You remember Ken Blackwell, don’t you? He’s the guy who in 2004 served simultaneously as Ohio Secretary of State and co-chair of the Committee to Re-Elect George W. Bush. He used, and abused, his office to help the Bush campaign – including rejecting voter registration forms that weren’t on 80-pound paper stock.

Anyway, he must have been prepping for CPAC when he wrote his latest op-ed on FoxNews.com. Here’s what he said about the Obama administration:

What we are witnessing right now is an anti-Christian programmatic pogrom. What is a “pogrom” it’s the word that describes anti-Jewish raids by Cossacks and others in czarist Russia, but a programmatic pogrom best describes what is happening right now. These are not isolated attacks. And while we no longer have Cossacks to threaten, we now have left-wing bloggers who actually call themselves Kossacks (after the Daily Kos).

A “pogrom,” let’s recall, is “an organized massacre of helpless people; specifically: such a massacre of Jews.” And Blackwell, who most recently served as the vice chair of the RNC Platform Committee, contends that President Obama’s nominees would be leaders of this “pogrom” if confirmed.

He said this about Dawn Johnsen, who was nominated a year ago to lead the Office of Legal Counsel: “If she is confirmed, we will see a radical anti-Catholic, pro-abortion zealot influencing policy throughout the Justice Department—but also policy throughout the entire federal government.”

Johnsen, as it happens, is Christian and teaches Sunday School. She has prominent Republican supporters and a sterling record of commitment to the rule of law. But Blackwell thinks her confirmation is on par with the mass slaughter of Jews.

But he didn’t stop there. He also singled out Chai Feldblum, Obama’s pick to lead the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, saying that “if confirmed, she would be in position to pursue the pogrom nationwide.” As Ben Smith pointed out, Feldblum is a “Jewish law professor and disability rights scholar… whose father survived the Holocaust in the forests of Poland after losing most of his family.”

Feldblum is also a widely acclaimed academic and vigorous advocate for religious freedom. But that doesn’t matter to Blackwell, who isn’t really big on rational argument. As Rabbi David Saperstein wrote today, “Blackwell’s use of rhetoric invoking the pogroms, the widespread destruction of countless Jewish lives in Eastern Europe, is aimed at quashing reasoned political discourse,” and it “desecrates the memory of those who died in the pogroms.”

One thing is clear, Blackwell isn't trying to convince people – he’s trying to incite them. So will the RNC and Republican leaders denounce the remarks or just pretend not to notice? I think we all know the answer.

In a big "FU" to the Republican obstructionists in Congress, Barack Obama has re-submitted Dawn Johnsen to head the Office of Legal Counsel, after the GOP blocked her nomination late last year.

It should be noted that Johnsen has had glowing recommendations from both sides of the aisle for her legal acumen, but because she did work for a pro-choice group two decades ago, she was deemed "too liberal" to be acceptable for a Congressional vote:

The renomination of Johnsen-the Obama nominee who has waited the longest for a vote-is especially noteworthy. Currently a professor at Indiana University School of Law, Johnsen is extraordinarily well-qualified to head the Office of Legal Counsel. She served for more than five years in that office during the Clinton administration, including as its acting head for more than a year. She has the bipartisan support of both her home state senators and from former heads of OLC from both political parties. Senior officials from every administration since Gerald Ford's have endorsed her nomination.

"President Obama made an excellent choice in Professor Johnsen to lead OLC, and today he's shown his willingness to stand on principle and call the Republicans on their attack and delay tactics," said Marge Baker, Executive Vice President of People For the American Way. "President Obama's statement today is a refutation of the GOP's efforts to spin this eminently qualified nominee as a controversial choice, and he should be applauded. Professor Johnsen's legal scholarship, her integrity, her substantive knowledge, and her commitment to this nation's security and to the rule of law will serve this country well once she's confirmed."

To be fair, this is not strictly a GOP issue:

At least two Democrats — Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania — have also said they oppose her, and the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, did not give her a floor vote.

It's patently absurd that someone as eminently qualified as Johnsen should not get even the respect of being given a vote. John Yoo--the poster child for the phrase "the banality of evil"--has no problem with his nomination to the OLC, but Johnsen does?

In addition to Johnsen, Obama has re-submitted the nominations of five others whose original nominations were effectively killed by GOP obstructionism:

Mr. Obama will also renominate Christopher Schroeder to lead the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Policy and Mary Smith to lead its tax division; Craig Becker to be a National Labor Relations Board member; and Louis Butler Jr. and Edward Chen to be district court judges, the official said.

WaPo:

Virginia Gov. Timothy M. Kaine will become chairman of the Democratic National Committee later this month, serving as the top political messenger for Barack Obama's administration even while he finishes his final year in the governor's mansion, several sources said.

Kaine, who emerged as one of Obama's vice presidential finalists this summer, will operate from Richmond in a part-time capacity until January 2010, when he will become the full-time DNC chairman. Kaine is constitutionally barred from running for reelection.

A personal friend of the president-elect, Kaine is a gregarious chief executive who is known to relish political combat and helped put Virginia in the Democratic column for the first time in almost 50 years.

Ugh. After Howard Dean, could we pick a more disappointing choice for DNC head? After all, what the spinally deficient Dems need is a more milquetoasty, against stem cell research, pro-life, anti-gay chairman whose actions speak directly to his callousness towards those less fortunate directing the candidates and elections to help retain the Democratic majority, doncha know?

Democrats, snatching defeat from victory since 1992.

RawStory:

"Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano (D) has been chosen to serve as secretary of the vast and troubled Department of Homeland Security for President-elect Obama," Politico's Mike Allen reported late Wednesday night. "Napolitano is a border governor who will now be responsible for immigration policy and border security, which are part of Homeland Security's myriad functions."

Napolitano has been a big Obama booster through out his campaign. Here she is, introducing Obama in September:

Arguably, the most important appointment President Obama will make is the Treasury Secretary, to help guide us out of this morass left us by the Bush neocons. One of the people that has most captured the media's attention is Larry Summers. But is he the right guy? Time:

Summers was an awfully controversial guy a couple years ago. And the things that made him controversial will all be revisited if he has to sit through a Senate confirmation hearing.

Here's a quick run-through of the Sins of Larry:

1. He's a loose cannon. Summers has a long history of saying what's on his mind, regardless of whether others might find it offensive. The thing about women and science was only the most infamous. There was also that memo he signed about exporting toxic waste to the developing world. [..]

Still, Summers behaved perfectly respectably during his last stint as Treasury Secretary. He is capable of keeping his mouth shut if the job requires it. What's more, he seems to have a habit of promoting the careers of people who are willing to contradict him and take him on (Andrei Shleifer and Tim Geithner spring to mind). [..]

2. He's loyal, to a fault. One of the main things that turned Harvard's faculty against Summers was the case of his protege Shleifer. Shleifer ran a Harvard-affiliated, USAID-funded office in Moscow in the 1990s that advised the Russian government on economic reform. The U.S. government later sued Harvard and Shleifer, charging that the operation was overrrun by conflicts of interest. Summers recused himself from direct dealings with the case, but in his epic dissection of the saga for Instititutional Investor, David McClintick charged that Summers did try to shield Shleifer. Harvard and Shleifer lost the suit, and Harvard had to pay $26.5 million in damages and Shleifer $2 million. I can't get as worked up about this as some people (if we could force Harvard to give the government even more money, maybe Barack Obama wouldn't have to raise your taxes), but I also know and like Andrei Shleifer, so I'm really not the best judge.

3. He's a callous right-winger. Summers' academic mentor was conservative economist Marty Feldstein, and he worked for Feldstein at Ronald Reagan's Council of Economic Advisers in the early 1980s. Paul Krugman worked there too, so that really isn't saying much. For most of the 1980s, in fact, Summers was an outspoken skeptic of financial markets and their ability to set prices rationally and steer investment wisely. As he rose to positions of power in Washington in the 1990s, though, he became a leading defender of the Washington consensus--the idea that free financial markets, free trade and fiscal discipline would bring prosperity to the world. Lately Summers has been partially reconsidering that stance in his columns for the Financial Times. If you're favorably disposed to him, as I am, you could say he's been pulling a Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind." But I guess if you're not so favorably disposed, you could call him a closet right-winger, a closet left-winger, or a slave to fashion.

Anyway, I'm sure Larry Summers would make a very good Treasury Secretary. Again.

Continue reading »

Download | play Download | play (h/t Heather)

(Nicole: MSNBC wasted no time parroting WSJ's editorial and getting those talking points out there.)

Given John McCain’s record, and rhetoric, Republicans are clearly worried about how voters are going to react to the argument that McCain offers the nation “Bush’s third term.”

In fact, conservatives are so worried about it, the misguided ideologues at the Wall Street Journal editorial page have decided to make a novel argument: it’s Barack Obama, not McCain, who’s actually “running for … Bush’s third term.”

Take the surveillance of foreign terrorists. Last October, while running with the Democratic pack, the Illinois Senator vowed to “support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies” that assisted in such eavesdropping after 9/11. As recently as February, still running as the liberal favorite against Hillary Clinton, he was one of 29 Democrats who voted against allowing a bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee reform of surveillance rules even to come to the floor.

Two weeks ago, however, the House passed a bill that is essentially the same as that Senate version, and Mr. Obama now says he supports it. Apparently legal immunity for the telcos is vital for U.S. national security, just as Mr. Bush has claimed.

Now, I think Obama’s wrong to accept the FISA “compromise,” and have said so on many occasions. But to suggest that Obama’s position brings him into line with Bush/Cheney/McCain is foolish. Indeed, far from conceding that retroactive telecom immunity is “vital for U.S. national security,” Obama actually said the exact opposite, arguing that he still opposes the provision, and vowing to vote for its removal. The Journal used “apparently” to draw the conclusion it wanted to reach, instead of the one supported by reality.

It gets worse.

Continue reading »

The Politico: (I know, I know)

Overshadowed by the hype of Barack Obama's victory lap on the Senate floor today is a simmering dispute between Majority Leader Harry Reid and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell over President Bush's remaining judicial nominees.

McConnell has essentially shut down the Senate floor this afternoon by forcing the Senate clerk to read aloud the entire 500 page global warming bill. So if legislative language is your thing, turn on C-SPAN and watch the Senate at its best, or worst, depending on your perspective.

McConnell (R-Ky.) believes Reid (D-Nev.) has backtracked on a promise to clear a significant number of Republican judicial nominees, but Democrats are becoming more and more hesitant to give Bush judges a lifelong appointment to the federal bench in the waning months of this White House.

"The Democratic majority has refused to honor its commitments," McConnell said. "It apparently believes that commitments do not matter in the United States Senate, and that actions do not have consequences."

One of those consquences, apparently, is a complete shut down of the Senate.

What a WATB. Harry Reid says that they need to grow up:

Devoid of ideas for addressing global warming and unwilling to work with us to strengthen our weakening economy and energy policy, Republicans have now resorted to changing the subject with inaccurate attacks. [..] Senate Democrats have treated President Bush's judicial nominations with far greater deference than President Clinton's were afforded by a Republican-controlled Senate that denied hearings or floor consideration for almost 70 Clinton nominees. Three-quarters of President Bush's court of appeals nominees have been confirmed, while only ha­lf of President Clinton's appellate nominations were confirmed. Last year the Senate confirmed 40 judges, more than during any of the three previous years with Republicans in charge, and today's federal judicial vacancy rate is the lowest it has been in years.

Download | play Download | play (h/t Heather)

Dan Abrams offers another edition of his series "Bush League Justice" focusing on the latest petulant move on the part of the President, who is holding on to the nominations of 84 positions until Congress confirms Steven Bradbury to the position of Assistant Attorney General, something the Senate is loathe to do. Why? Because Steven Bradbury is the legal mind responsible for writing the opinions stripping detainees of their habeas corpus rights and torturing them was legally permissible as well as immunizing Harriet Miers from complying with a congressional subpoena. But of course, in Bush's mind it's the Democratic-controlled Congress who is the problem. Constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley weighs in on the latest "made man" of the Bush Administration.

(h/t MF) George Bush doesn't like the Constitution. Especially that part where the Senate has to confirm his appointments. Remember when he wanted coal industry executive Richard Stickler to head the Mine Safety agency? Stickler was turned down by the Senate twice. So in late 2006 Bush did what he does and gave Stickler a recess appointment. Now that the recess appointment has expired, Bush has found that by putting "acting" at the beginning of a job title, he can appoint people whenever he likes?

AFL-CIO Blog:

The recess appointment expired at the end of 2007. In a somewhat bizarre chain of events, MSHA removed Stickler’s bio from the agency’s website and announced Jan. 3 that Stickler’s assistant was the acting assistant secretary. But his tenure was brief: On Jan. 4, Bush named Stickler the new acting assistant secretary, a move that does not require congressional approval and is likely to last until the end of Bush’s term. After press reports that Stickler’s bio had been removed, it’s now back online.

Mine Workers (UMWA) President Cecil Roberts says: "The appointment of Richard Stickler to be acting assistant secretary of Labor for Mine Safety and Health, just days after his term in that position expired because he couldn’t be confirmed by the U.S. Senate, demonstrates the deep level of contempt the Bush administration holds for the Senate and the constitutional role that body holds."

Duh.

Remember Karen Hughes, a devoted Bushie from Texas who was sent to the Middle East to tell women how lucky they were that we invaded and occupied Iraq, because it brought them freedom? Karen has gone home to Texas again, but the Bush administration still needs a snake oil salesman undersecretary of state for public diplomacy and public affairs to tell everyone that things are really going great. Guess who they picked?

(T)he AP has learned that the Bush administration has named her replacement: James Glassman.

So who is James Glassman? Read on, dear reader, read on.

It's the fall of 1999. The dot-com boom is going strong, and Glassman, formerly an honest business journalist and managing editor of Roll Call, co-authors Dow 36,000: The New Strategy for Profiting From the Coming Rise in the Stock Market, which argues "Stock prices could double, triple, or even quadruple tomorrow and still not be too high." He had been a mere talk show host and financial columnist syndicated by the Washington Post. Now he was a superstar--for telling the Masters of the Universe exactly what fantasies they wanted to hear. [..]

Glassman catapulted his berth on the best-seller lists into a for-profit web site, Tech Central Station, "a cross between a journal of Internet opinion and cyber think tank open to the public," proffering "a high-tech agenda of freedom and opportunity."The Dow then began its two-year long shedding of 30 percent of its value. All the while, Glassman pulled down over 100 lecture gigs a year trumpeting, "We are on the verge of a tremendous wealth explosion, the likes of which has never been seen."[..]

TCS mysteriously thrived where other Internet startups hemorrhaged cash. How? Why? In an extremely important 2003 Washington Monthly article by Nick Confessore(from which I draw the above narrative), Glassman pioneered a bold new brand of pay-for-play "journalism."

Wrote Confessore:

"As a writer and public figure, Glassman has, over time, aligned his views with those of the business interests that dominate K Street and support hte Republican Party; he has also increasingly taken aggressive positions on one side or another of intra-industra debates....

But TCS doesn't just act like a lobbying shop. It's actually published by one-the DCI Group, a prominent Washington "public affairs" firm specializing in P.R., lobbying, and so-called "Astroturf" organizing, generally on behalf of corporations, GOP politicians, and the occasional Third-World despot. The two organizations share most of the same owners, some staff, and even the same suite of offices in downtown Washington.... read on

Yup, this is the perfect guy to sell America to the Middle East, doncha think?