick Google search would show how joined at the hip Blackwater and the GOP are.

eli wrote on October 2, 2007 1:39 PM:

Waxman hasn't gone soft. When your opponent is digging himself into a hole, don't interrupt him.

Fred C. Dobbs wrote on October 2, 2007 1:41 PM:

>>> Blackwater is the closest thing we have to a GOP paramilitary movement

Looking like an outgrowth of the, "D.B. Norton Troopers," from "Meet John Doe."

Oh, wait...that was fiction, wasn't it?

My bad...

iokiyar wrote on October 2, 2007 1:45 PM:

Perhaps Issa is very deliberately attempting to establish the Republican nature of the company, because if they are Republicans, then they are by definition Loyal Americans (R)(tm). As Loyal American Republicans, they then get the following benefits (you can too! join today!) - generous largess from the government, immunity from criticism, unaccountability regarding the law, and mostly a free pass (or active defense) on the above from the pundits and the media. The rest of us traitorous terrorists can shut up and sit out in the hall.

Ara wrote on October 2, 2007 1:46 PM:

Oh for crying out loud. Issa is a moron.

Betsy DeVos is the former chairman of the Republican Party in Michigan. Her husband is Dick DeVos, the 2006 Republican candidate for governor of Michigan.

Dee Illuminati wrote on October 2, 2007 1:55 PM:

I have to agree with ISSA on this one. I think it beneath TPMmuckraker to imagine that onlt democrats or trolls congregate here, I raised $10,000 for Bush 41 and have the lapel pin to prove it! I also support my Congressman whom is Republican. I also sent $250 to Bob Graham in 2004 and voted Cobb in that election.

If there is a valid investigation into improper contributions and contracts, well OK! That is one thing.

But even though I'm 'NOT' from the rattlesnake handling, bibble belt faction of the GOP, in fact a card carrying "Paleocon" as a defintion of myself, I think that the fact that contributions are given are as pertinent here as the Plame contributions to Kerry.

I think TPMmuckraker does belittles the issue by dragging it into partisan 'framing' of the issue, as then any substantiative issues are swept aside as 'partisan squabble.'

I really believe that, and almost posted it last night.

Don't imagine that there are not card-carrying paleocons on this site that find the 'contribution issue' a little off the mark of honest policy debate.

Patrick wrote on October 2, 2007 1:58 PM:

What a truly odd line of questioning/reasoning. In order to rebut the case no-one is making about Blackwater's GOP ties, bring out Blackwater's GOP ties. Where did Issa go to law school?

Of course, the item left out on the DeVos (Prince) family ties to the GOP is the DeVos/Amway family's membership in the Council for National Policy, which is the right wing's incubator for the neo-con/theo-con policies that have brought our Democracy to its knees. Check it out: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Council_for_National_Policy#Board_of_Directors

Patrick wrote on October 2, 2007 1:59 PM:

What a truly odd line of questioning/reasoning. In order to rebut the case no-one is making about Blackwater's GOP ties, bring out Blackwater's GOP ties. Where did Issa go to law school?

Of course, the item left out on the DeVos (Prince) family ties to the GOP is the DeVos/Amway family's membership in the Council for National Policy, which is the right wing's incubator for the neo-con/theo-con policies that have brought our Democracy to its knees (and the group Cheney's gonna go give a secret speech to in SLC). Check it out: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Council_for_National_Policy#Board_of_Directors

Vulture Breath wrote on October 2, 2007 2:01 PM:

Darrell Issa is like Gary Kasparov. We won't see the consequences of this clever move until many years down the road.

Maria wrote on October 2, 2007 2:12 PM:

Issa is such a tool. Who votes for these idiots?

Sam wrote on October 2, 2007 2:18 PM:

I have to think that Issa suspected that the Democratic congresscritters present would try to make an issue of Price's party ties, and was doing his best to get out in front of it. Like a defense lawyer with an unappealing client: "Is my client a bonehead substance abusing jerkweed? Certainly. But he's not a murderer!"

But sweet Jebus, could he have handled it more lamely?

Fred M. wrote on October 2, 2007 2:19 PM:

Issa of course does not bring up the REAL issue about Blackwater. It is not whether it is a "republican company," but rather if there is a quid pro quo between the obviously republican ownership of the company and the Bush administration. The answer is obviously yes ... in just the same way it exists with Halliburton and others.

The obvious question is why would anybody donate over $2 million to Bush and the republicans if they weren't going to get something back for that "investment?" The obvious answer is that these contributions have led to HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS in government contracts!

Anotherlib wrote on October 2, 2007 2:31 PM:

Maria wrote on October 2, 2007 2:12 PM:

Issa is such a tool. Who votes for these idiots?

Apparently 98,831 other tools.

2006 CA-49 results
Jeeni Criscenzo (Dem) 52,227
Darrell Issa (Rep) 98,831
Lars R. Grossmith (Lib) 4,952

http://vote.ss.ca.gov/Returns/usrep/4900.htm

Slim Pickins wrote on October 2, 2007 2:43 PM:

"Darrell Issa is like Gary Kasparov" ... um, no.

djcrow22 wrote on October 2, 2007 2:45 PM:

The arrogance and imperial air about Mr. Prince reeks of the current smug republican,christianist attitude permeating America today. These religious extremists are dangerous and out of control. The goal of this particular group is to be the private mercenary army of the religious madmen currently conspiring to make this country their private theocracy. If the democrats somehow gain control in 2009, the immediate defunding of Blackwater with our tax dollars must be a priority and should become a must ask question of every democratic candidate. This is a scary bunch of very wealthy madmen that must be held accountable and tightly regulated at our own peril. Expect nothing to come of these hearings. The Democratic party has proven itself to be absolutely worthless in facing down this and every other crisis facing what has become a clearly fascist government with a desensitized, gutless and amoral population.

Andrew Foland wrote on October 2, 2007 2:46 PM:

The Dems couldn't have done it better and have avoided the "partisan" label they would have received if, say, Waxman had asked.

If the clip ever makes it to TV, at least one of the major news channels will label Issa as a Democrat.

Gaines wrote on October 2, 2007 2:52 PM:

Dee Illuminati,
Since your post was not obviously dripping with sarcasm, I will assume it was serious. Which raises this question--
Did you not bother to read how this went down?

It was ISSA, a R-E-P-U-B-L-I-C-A-N who brought the issue up, for reasons no one fully comprehends. Thus, your own team made it legitimate topic for discussion. Don't blame TPM or the other commentators for bringing the subject up---they didn't.

Fred M. wrote on October 2, 2007 3:01 PM:

Right on the money, djcrow22.

PhotoShop Prince's smug face into an SS uniform and it would make a natural fit!

The far right is completely out of control. They claim to be the only true patriots yet spit on the Constitution and our rule of law. They claim to be Christians, but their actions are a complete rejection of the teachings of Christ.

There is only one way I can describe how these people see themselves ... "the master race."

Laertes wrote on October 2, 2007 3:16 PM:

I don't imagine Issa set out to score such a thunderous own-goal. One can only suppose that he ran out of time before he was able to deliver the rest of his planned line of questioning.

The puzzle, then, is to imagine what he'd have done had he a few more minutes. Can anyone imagine what his plan might have been?

Was he going to feed Prince a long string of softballs on the order of "is Blackwater a Republican company?" and hope that his devastating opening would somehow be forgotten as Prince wraps himself in the flag and claims to stand above petty partisanship?

featherfamily wrote on October 2, 2007 3:43 PM:

Am I the only one who has been thinking for months, why are Defense Contractors allowed to make political contributions?

While there are First Amendment rights, we find it perfectly acceptable and normal that my grocery employer can have and enforce policies that limit my free speech when I'm on their clock talking to their customers. Why shouldn't defense contractors have to give up the right to lobby Congress and make contributions to candidates when they accept the public's "dime" (billions) for their "work."

A Congress with a real opposition party would pursue this, and put such a restriction on all contractors clearly in all appropriations bills. They should be banned from mass consumer advertising too.

corpus juris wrote on October 2, 2007 3:51 PM:

Issa was did exactly what was expected of him. He gave CNN an excuse to say that the questioning took on a partisan quality. CNN didn't give a rats ass that Issa is a Republican. He asked partisan questions and that played directly into the phony story line they are pushing.

Jim wrote on October 2, 2007 4:06 PM:

Blackwater is the Bush Administrations "Republican Guard" even has the same name as Iran's unit and does the same thing - maybe worse - terrorizes and kills innocents.

houseoftwits wrote on October 2, 2007 4:16 PM:

featherfamily, your argument against Defense Contractors making political contributions could apply to ANY company that works for the federal government, and would thus essentially disenfranchise those citizens. For example, think of mailmen, or people who write environmental assessments; your logic would encompass anyone who has a contract with the Feds. Following the path of that logic, officers of a government contractor - anyone with decision-making responsibilities - would not be allowed to contribute money. But what about INFLUENCE? A valid argument could be made that a corporation's public approval of a candidate has a cash value. Your line of logic would mean that the officers or decision-makers at that corporation, all citizens, lost thier right to speak their mind (the 1st amendment!)

Instead, financial matters should be transparent - thus, bribes, etc. fall out.

Blackwater is a travesty because it is a NO-BID contract situation - a complete abnormality with government contracts. It's even worse because NO ONE made up rules for them to follow ahead of time. They've just been 'punting' on Blackwater policy since they got to Iraq.

The Federal Government made no-bid contracts ILLEGAL when I was a child in the 70s. This is just another example of Bush & Co re-writing the rules as they go along. Blackwater is a prime example of why you're supposed to plan these things ahead of time.

I hope this didn't sound too pendantic - your suggestion was well-intended, featherfamily! But, transparency (oversight) allows people to do business with the government and still keep their constitutional rights as citizens.

Dee Illuminati wrote on October 2, 2007 4:17 PM:

To Gaines:

No I was serious. I'm damned tired of political litmus in the Goodling affair, Plame affair, and in this scenario.

The whole process reeks. I supported McCain in 2000 though I'm disappointed in his positions now.

I was candid with my feelings on this. And really the political litmus of the neocons going after McCain GOP's after 2000 is another example of where 'political affiliation' superceeded common sense.

I really don't give a rats ass whom his sister gave money to as long as it was transparent, reported, and legal.

And being a paleocon and not marching goose-step with that faction doesn't make me an enemy of the state either.

And really, the vote for Cobb was out of principle of not liking either candidate in 2004 and the appeal that Cobb made on CSPAN of 'hey I know I can't win, but if your in a state that has a clear outcome in Nov. vote your dissatisfaction with the circumstances by voting green.' I really couldn't in good concious vote for Bush as I think he is to radical as a GOP leader, don't support his 'draconian executive assumptions' and couldn't bring myself to vote for Kerry who wanted to be on both sides of the Iraq war issue.

And even though ISSA brought it up, similar to McConnel and the eavesdropping, it was in response to the apparent double standard of red and blue koolaid drinkers whom feel that political contribution affiliation is appropriate only when the disclosure makes the person with the opposite color koolaid moustache look bad.

And make no mistake about it, I was PISSED OFF that the Club For Growth put up 500K for Fisher in the MD 1st! Pissed off that McCain GOP's were not loyal Bushies.. and really irritated with the GOP for abandoning the paleocon sensibilities that provided the neocons the opportunities for their abuses.

No! I was serious and still republican! As Barry Goldwater said, 'I did not change the republican party did!' What happened to the party of fiscal conservatism? What happened to the party of civil liberties? No, make no mistake about it: "I'm Republican!"

Just count me in with the "realists" in the party, count me in with Arnold Schwarzenegger (energy ideas realist), Christie Todd Whitman (environment ideas realist), and non-koolaid drinking moderates.

Go to Wiki and read Paleoconservatism and keep in mind that I also like our church and state seperate.

To be succint, SECULAR-PALEOCONSERVATIVE!

I was not kidding.

Who somebody gives to politically and the career path should not be an issue, and unfortunately it was the neoconservatives who brought this tactic with the K-St. crowd to and all new LOW!

No, republican and angry

TEL wrote on October 2, 2007 4:32 PM:

Issa is more like Duke Cunningham than Gary Kasparov. He represents a district that has a significant number of defense contractors (it may even be #1 - anyone know?). So even though he's a bit of a "dim bulb" who tries his best every year to embarass his constituency into voting for someone else, the "R" after his name is enough to ensure his re-election.

Nazi lovechild wrote on October 2, 2007 4:49 PM:

To Fred M:

Lets not sully a SS uniform with the likes of Mr. Prince. The Waffen SS was proud to be feared, admitted to being bad and did not hide behind Jesus and family values.

robertlewis wrote on October 2, 2007 4:50 PM:

Princes. Billionaires. Blackwater. Republican. Christian Fundamentalists. Murderous Mercenary Army. State Deptartment. DOD. Pioneers. Security Contracts. These words stand out.

Bill T wrote on October 2, 2007 4:56 PM:

Has anyone noticed that Issa spelled backwards is Assi?

Bill T wrote on October 2, 2007 4:57 PM:

Has anyone noticed that Issa spelled backwards is Assi?

slb wrote on October 2, 2007 5:18 PM:

>> Who somebody gives to politically ... should not be an issue > No, republican and angry <<

Not angry enough, apparently.

BTW, sweetheart, if you're going to insist on using "whom" (see your first post in this discussion), please learn to use it correctly. (http://web.ku.edu/~edit/whom.html) Consistently might be nice as well (see your 4:17 post).

Thethinredline wrote on October 2, 2007 5:19 PM:

It was a stupid comment the first time Bill T., no need to repeat it.

Skipster wrote on October 2, 2007 6:19 PM:

ummmm- Federal employees already have limitations on their speech and volunteer and contribution activities. It's called the Hatch Act, and there is a slightly less restricted one for state and local government employees whose agengies receive Federal funding. So having some limitations on campaign contributions from gov't contractors as an anti-corruption barrier makes sense. What folks are ignoring is that Iraq is a GOP patronage scam- NR's Kate O'Beirne husband was the Bush staffer who ran personel for the Provisonal Authority- no need to speak Arabic or Kurdish or know anything about the Mid East. If you had a note from your precinct committeeman saying you were a good GOPer- you got the job. Same on the contractors- only GOP connected need apply (See Duke Cunningham's buddies). So it turns out we only replaced one set of Republican Guards for another.

Anonymous wrote on October 2, 2007 6:46 PM:

The only reason that the 2 face R-E-P-U-B-L-I-C-A-N ISSA brought the "Republican company" subject up is because he wanted it to appear as if the republicans were asking the tough question. The second most obvious reason that he did that is because he wanted to deviate from the real issues and problem of Blackwater in Iraq. The used the same trick successfully with Gen. Betrayus. Well the matter is that we have freedom of speech and opinion and that can not be censored. The political Republican strategy now is to deviate from the real problem and focus on fairness of labeling. Gimme a break! let's discuss the real problems which is Iraq, Blackwater and the lies of the Bush Administration. Please, grow up! name calling, and labeling are nothing else but childish ways of taking the heat off their faces. Republicans are guilty of murdering, terrorizing, invading, torture and the like. There is got to be order and authority.

BB wrote on October 2, 2007 6:46 PM:

The only reason that the 2 face R-E-P-U-B-L-I-C-A-N ISSA brought the "Republican company" subject up is because he wanted it to appear as if the republicans were asking the tough question. The second most obvious reason that he did that is because he wanted to deviate from the real issues and problem of Blackwater in Iraq. The used the same trick successfully with Gen. Betrayus. Well the matter is that we have freedom of speech and opinion and that can not be censored. The political Republican strategy now is to deviate from the real problem and focus on fairness of labeling. Gimme a break! let's discuss the real problems which is Iraq, Blackwater and the lies of the Bush Administration. Please, grow up! name calling, and labeling are nothing else but childish ways of taking the heat off their faces. Republicans are guilty of murdering, terrorizing, invading, torture and the like. There is got to be order and authority.

BB wrote on October 2, 2007 6:48 PM:

The only reason that the 2 face R-E-P-U-B-L-I-C-A-N ISSA brought the "Republican company" labeling up is because he wanted it to appear as if the republicans were asking the tough question. The second most obvious reason that he did that is because he wanted to deviate from the real issues and problem of Blackwater in Iraq. The used the same trick successfully with Gen. Betrayus. Well the matter is that we have freedom of speech and opinion and that can not be censored. The political Republican strategy now is to deviate from the real problem and focus on fairness of labeling. Gimme a break! let's discuss the real problems which is Iraq, Blackwater and the lies of the Bush Administration. Please, grow up! name calling, and labeling are nothing else but childish ways of taking the heat off their faces. Republicans are guilty of murdering, terrorizing, invading, torture and the like. There is got to be order and authority

Anonymous wrote on October 2, 2007 8:46 PM:

Houseofwit, I must disagree.

Again, why then do I not have the freedom to make political speech at my place of work? Why does Erik Prince get more freedom of speech than me?

Part of the contract can and should detail that they are forbidden to hire lobbyists, they are forbidden to use PR or advertising campaigns, they are forbidden to urge any course of action on any government official, and most especially on elected officials. It is a voluntary temporary cessation of their rights, as a condition of enjoying the benefit of the government contract. The company that doesn't have a contract and wants one is free to hype its wares with all the usual tricks, I guess, though the reform movement that I wish to lead may think about that some more too.

If they don't like the deal, let somebody else have the contract. The government acting like a business, a talking point all the ignorant centrists and moderates always nod their heads for.

Doh wrote on October 2, 2007 9:43 PM:

Can government contractors make political contributions? I thought every time I make a contribution I have to certify that I am not a gov't contractor.

Gary Killpack wrote on October 3, 2007 10:41 AM:

after hearing about the sign on the back of the blackwater cars, "stay back 100 yards or we will shoot." in two languages. I wonder just how big the sign would have to be to be read at that distance?

dee illuminati wrote on October 3, 2007 2:06 PM:

To the post:

ummmm- Federal employees already have limitations on their speech and volunteer and contribution activities. It's called the Hatch Act, and there is a slightly less restricted one for state and local government employees whose agengies receive Federal funding. So having some limitations on campaign contributions from gov't contractors as an anti-corruption barrier makes sense.

Well ergo: Contractors are not federal employees, nor are they state employees, so ergo: All Ford automotive employees cannot contribute becuase FORD sells a car to the government.

Ergo: Company owner, A sole proprieter takes a contract with Gubernut to sell widgets as 10% of total business, 90 employees are disenfranchised from participation in the democratic process?

If there is quid-pro-quo of a Cunningham style then lets have at it! If the good senator is soliciting sex in an airport then lets have at it! If an employee gives Democratic, Republican, or Green that should NOT be a crime if it is legal giving.

What part of Democracy do you really object to? I dislike Democrats who want to re-craft the constitution and our democracy as much as Republicans and radical environmentalists.

Your argument is: Blackwater makes money and is politically connected, and that that must be wrong. Well not so...

I have money, donate, and I'm damn sure unapologetic about that 'RIGHT TO DO SO.'

What part of Democracy do you really object to?

Chompie wrote on October 3, 2007 9:49 PM:

Put two and two together. Issa was probably trying to defend the relationship between the GOP and Blackwater in his lame way. Why? Because he represents part of San Diego County. Blackwater West is supposed to be located in or near that area. People are fighting this but you know how that will go.

H. D. Schroeder wrote on October 27, 2007 7:57 PM:

Blackwater's CEO Prince and his family members have given hundreds of thousands to the GOP.

Now, it should probably be argued that they're really our tax dollars.

We give no-bid contracts to some companies and they then give some money back -- all the while ripping off taxpayers.