PERRspectives

John Yoo, the Right Man for the Job

2009-07-11T19:13:17Z

Among the least surprising revelations in the shocking Inspectors General report on President Bush's domestic surveillance programs are those concerning John Yoo. As it turns out, in justifying the NSA's warrantless wiretapping of Americans beginning in 2001 the Bush administration relied solely on the same legal architect behnid the President's regime of detainee torture. And in Yoo, the White House found the one man willing to claim publicly that the FISA law governing such electronic surveillance was an unconstitutional infringement on the President's powers as commander-in-chief.

The unclassified IG report revealed that Jay Bybee, Yoo's boss at the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, not only was not "read in" to the secret Presidential Security Programs including the NSA activities, he was unaware "how Yoo came to draft the OLC opinions on the program."

Nevertheless, Bybee seemed unsurprised that President Bush, Vice President Cheney, his henchman David Addington and Attorney General John Ashcroft would have tapped Yoo to provide the legal basis for their surveillance programs. (Addington and Ashcroft, like Yoo, refused to be interviewed for the report.):

Bybee described Yoo as "articulate and brilliant," and said he had a "golden resume" and was "very well connected" with officials in the White House. Bybee said that from these connections, in addition to Yoo's scholarship in the area of executive authority during wartime, it was not surprising that Yoo "became the White House's guy" on national security matters.

And as he later revealed in October 2007, "the White House's guy" was more than willing to brush aside any treaty or act of Congress as irrelevant and unconstitutional constraints on the President's war powers. During the PBS Frontline documentary "Cheney's Law," Yoo scoffed when asked if President Bush in authorizing warrantless domestic spying by the NSA had violated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) passed in 1978:

"I think that there's a law greater than FISA, which is the Constitution, and part of the Constitution is the president's commander-in-chief power. Congress can't take away the president's powers in running war. They are given to him by the Constitution, in the same way that Congress couldn't pass laws saying you can't invade Normandy or you can't place Europe first in World War II. There are some decisions the Constitution gives the president, and even if Congress passes a law, they can't seize that from him."

That statement, as the IG report confirms, was a perfect summary of Yoo's argument in a key November 2, 2001 memo blessing Bush's domestic eavesdropping:

Yoo's November 2, 2001 memorandum focused almost exclusively on the activity that the President later publicly confirmed as the Terrorist Surveillance Program. Yoo acknowledged that FISA "purports to be the exclusive statutory means for conducting electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence," but opined that "[s]uch a reading of FISA would be an unconstitutional infringement on the President's Article II authorities." Yoo characterized FISA as merely providing a "safe harbor for electronic surveillance," adding that it "cannot restrict the President's ability to engage in warrantless searches that protect the national security." According to Yoo, the ultimate test of whether the government may engage in warrantless electronic surveillance activities is whether such conduct is consistent with the Fourth Amendment, not whether it meets the standards of FISA. Yoo wrote that "unless Congress made a clear statement in FISA that it sought to restrict presidential authority to conduct warrantless searches in the national security area - which it has not - then the statute must be construed to avoid such a reading."

But as it turned out, Yoo's legal reasoning was so ham-handed and fatally flawed that it later raised such "serious concerns" in the OLC and Office of the Deputy Attorney General as to require reevaluation by 2003.

As the IG's report shows, when it came to both FISA and the United States Constitution, Yoo's were sins of omission as well as commission. For openers, Yoo selectively ignored a section of the FISA law that his successors at OLC argued "demonstrated an explicit intention to restrict the government's authority to conduct electronic surveillance during wartime":

Among other concerns, Y00 did not address the section of FISA that creates an explicit exemption from the requirement to obtain a judicial warrant for 15 days following a congressional declaration of war. See 50 U.S.C. § 1811.

Just as jaw-dropping, Yoo also conveniently omitted any mention of the perhaps the defining Supreme Court ruling on the scope of the president's powers as commander-in-chief, the 1952 Youngstown decision which prohibited President Truman from seizing striking U.S. steel mills during the Korean War:

Yoo's legal memoranda omitted any discussion of Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952), a leading case on the distribution of government powers between the Executive and Legislative Branches. Justice Jackson's analysis of President Truman's Article II Commander-in-Chief authority during wartime in the Youngstown case was an important factor in OLC's subsequent reevaluation of Yoo's opinions on the legality of the PSP.

That the overwhelming weight of constitutional opinion was against Yoo and the Bush administration became clear after the NSA program was publicly revealed by the New York Times in December 2005. In early 2006, a distinguished, bi-partisan group of American constitutional legal experts and scholars wrote to congressional leaders and strongly rejected the arguments put forth in a letter by the Bush administration:

The DOJ also invokes the President's inherent constitutional authority as Commander in Chief to collect "signals intelligence" targeted at the enemy, and maintains that construing FISA to prohibit the President's actions would raise constitutional questions. But even conceding that the President in his role as Commander in Chief may generally collect signals intelligence on the enemy abroad, Congress indisputably has authority to regulate electronic surveillance within the United States, as it has done in FISA. Where Congress has so regulated, the President can act in contravention of statute only if his authority is exclusive, and not subject to the check of statutory regulation. The DOJ letter pointedly does not make that extraordinary claim.

Neither did the President's allies in Congress. Then Republican Arlen Specter noted that Congress expressly removed the words "in the United States" from the September 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF), adding, "Isn't that a clear indication of congressional intent not to give the president the authority for interceptions in the United States?" Fellow GOP Senator Mike Dewine (R-OH) backed away from the very challenge to FISA that Yoo relished:

"You know, there's been some controversy about whether or not this program is legal or is not legal. I think we need to get beyond that - we don't want to have any kind of debate about whether it's constitutional or not constitutional."

Of course, for John Yoo there could be no check of any kind on President Bush's wartime powers. As the IG report determined, Yoo similarly gave short shrift to the legal issues involved in blessing Bush's still secret "Other Intelligence Activities":

To the extent that particular statutes might appear to preclude these activities, Yoo concluded that "we do not believe that Congress may restrict the President's inherent constitutional powers, which allow him to gather intelligence necessary to defend the nation from direct attack."

During a December 2005 forum in Chicago, now professor John Yoo was asked, "If the president deems that he's got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person's child, there is no law that can stop him?" Yoo responded, "no treaty." Pressed further if any law by Congress could bar the President from authorizing such torture, Yoo said:

"I think it depends on why the president thinks he needs to do that."

What President Bush needed in the fall of 2001 was a person who unfailingly provide legal cover for the warrantless surveillance of American citizens at home and the torture of terror detainees abroad. He found him in John Yoo, the right man for the job.

UPDATE: In his thorough dissection of the IG report, Glenn Greenwald rightly concludes, "To accept the central premise of our political class -- it's unfair to prosecute Bush officials for things that DOJ lawyers told them was legal -- is to destroy the rule of law in the United States," adding, "Presidents will always be able to find subservient John Yoos in the bowels of the DOJ willing to authorize anything they want to do." Meanwhile, Anonymous Liberal also makes the case against John Yoo.

Rick Santorum and the Sanctity of John Ensign's Marriage

2009-07-10T17:48:56Z

Rick Santorum may no longer a Senator, but he remains an endless source of amusement - and hypocrisy. In 2002, the devout Catholic blamed the shocking clergy sex abuse scandal consuming his church on Boston's supposed "political and cultural liberalism." Warning of the slippery slope to "man-on-dog" nuptials to be triggered by same-sex unions, Santorum dedicated (and titled) a chapter of his 2004 book to protecting "the Sanctity of Marriage." As it turns out, protecting fellow Republican John Ensign may have been Rick Santorum's higher calling.

As The Hill reported Friday, cuckolded ex-Ensign staffer Doug Hampton accused his former boss of engaging in a cover-up of his affair with Hampton's wife, an effort allegedly aided and abetted by Santorum:

The scandal surrounding Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) has ensnared another senator as Doug Hampton, the husband of the woman with whom Ensign had the affair, alleges a widespread cover-up and said he is considering legal action.
Hampton initially reached out to Fox News urging the network to report the affair, but Ensign admitted to it before news outlets made it public. In an interview that aired Thursday, Hampton accused ex-Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), a Fox News contributor, of leaking word of his letter to Ensign.

A phone call to Santorum's assistant at the Ethics and Public Policy Center and an e-mail to Santorum's personal account were not immediately answered Friday morning.

If true, Hampton's allegations wouldn't merely add another jaw-dropping chapter to the latest Republican tale of sin and debauchery which has already featured pay-offs from Ensign's parents and possible criminal violations of campaign finance laws. Hampton's charge suggests Rick Santorum is more concerned about the sanctity of the Republican Party than marriage.

In his 2004 tome (Rick Santorum: A Senator Speaks Out on Life, Freedom and Responsibility), Santorum defended a constitutional amendment defining marriage as being between one man and one woman:

It sort of bothers me when I hear the comment made - and it has been made over and over, not only here on the floor but by many pundits - about we have more important things to do. I cannot think of anything more important to America than family and marriage. I cannot think of anything more important than the basic social building block of our country, and that is what marriage is, that is what family is. And it is in jeopardy.

It's in jeopardy, all right, from the likes of John Ensign, Mark Sanford and, apparently, Rick Santorum.

USA Today Misleads on Politics of Stimulus Spending

2009-07-09T17:22:02Z

To Disraeli's famous line that "there are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies and statistics," you can add a fourth: USA Today. In an article suggestively titled, "Billions in aid go to areas that backed Obama in '08," the paper implied the White House steered stimulus funds to counties that voted for the President. But as USA Today acknowledges, the distribution of the $17 billion in local funding (a small fraction of the overall $787 billion recovery package) is "guided by formulas that have been in place for decades and leave little room for manipulation." More glaring still, USA Today not only omits any mention of the stimulus windfall reaped by many states which voted for John McCain, it ignores the steady one-way flow of tax dollars and earmarks annually spreading the wealth from Washington to the reddest of red states.

For his part, USA Today's Brad Heath offers a coy analysis which hints at and then backs away from allegations of political bias by the Obama White House in allocating the sliver of total stimulus funds going to local government projects:

Counties that supported Obama last year have reaped twice as much money per person from the administration's $787 billion economic stimulus package as those that voted for his Republican rival, Sen. John McCain, a USA TODAY analysis of government disclosure and accounting records shows. That money includes aid to repair military bases, improve public housing and help students pay for college.
The reports show the 872 counties that supported Obama received about $69 per person, on average. The 2,234 that supported McCain received about $34.

While Heath admits that "Investigators who track the stimulus are skeptical that political considerations could be at work," he provides no detail on the historical per capita allocation of federal aid to more urban counties with commensurately larger infrastructure and social services needs. Only in the final paragraph does USA Today note:

The imbalance didn't start with the stimulus. From 2005 through 2007, the counties that later voted for Obama collected about 50% more government aid than those that supported McCain, according to spending reports from the U.S. Census Bureau.

More importantly, the data show that year in, year out, red state socialism is alive and well. That is, blue state taxpayers persistently subsidize services for their red state brethren.

As a 2007 analysis (above) of 2005 federal spending per tax dollar received by state shows, the reddest states generally reaped the most green. Eight of the top 10 beneficiaries of federal largesse voted for John McCain for President. Unsurprisingly, all 10 states at the bottom of the list - those whose outflow of tax revenue is funding programs elsewhere in the country - all voted for Barack Obama in 2008.

The numbers for Sarah Palin's Alaska are particularly telling. While Palin initially declared she would reject $288 million (31%) of the $931 million funds allocated for schools, energy assistance and social services, her state led the nation in earmark dollars received per capita in the omnibus spending bill passed in March. (Alaskans got almost $210 per person in earmarks, while Californians got $16 and New Yorkers $13 in comparison.) Overall, Alaska ranks third in the federal gravy train, taking in $1.84 from Washington for each dollar sent there.

Bobby Jindal's Louisiana also gets a pretty sweet deal from taxpayers around the United States. Jindal's home rates #4 in pocketing federal spending per tax dollar contributed, just behind Haley Barbour's Mississippi (#2) and Palin's Alaska.

For all of his bloviating, stimulus opponent and lovelorn South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford ultimately accepted a $2.8 billion bonanza for his economically devastated Palmetto State. Sanford's home away from Buenos Aires already receives $1.35 from DC for every tax dollar paid.

And as the Wall Street Journal reported just last week, "Some of the states worst hit by the recession are getting far less federal economic-stimulus money per person than states faring better." In many cases, the winners wear red uniforms, while the losers went blue in the last election:

Nevada, where unemployment stood at about 10% when the plan was passed, is getting $541 for each resident from the stimulus money allocated so far, a Wall Street Journal analysis found. Wyoming, where the 3.9% jobless rate was the lowest in the country in February, is getting $1,074 per person.
Florida, North Carolina and Oregon are among the other states with relatively low per-capita payouts, despite battling double-digit unemployment. North Dakota and South Dakota, meanwhile, are also receiving large quantities of stimulus money relative to their small populations -- even while unemployment remains about half the national average.

As the Journal noted, "the Obama administration says the stimulus was always as much about investments in infrastructure as it was about targeting short-term unemployment." And again, the urgent need to quickly disperse the recovery funds meant "many of the formulas are decades old, and only a handful are based on the most up-to-date measures of economic distress."

(The Journal also rightly details that different states benefit from different types of stimulus spending. For a state-by-state breakdown of social and infrastructure spending by state, check out the WSJ's interactive maps and tables.)

None of the above is to suggest that there is anything untoward or inappropriate in the underwriting of red states by blue ones. On the contrary. After all, many of these Republican states are home both to key defense contractors and military bases which help ensure U.S. national security. Just as important, most Americans nationwide want to provide the funding and resources for the education, health care and anti-poverty programs their red state brethren badly need - and deserve. (In May, the Washington Post rightly noted it would be blue state residents funding health care in an article titled, "A Red State Booster Shot.")

And that's what makes USA Today's implication that Obama-backing counties are disproportionately benefiting from federal stimulus dollars so misguided - and disappointing.

UPDATE 1: Meanwhile, the New York Times revealed that "the 100 largest metropolitan areas are getting less than half the money from the biggest pot of transportation stimulus money," adding "it is clear that the stimulus program will continue that pattern of spending disproportionately on rural areas."

UPDATE 2: As ThinkProgress notes, Fox News predictably cited the USA Today piece as evidence for its false claim that stimulus spending is being steered to areas that backed Obama.

Honduras Crisis Recalls Bush Support for Chavez Coup

2009-07-08T18:23:14Z

On Tuesday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton turned to Costa Rican President and Nobel Peace Prize winner Oscar Arias to mediate the crisis in Honduras. But even as President Obama from Moscow announced, "America supports now the restoration of the democratically-elected President of Honduras, even though he has strongly opposed American policies," Republicans in Washington readied a resolution supporting the coup. If that line from the supposedly pro-democracy GOP sounds familiar, it should. Back in 2002, the Bush administration backed the Venezuelan coup that briefly ejected Hugo Chavez from power.

As I noted four years ago, the American confrontation with Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez stems in part from early Bush administration support for the short--lived and ultimately unsuccessful 2002 coup that for a few days removed him from office. Chavez may well be a thug and a friend of Castro, but he was democratically elected, prompting 19 OAS member states to denounce the coup. But in Washington, press spokesman Ari Fleischer blamed Chavez for his own overthrow and signaled tacit White House support.

"We know that the action encouraged by the Chavez government provoked this crisis. According to the best information available, the Chavez government suppressed peaceful demonstrations...The results of these events are now that President Chavez has resigned the presidency."

Following the collapse of the coup, Condi Rice could only mutter, "I hope that Hugo Chavez takes the message that his people sent him that his own policies are not working for the Venezuelan people." It is no wonder that Senator Chris Dodd protested the Bush policy in Venezuela, worrying that "to stand silent while the illegal ouster of a government is occurring is deeply troubling and will have profound implications for hemispheric democracy."

Seven years later, the Obama administration is taking a much different line towards Honduras and the ouster of President Manuel Zelaya. Joining the OAS and most of the international community, President Obama condemned the coup. While Zelaya's attempt to manufacture another presidential term was illegal, so too was his overthrow according to many observers, including a Honduran military lawyer who backed the effort to depose him. Noting that "we are very clear about the fact that President Zelaya is the democratically elected president," Obama concluded:

"We do so not because we agree with him. We do so because we respect the universal principle that people should choose their own leaders, whether they are leaders we agree with or not."

As for Congressional Republicans, not so much.

For his part, South Carolina GOP Senator Jim Demint blasted Obama for a "policy that seems less about supporting the rule of law than it is about supporting particular rulers." Ever the partisan, Demint amazingly added:

"[Zelaya's] removal from office was no more a coup than was Gerald Ford's ascendence to the Oval Office or our newest colleague Al Franken's election to the Senate."

Over in the House, Florida Rep. Connie Mack is planning to introduce a resolution this week. Also supported by Dana Rohrbacher (R-CA), Dan Burton (R-IN), Jeff Fortenberry (R-NE), the resolution "expresses its strong support for the people of Honduras" and "condemns Mr. Jose Manuel Zelaya Rosales for his unconstitutional and illegal attempts to alter the Constitution of Honduras" while calling "on all parties to seek a peaceful resolution that is both legal and constitutional."

On that last point, Secretary of State Clinton pointed to the Arias mediation process as a better and less volatile path forward for President Zelaya and the Micheletti government in Tegucisgalpa:

"I believe it is a better route for him [Zelaya] to follow at this time than to attempt to return in the face of the implacable opposition of the de facto regime. So, instead of another confrontation that might result in a loss of life, let's try the dialogue process and see where that leads."

As the Washington Post noted, "The new route to defusing the crisis contrasts with the tough line proposed by Zelaya's close ally, President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela." Cresencio Arcos, a former U.S. ambassador to Honduras, praised Clinton's move to isolate Chavez, "The United States seized the opportunity to take away the whole Honduran crisis from the palpable influence of the South Americans, i.e., Chávez, Kirchner, Correa, and put it under regional arbitration."

Of course, simply minimizing Chavez' influence just won't cut it for the Republican Coup Caucus in Congress. Just like President Bush.

Sarah Palin's Greatest Hits

2009-07-07T18:52:58Z

Attempting the political equivalent of relaunching the Hindenburg, soon-to-be former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin hosted ABC, Fox News, CNN, Time, the AP and other media outlets while fishing Tuesday. But even as she proclaimed of her abrupt resignation, "politically speaking, if I die, I die," Palin reminded Americans once again why she so deserves that fate.

By claiming the nonexistent "Department of Law" in Washington would protect her from the kind of ethics woes she encountered in Alaska, Palin demonstrated her continuing ignorance of American government and public policy alike. Of course, it's far from the first time.

Here, then, is a look back at Sarah Palin's Greatest Hits:

"I think on a national level, your department of law there in the White House would look at some of the things that we've been charged with and automatically throw them out." (July 7, 2009.)

"It's all for Alaska." (Asked by Time why she resigned, July 7, 2009).

"In what respect, Charlie?" (Asked by ABC's Charles Gibson if she agreed with the Bush Doctrine, September 11, 2008.)

"Let me speak specifically about a credential that I do bring to this table, Charlie, and that's with the energy independence that I've been working on for these years as the governor of this state that produces nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of energy..." (Misunderstanding Alaska's 3.5% share of U.S. domestic energy production, September 11, 2008.)

"We believe that the best of America is in these small towns that we get to visit, and in these wonderful little pockets of what I call the real America." (October 16, 2008.)

"A task that is from God." (On the war in Iraq, June 8, 2008.)

"I think God's will has to be done, in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built, so pray for that." (June 8, 2008.)

"To me, it motivates us, makes us work that much harder. And it also strengthens my faith, because I'm going to know, at the end of the day, putting this in God's hands, that the right thing for America will be done at the end of the day on Nov. 4. So I'm not discouraged at all." (Asked if she was discouraged by polls showing the McCain-Palin ticket trailing, October 22, 2008.)

"As for that VP talk all the time, I'll tell you, I still can't answer that question until somebody answers for me what is it exactly that the VP does every day?" (August 1, 2008.)

"That's something that Piper would ask me!...[T]hey're in charge of the U.S. Senate so if they want to they can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes that will make life better for Brandon and his family and his classroom." (asked by third grader Brandon Garcia what the Vice President does, October 20, 2008.)

"I told Congress, 'Thanks, but no thanks' on that Bridge to Nowhere." (September 13, 2008.)

"Um, all of them, any of them that have been in front of me over all these years." (Asked by CBS' Katie Couric what newspapers and magazines she reads, September 30, 2008.)

"They're our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska." (Asked by ABC's Charles Gibson "what insight into Russian actions" the proximity of Alaska provides her, September 11, 2008.)

"Well, it certainly does, because our, our next-door neighbors are foreign countries, there in the state that I am the executive of... We have trade missions back and forth, we do. It's very important when you consider even national security issues with Russia. As Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border. It is from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there, they are right next to our state." (Asked by CBS' Katie Couric to explain her foreign policy credentials, especially regarding Russia, September 25, 2008.)

"John McCain and I, we love you and thank you for spending a few minutes to talk to me." (Talking with Canadian radio prankster posing as French Presideny Nicolas Sarkozy, November 1, 2008.)

"I'll try to find you some and I'll bring them to you." (Asked by CBS' Katie Couric to cite "specific examples in his 26 years of [John McCain] pushing for more regulation," September 24, 2008.)

"Well, let's see. There's, of course in the great history of America there have been rulings, that's never going to be absolute consensus by every American. And there are those issues, again, like Roe v. Wade, where I believe are best held on a state level and addressed there. So you know, going through the history of America, there would be others..." (Asked byCBS' Katie Couric what Supreme Court decisions besides Roe v. Wade she disagrees with, October 1, 2008.)

"Fair or unfair, I think she does herself a disservice to even mention it...When I hear a statement like that coming from a woman candidate with any kind of perceived whine about that excess criticism or, you know, maybe a sharper microscope put on her, I think, man, that doesn't do us any good. Women in politics, women in general wanting to progress this country. I don't think it's, it bodes well for her -- a statement like that...It bothers me a little bit hearing her bring that attention to herself on that level." (On Hillary Clinton's complaints about her treatment by the media, March 2008.)

"How sad that Washington and the media will never understand; it's about country. And though it's honorable for countless others to leave their positions for a higher calling and without finishing a term, of course we know by now, for some reason a different standard applies for the decisions I make." (July 4, 2009.)

"I want to make sure that Americans do understand that there is a little bit of disappointment in my heart about the world of journalism today...And I don't want any individual journalist to take it personally but--I have such great respect for the role of the media in our democracy, it is a cornerstone, it allows the checks and balances. But only when there is fairness and objectivity in the reporting." (November 5, 2008.)

"For the most part, absolutely, media persons, reporters, have been absolutely right on and there has been fairness and objectivity. There have been some stinkers, though, who have kind of made the whole basket full of apples, once in a while, smell kind of bad." (November 7. 2008.)

"If [the media] convince enough voters that that is negative campaigning, for me to call Barack Obama out on his associations, then I don't know what the future of our country would be in terms of First Amendment rights and our ability to ask questions without fear of attacks by the mainstream media." (Misunderstanding the First Amendment, October 31, 2008.)

"I respect Carrie [Prejean] for standing strong and staying true to herself, and for not letting those who disagree with her deny her protection under the nation's First Amendment Rights." (Misunderstanding the First Amendment again, May 13, 2009.)

"Letterman certainly has the right to 'joke' about whatever he wants to, and thankfully we have the right to express our reaction. This is all thanks to our U.S. Military women and men putting their lives on the line for us to secure America's Right to Free Speech - in this case, may that right be used to promote equality and respect." (Still misunderstanding the First Amendment, June 16, 2009.)

"This is to provide notice to Ms. Moore, and those who re-publish the defamation, such as Huffington Post, MSNBC, the New York Times and The Washington Post, that the Palins will not allow them to propagate defamatory material without answering to this in a court of law." (Not understanding the First Amendment via lawyer Thomas Van Flein, July 4, 2009.)

"This is not a man who sees America as you see it and how I see America...Our opponent though, is someone who sees America it seems as being so imperfect that he's palling around with terrorists who would target their own country." (On Barack Obama, October 4, 2008.)

"There's no question that Bill Ayers via his own admittance was one who sought to destroy our U.S. Capitol and our Pentagon. That is a domestic terrorist. There's no question there. Now, others who would want to engage in harming innocent Americans or facilities that uh, it would be unacceptable. I don't know if you're going to use the word terrorist there." (Asked by NBC's Brian Williams, "Is an abortion clinic bomber a terrorist?" October 23, 2008.)

"I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a community organizer, except that you have actual responsibilities." (September 3, 2008.)

"God bless Barack Obama and his beautiful family." (November 5, 2008.)

"I say God bless George W. Bush." (November 13, 2008.)

(For video clips of some of Sarah Palin's greatest hits, visit TPM's Sarah Palin Top 10 and the Daily Beast collection of "Sarah Palin's 10 Most Awkward Media Moments.")

President McCain in Russia

2009-07-06T21:29:11Z

In case there was any lingering doubt, President Obama's trip to Russia should remind Americans how fortunate they are not to have placed John McCain in the White House. In Moscow on the eve of the G-8 summit, Obama has helped ratchet down tensions with Russia while securing preliminary agreements on mutual cuts to nuclear warheads and delivery systems, as well as getting the green light to use Russian territory to resupply U.S. forces in Afghanistan. For his part, just last year John McCain was promising to eject Russia from the G-8 and proclaiming, "We're all Georgians now."

No doubt, President McCain's initial meeting with Russian President Medvedev would have been a frosty one. After all, as he made clear time and again, he would have blackballed Medvedev from the G-8 gathering in Italy this week.

In November 2007, candidate McCain penned an article in Foreign Affairs in which he announced his intent to expel Russia from the G-8. In a March 26, 2008 speech, he made his plan crystal clear:

"We should start by ensuring that the G-8, the group of eight highly industrialized states, becomes again a club of leading market democracies: it should include Brazil and India but exclude Russia."

But facing almost universal condemnation from foreign policy analysts who characterized booting Russia from the G-8 as logistically impossible and just plain "dumb," the McCain campaign quickly disowned it. On June 25, 2008, Reuters reported that an anonymous McCain adviser claimed the policy towards Russia was no longer operative:

He also dismissed McCain's comment last October on Russia and the G-8 as "a holdover from an earlier period," adding: "It doesn't reflect where he is right now."

Yet one month later, John McCain was back on the trail, calling once again for Moscow to get the heave-ho. Appearing on ABC This Week with George Stephanopolous on July 27, McCain insisted it was back on:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me ask you about your position to exclude Russia from the G-8. How are you going to get that done? Every other G-8 nation is against it.
MCCAIN: Well, you have to take positions whether other nations agree or not, because you have to do what's best for America...

Of course, more important to John McCain was what was best for John McCain. So looking for political advantage as Russian and Georgian forces clashed the following month, McCain took to the pages of the Wall Street Journal to declare, "We Are All Georgians." Two days earlier, Americans might remember, McCain announced to Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili on their behalf:

"I told him that I know I speak for every American when I say to him, 'Today we are all Georgians.'"

Given the recent unrest in Iran, the growing protests in that former Soviet republic have largely been off Americans' radar screens. As Reuters reported, President Saakashvili lashed out over the weeks of opposition marches and calls for resignation over "his record on democracy and last year's disastrous war with Russia":

"They think Saakashvili is hot-headed, they insult (parliament speaker David) Bakradze and (Prime Minister Nika) Gilauri, and they try to make us crush them," he told a televised meeting of the parliamentary majority.

On Tuesday, President Obama is scheduled to meet with Prime Minster Vladimir Putin, the former KGB chieftain turned autocrat widely viewed as still pulling the strings in the Kremlin. But while Obama in the run-up to his trip criticized what he deemed Putin's "old Cold War approaches", a McCain-Putin meeting would have proven more awkward still, given what he saw in his eyes.

Back in the 2001, Senator McCain was asked by Chris Matthews about President Bush's meeting with Putin in which Bush famously remarked that he had "looked the man in the eye" and got "a sense of his soul." Bush, McCain responded, earned "very high marks."

"The president did a good job in his European trip...On Russia, I d-I give him very high marks...I-I give him an A. I'd give him an A."

Alas, as he approached the presidential election of 2008, John McCain took a different view of Bush's personal diplomacy - and Vladimir Putin. As McCain put it in 2007 and repeatedly throughout the campaign:

"When I looked into Putin's eyes and I saw three letters: a K, a G and a B."

Whatever John McCain saw in the window to Putin's soul, his public comments were hardly the stuff of public statesmanship. But as his France-bashing and Iran saber rattling show, McCain's grandstanding extends to both friend and foe, and everyone in between. And as the G-8 this week discusses the crisis in Tehran, somewhere McCain will be singing, "bomb bomb Iran."

After Calling Hillary Clinton a Whiner, Palin Blasts Media's "Different Standard"

2009-07-05T21:40:24Z

One day after her rambling resignation speech in Wasilla, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin was a no-show for July 4th events in her state. But that didn't stop her from issuing yet another statement on Facebook, attacking the media for the "different standard [it] applies for the decisions I make." As it turns out, it is Sarah Palin who is holding herself to a different standard; in March 2008, she slammed Hillary Clinton for whining about her own treatment at the hands of the press.

To be sure, the only inkling Palin gave about her new "higher calling" was that it will doubtless continue to feature her now trademark proclamations of victimization by the political media. In her statement, she labeled the press reaction to her cutting and running "predictable," adding:

"How sad that Washington and the media will never understand; it's about country. And though it's honorable for countless others to leave their positions for a higher calling and without finishing a term, of course we know by now, for some reason a different standard applies for the decisions I make."

During a Women and Leadership event back in March 2008, Governor Palin was asked about Senator Clinton's response to media scrutiny - and criticism - she received on the campaign trail during the Democratic primaries. Palin made it clear to moderator Karen Breslau of Newsweek that she considered Clinton's conduct unbecoming. Hillary, she insisted, needed to just "plow through":

"Fair or unfair, I think she does herself a disservice to even mention it...When I hear a statement like that coming from a woman candidate with any kind of perceived whine about that excess criticism or, you know, maybe a sharper microscope put on her, I think, man, that doesn't do us any good. Women in politics, women in general wanting to progress this country. I don't think it's, it bodes well for her -- a statement like that...It bothers me a little bit hearing her bring that attention to herself on that level."

Here's the full Newsweek video of Palin complete response. For more on Palin's post-election take on the media "stinkers" who caused "disappointment in my heart about the world of journalism today," visit here.

(This piece originally appeared at Crooks and Liars.)

Palin's Lawyer Threatens to Sue Bloggers, Media

2009-07-05T17:16:52Z

time and again displayed her fundamental misunderstanding of the First Amendment and Americans' free speech rights. Now as she prepares to exit the Alaska Governor's mansion, her confusion - and thin skin - is again on display.

On the Fourth of July of all days, Palin's lawyer Thomas Van Flein issued a warning that his client would bring defamation claims against bloggers and media alike speculating on rumors of a criminal investigation involving the Governor:

To the extent several websites, most notably liberal Alaska blogger Shannyn Moore, are now claiming as "fact" that Governor Palin resigned because she is "under federal investigation" for embezzlement or other criminal wrongdoing, we will be exploring legal options this week to address such defamation. This is to provide notice to Ms. Moore, and those who re-publish the defamation, such as Huffington Post, MSNBC, the New York Times and The Washington Post, that the Palins will not allow them to propagate defamatory material without answering to this in a court of law. The Alaska Constitution protects the right of free speech, while simultaneously holding those "responsible for the abuse of that right." Alaska Constitution Art. I, Sec. 5. http://ltgov.state.ak.us/... These falsehoods abuse the right to free speech; continuing to publish these falsehoods of criminal activity is reckless, done without any regard for the truth, and is actionable.

As Moore herself noted regarding her reference on MSNBC to the lingering questions surrounding the construction of the Palin home and the Wasilla sports complex (a story first raised last year by the Wayne Barrett in The Village Voice):

"I haven't defamed the governor, I reported on speculation and rumor in Alaska. ... It's not my rumor; it's been out there for 10 months and the First Amendment protects me," Moore said. "Even if I didn't say it's 'rumors and speculation,' I'm still protected -- I would just lose credibility, which I'm not willing to do."

Which is exactly right. While Van Flein cited the Alaska Constitution's statement that "every person may freely speak, write, and publish on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right," the United States Constitution is another matter altogether. As Anchorage attorney Peter Maassen seemed to suggest, Sarah Palin's thin skin is no basis for a credible defamation suit:

"If (Palin) is actually a public figure, which clearly she is, there has to be actual malice involved, in my understanding of defamation law. That would be very hard to prove...It's a very, very high bar if it is a public figure," he said.

And regardless of what her supposed "higher calling" may be, Sarah Palin will remain a public figure. Soon, she will be unencumbered by the duties of the Governor's office, just as she is unencumbered by any apparent familiarity with the Constitution of the United States.

In the meantime, as she faces growing press scrutiny over her bizarre decision to step down, Sara Palin can follow her own advice to Hillary Clinton last year and just "plow through."

UPDATE: For its part, as the Los Angeles Times reported Sunday, "the FBI's Alaska spokesman said the bureau had no investigation into Palin for her activities as governor, as mayor or in any other capacity."

(This piece originally appeared at Crooks and Liars.)

Palin, Sanford and Dereliction of Duty

2009-07-04T16:55:56Z

Like the proverbial broken clock, even Charles Krauthammer gets it right occasionally, if not twice a day. On Thursday, Krauthammer dismissed Governor Sarah Palin 24 hours before her surprise resignation as "not a serious candidate for the presidency." That conclusion followed his recent broadside against South Carolina's Mark Sanford for "dereliction of duty" in going AWOL over his Argentinean mistress. As her jaw-dropping rationalizing about her lame duck status revealed, that same charge applies to Palin as well.

In her rambling 18 minute statement which Paul Begala rightly described as "vapid and puerile," Palin turned her back on her four year pledge to Alaskan voters by mocking the very notion that any elected official anywhere should complete their final term:

"And so as I thought about this announcement that I wouldn't run for re-election and what it means for Alaska, I thought about how much fun some governors have as lame ducks... travel around the state, to the Lower 48 (maybe), overseas on international trade - as so many politicians do. And then I thought - that's what's wrong - many just accept that lame duck status, hit the road, draw the paycheck, and "milk it". I'm not putting Alaska through that - I promised efficiencies and effectiveness! ? That's not how I am wired. I am not wired to operate under the same old "politics as usual." I promised that four years ago - and I meant it."

If Palin's line about "overseas on international trade" was meant as a dig against the lovelorn Sanford, it surely backfired. After all, Palin during her catastrophic interview with CBS' Katie Couric tried to puff up her foreign policy credentials by proclaiming, "We have trade missions back and forth, we do. It's very important when you consider even national security issues with Russia." (That came just before the part about "as Putin rears his head...")

More importantly, Palin's own spokesperson Meg Stapleton contradicted her boss' inverted sports analogies and convoluted claim that by staying in office she would be taking "a quitter's way out." As Politico detailed:

But even Stapleton acknowledged that the job Palin said she loved during the press conference had become a drag.
"It's a liberating feeling...She can't get out of there soon enough," said Stapleton.

Over at the excreable American Spectator, Quin Hillyer was disgusted with Friday's charade, announcing, "Sarah Palin's resignation is an appalling dereliction of duty and a highly cynical move to set herself up for a presidential run for which she is manifestly unqualified."

Yes, once in a rare while even the most ardent conservatives are right.

DOJ Confirms Cheney's Key Role in CIA Leak Case

2009-07-03T16:45:11Z

The Obama administration again this week moved to protect former Vice President Dick Cheney's 2004 interview with the FBI over the outing of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame. But in so doing, the Justice Department's court filing only served to confirm Cheney's central role in guiding the Bush White House response to - and retaliation against - Plame's husband, Ambassador Joseph Wilson.

As the Washington Post reported, a list of what Cheney discussed with prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is documented in a declaration to the court by Acting Assistant Attorney General David J. Barron. Unlike the DOJ's earlier "Daily Show" defense, Barron declared much of those conversations "are covered by 'the deliberative process privilege,' protecting advice, recommendations and other 'deliberative communications' between government officials."

Among those supposedly protected conversations cited by Barron were critical elements of the Bush administration's smearing of Joe Wilson and the ending of his wife's career:

He mentioned in particular Cheney's discussion of his conversation with then-CIA Director George J. Tenet about "the decision to send Ambassador Joseph Wilson on a fact-finding mission to Niger in 2002." Wilson is the former CIA operative's husband, and a report he filed after the trip cast doubt on claims that Iraq had purchased uranium from Niger for a nuclear weapons program. President George W. Bush cited those claims as part of the justification for the Iraq war.
Barron also listed as exempt from disclosure Cheney's account of his requests for information from the CIA about the purported purchase; Cheney's discussions with top officials about the controversy over Bush's mention of the uranium allegations in his 2003 State of the Union speech; and Cheney's discussions with deputy I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, press spokesman Ari Fleischer, and Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. "regarding the appropriate response to media inquiries about the source of the disclosure" of Valerie Plame Wilson's identity.

The declaration also said Cheney had helped resolve disputes about "whether to declassify certain information," including portions of a National Intelligence Estimate related to Iraqi weapons programs that Libby leaked to then-New York Times reporter Judith Miller.

As it turns out, Barron's catalog confirms earlier reporting regarding Dick Cheney's heavy hand in the scandal. Cheney famously scribbled notes on a copy of Wilson's July 6, 2003 piece, asking "did his wife send him on a junket?" As the National Journal revealed in April 2006, it was Cheney who authorized his chief-of-staff Scooter Libby to selectively leak cherry-picked portions of the classified National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq:

Vice President Dick Cheney directed his then-chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, on July 12, 2003 to leak to the media portions of a then-highly classified CIA report that Cheney hoped would undermine the credibility of former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson, a critic of the Bush administration's Iraq policy, according to Libby's grand jury testimony in the CIA leak case and sources who have read the classified report.

As the Journal's Murray Waas reported two months later on July 3, 2006, it was President Bush himself who confirmed to Fitzgerald that he asked Cheney to lead the counterattack on the Wilsons:

President Bush told the special prosecutor in the CIA leak case that he directed Vice President Dick Cheney to personally lead an effort to counter allegations made by former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV that his administration had misrepresented intelligence information to make the case to go to war with Iraq, according to people familiar with the president's interview.
Bush also told federal prosecutors during his June 24, 2004, interview in the Oval Office that he had directed Cheney, as part of that broader effort, to disclose highly classified intelligence information that would not only defend his administration but also discredit Wilson, the sources said.

But Bush told investigators that he was unaware that Cheney had directed I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the vice president's chief of staff, to covertly leak the classified information to the media instead of releasing it to the public after undergoing the formal governmental declassification processes.

In his closing arguments in the conviction of Libby (whose pardon Cheney advocated even into the final hours of the Bush presidency), special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald pointedly noted, "There is a cloud over the vice president...and that cloud remains because this defendant obstructed justice." Should the Obama administration succeed in blocking access to Cheney's FBI interview, that cloud will continue to hover over the former vice president.

But as the DOJ's filing itself shows, some rays of sunlight are shining through.

Moral Paragons Bennett, Giuliani Weigh In on Sanford

2009-07-02T17:27:00Z

God may work in mysterious ways, but He has nothing on today's Republican Party. As the dueling scandals of John Ensign and Mark Sanford wash away the last vestiges of the GOP's long-discredited claim to uphold "moral values," gambling addict William Bennett and the thrice-married Rudy Giuliani weighed in on the imbroglio.

Bennett, the former Education Secretary turned conservative columnist and radio host, used his perch at CNN to announce that Governor Sanford is "embarrassing himself":

"I know Mark Sanford. I know him quite well. He needs to get his life back in order, his marriage back in order. He is embarrassing himself.
There is the old notion of indecent exposure, usually that refers to somebody showing some skin, and there's another form of indecent exposure. He is telling us way too much. We're not interested. He needs to stop and take care of his life."

Of course, when it comes to embarrassing himself, Bill Bennett has rich experience to draw upon. In 2003, it was revealed that Bennett squandered as much as $8 million at casinos in Las Vegas and Atlantic City. Nevertheless, Bennett continued to mass produce books like The Book of Virtues and The Death of Outrage, each touting standards of moral behavior he himself failed to meet. It's no wonder Joshua Green in his article "The Bookie of Virtue" concluded:

"William J. Bennett has made millions lecturing people on morality--and blown it on gambling."

Then there's former New York Mayor and failed GOP presidential frontrunner Rudy Giuliani. The likely Republican gubernatorial candidate has appeared on Fox News and MSNBC to offer his expertise on the Sanford affair to Neil Cavuto and Joe Scarborough.

And Giuliani's expertise, as the Washington Monthly's Steve Benen detailed three years ago ("High Infidelity"), is serial adultery and rapid-fire marriage:

Giuliani informed his second wife, Donna Hanover, of his intention to seek a separation in a 2000 press conference. The announcement was precipitated by a tabloid frenzy after Giuliani marched with his then-mistress, Judith Nathan, in New York's St. Patrick's Day parade, an acknowledgement of infidelity so audacious that Daily News columnist Jim Dwyer compared it with "groping in the window at Macy's." In the acrid divorce proceedings that followed, Hanover accused Giuliani of serial adultery, alleging that Nathan was just the latest in a string of mistresses, following an affair the mayor had had with his former communications director.

As it turns out, Giuliani in the weeks before his role as Sanford marriage analyst anointed himself the champion of the anti-marriage equality crusade in New York State. (Despite having lived with gay roommates during his separation from Hanover, Giuliani skipped their wedding in May.) As one letter to the New York Post put it:

"Giuliani, who is currently married to his third wife, apparently believes that marriage is the sacred union of one man and a different woman every few years."

Even the ultra-conservative Washington Times was forced to acknowledge the damage done by the Republicans' rampant hypocrisy:

Social conservatives, the once-powerful force that focused the Republican agenda on moral virtue and family values, have suffered a diminished brand on the national political landscape as a steady stream of their icons have fallen prey to the vices they once preached against.
Extramarital affairs, gambling, alcohol abuse, prostitution and sexual pursuit of minors have taken a toll on the GOP.

Perhaps, but those sins are no barrier to regular appearances on your TV screen by the fallen of the Republican Party. Mysterious ways, indeed.

Cheney: Iraq Insurgency Not in Last Throes After All

2009-07-01T16:33:40Z

President Obama on Tuesday marked the historic withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq's cities by noting, "The Iraqi people are rightly treating this day as a cause for celebration." Alas, for former Vice President Dick Cheney, not so much. Cheney, who four years ago declared the insurgency in its "last throes," on Monday warned of new attacks. Of course, back in December, he praised President Bush for signing the very status of forces agreement that mandated the American pullback this week.

In an interview with the Washington Times, Cheney offered the latest line of attack in his never-ending campaign to claim that President Obama had made the nation less safe. Regarding this week's milestone required by the SOFA signed by George W. Bush and Prime Minister Maliki, Cheney declared himself "concerned" by General Odierno's statements regarding the redeployment:

"What he says concerns me: That there is still a continuing problem. One might speculate that insurgents are waiting as soon as they get an opportunity to launch more attacks. I hope the Iraqis can deal with it. At some point they have to stand on their own, but I would not want to see the U.S. waste all the tremendous sacrifice that has gotten us to this point."

If Cheney was gripped by such fears, he certainly wasn't voicing them when President Bush inked the agreement last year. On December 14, 2008, Bush in his press conference with Maliki announcing the pact specifically addressed this week's benchmark:

"First of all, we're here at the Iraqi -- at the request of the Iraqi government. It's an elected government. There are certain benchmarks that will be met -- such as troops out of the cities by June of '09. And then there's a benchmark at the end of the agreement.
As to the pace of meeting those agreements, that will depend of course upon the Iraqi government, the recommendations of the Iraqi military, and the close coordination between General Odierno and our military."

Just one week later, Vice President Cheney lauded that same agreement as just one of many accomplishments of the Bush administration in its Iraq war:

"I think the fact that we were able to go in as effectively as we did and take down the Saddam regime, that we were able to kill his sons, capture him, bring him to trial, that we had three national elections, that the Iraqis wrote a constitution that's bearing fruit today, that they've got a government that we just signed a historic agreement with, a status of forces agreement -- all of those things happened, including the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi -- all of those things happened up through the end of '06."

Of course, what also happened in 2006 was the dramatic escalation of the Iraqi insurgency and the descent of the country into civil war. Sadly, in May 2005, Vice President Cheney looked into his crystal ball and, as usual, got it all wrong:

"I think we may well have some kind of presence there over a period of time. The level of activity that we see today from a military standpoint, I think, will clearly decline. I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency."

For their part, 73% of Americans favor the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Baghdad and others Iraqi cities. That support is bipartisan, with 74% of Republicans backing the pullout. Unsurprisingly, Dick Cheney is not among them.

Apparently, his insurgency against Barack Obama is far from being in its last throes.

God's Plan for Mark Sanford and Sarah Palin

2009-06-30T22:12:11Z

Three weeks ago, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee declared California's passage of Proposition 8 "a miracle from God's hand." Now, new revelations from Sarah Palin and Mark Sanford, two of Huckabee's would-be (or would have been) rivals for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, show they, too, believe they are part of God's plan.

As the mushrooming scandal over his "soul mate" Argentine mistress and potentially other women increases pressure on him to resign as South Carolina's Governor, Sanford insisted God wants him to stay in office. Just three days after comparing himself to King David, Sanford in a message to supporters Monday announced he had the Almighty, if not his wife, by his side:

"Immediately after all this unfolded last week I had thought I would resign - as I believe in the military model of leadership and when trust of any form is broken one lays down the sword. A long list of close friends have [sic] suggested otherwise - that for God to really work in my life I shouldn't be getting off so lightly. While it would be personally easier to exit stage left, their point has been that my larger sin was the sin of pride...
Their belief was that if I walked in with a real spirit of humility then this last legislative term could well be our most productive one - and that outside this term, I would ultimately be a better person and of more service in whatever doors God opened next in life if I stuck around to learn lessons rather than running and hiding down at the farm."

As it turns out, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin doesn't just have the Lord in her corner, she's also His spokesman.

A jaw-dropping expose in Vanity Fair revealed the shocking extent of Palin's narcissism:

When [her son] Trig was born, Palin wrote an e-mail letter to friends and relatives, describing the belated news of her pregnancy and detailing Trig's condition; she wrote the e-mail not in her own name but in God's, and signed it "Trig's Creator, Your Heavenly Father."

Of course, Sarah Palin apparently has long believed she was touched by the voice - and hand - of God. In May 2005 process complete with a laying on of hands, Kenyan pastor Thomas Muthee prayed over Palin, imploring Jesus to protect her from "the spirit of witchcraft." As Election Day approached last fall, the GOP vice presidential claimed to be unconcerned by her ticket's dismal poll numbers. Victory, she insisted, was in God's hands:

"To me, it motivates us, makes us work that much harder. And it also strengthens my faith, because I'm going to know, at the end of the day, putting this in God's hands, that the right thing for America will be done at the end of the day on Nov. 4. So I'm not discouraged at all."

Apparently, it was God's plan to put Barack Obama in the White House.

As for Mark Sanford, his dereliction of duty, rampant adultery, taxpayer-funded trysts and ever-shifting stories suggest Judgment Day at the hands of South Carolinians is not far off.

UPDATE 1: Governor Palin previously referred to the United States' war in Iraq as "a task that is from God" and declared her $30 billion Alaksa pipeline project "God's will."

UPDATE 2: Apparently, Joe "the Plumber" Wurzelbacher also has a direct line to the Almighty as well. Asked about running for office, the 2008 Republican campaign prop replied, "You know, I talked to God about that and he was like, 'No.'"

Michael Jackson and John Roberts' Reagan Flashback Week

2009-06-26T22:03:36Z

For the second time in five days, the tide of current events washed ashore Chief Justice John Roberts' Reagan-era past. On Monday, Roberts authored the Court's majority opinion in the Austin case which almost realized his 1980's goal of gutting the Voting Rights Act. And as the New York Times recalled Friday, back in 1984 then associate White House counsel Roberts didn't have very kind words for the King of Pop, Michael Jackson.

As Pulitzer Prize winner Charlie Savage recounted, the young John Roberts was none too keen to associate his boss with Jackson. After Jacko had visited the White House and later appeared at an event with President Reagan to combat drunk driving, Jackson's team asked for a letter from the Gipper to be included in a Billboard magazine special. The over-the-top text ("Your visit to the White House was a real 'thriller' for all of us here in the Nation's Capital") was more than Roberts could stomach. In rejecting the letter, he wrote:

"I recognize that I am something of a vox clamans in terris in this area, but enough is enough. The Office of Presidential Correspondence is not yet an adjunct of Michael Jackson's PR firm."

Three months later, Team Jackson again requested a letter from Reagan, this time to promote his upcoming concert at Washington's RFK Stadium. Again, Roberts was having none of it:

"I hate to sound like one of Mr. Jackson's records, constantly repeating the same refrain, but I recommend that we not approve this letter...
Frankly, I find the obsequious attitude of some members of the White House staff toward Mr. Jackson's attendants, and the fawning posture they would have the President of the United States adopt, more than a little embarrassing."

Ironically, it was one of Michael Jackson's other attendants - Elizabeth Taylor - who to John Roberts' dismay would win over Ronald Reagan. This time, the issue was AIDS.

In the mid-1980's, Reagan himself only magnified the growing AIDS disaster. In 1985, Reagan faced growing panic as American parents sought to remove afflicted students such as Ryan White from their childrens' schools. In preparation for a September press conference, Reagan was given talking points advising sympathy for parents and children alike and stressing that there was no danger of AIDS transmission from casual or routine contact. But Reagan had also received a memo from then White House aide and current Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts that flew in the face of scientific consensus:

"I would not like to see the President reassuring the public on this point, only to find out he was wrong later. There is much to commend the view that we should assume AIDS can be transmitted through casual or routine contact, as is true with many viruses, until it is demonstrated that it cannot be, and no scientist has said AIDS definitively cannot be so transmitted."

Instead of reassuring an anxious public and halting growing discrimination, a clearly uncomfortable Reagan told the audience:

"I'm glad I'm not faced with that problem today and I can well understand the plight of the parents and how they feel about it...And yet medicine has not come forth unequivocally and said 'This we know for a fact, that it is safe.' And until they do I think we have to do the best we can with this problem. I can understand both sides of it."

The next day, the head of the Centers for Disease Control and the chief scientists at the National Institutes of Health called a news conference to correct President Reagan's tragic error and confirm that AIDS was a blood-borne sexually transmitted disease not spread by casual contact.

Not wanting to anger his allies on the Christian right when it came to the "gay plague," Reagan remained silent on AIDS throughout most of his presidency. In what would be the first high-impact celebrity intervention among Republicans, it took a plea from Elizabeth Taylor to get Ronald Reagan to deliver a speech at the 1987 meeting of amfAR, the American Foundation for AIDS Research.

With the death of Michael Jackson, the brief intersection of the King of Pop and the future Chief Justice is a passing historical curiosity. As for the prospects for the Voting Rights Act, over which young Reagan lawyer John Roberts claimed "we were burned" and violations of which "should not be made too easy to prove," the Supreme Court this week brought conservatives closer to the day they will "beat it."

The Curious Case of Tom Coburn

2009-06-26T17:28:38Z

Politics, they say, makes strange bedfellows. And perhaps none is stranger than Oklahoma Republican Senator Tom Coburn. As the Washington Post reported today, the tenant of the mysterious "C Street" brownstone was a key player in both the Ensign and Sanford affairs. As it turns out, the arch-conservative Coburn also happens to be a friend and confidante of President Barack Obama.

During his nationally-televised implosion on Wednesday, disgraced South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford made passing reference to "the Fellowship," a secretive Christian group whose $1.8 million DC building is home to several members of Congress of both parties. Asked if his wife and family knew of his affair prior to his latest Argentinian adventure, Sanford responded:

"We've been working through this thing for about the last five months. I've been to a lot of different--as part of what we called "C Street" when I was in Washington. It was, believe it or not, a Christian Bible study--some folks that asked members of Congress hard questions that I think were very, very important. And I've been working with them."

As fate would have it, the C Street house has also been home to Nevada's John Ensign and his Republican colleague turned spiritual and marriage counselor, Tom Coburn. As the Washington Post detailed:

The house pulsed with backstage intrigue, in the days and months before the Sanford and Ensign scandals -- dubbed "two lightning strikes" by a high-ranking congressional source. First, at least one resident learned of both the Sanford and Ensign affairs and tried to talk each politician into ending his philandering, a source close to the congressman said. Then the house drama escalated. It was then that Doug Hampton, the husband of Ensign's mistress, endured an emotional meeting with Sen. Tom Coburn, who lives there, according to the source. The topic was forgiveness.
"He was trying to be a peacemaker," the source said of Coburn, a Republican from Oklahoma.

That the Oklahoman, a stalwart of the religious right, would emerge from central casting to remind his fallen Republican brethren of the word of God is no surprise. That Coburn, who among other extreme views called for the death penalty for abortion providers, is a friend of President Obama is another matter altogether.

As The Hill reported in May, "Here's something you don't see every day: Republican Sen. Tom Coburn (Okla.) stopping by the White House to catch up with his longtime friend, President Obama." Even though Coburn ultimately backed his rival John McCain, "Obama asked him for advice before entering the race, and the two talked periodically during the campaign, with Coburn offering encouraging words during those conversations."

Apparently, the Illinois Senator had Coburn at hello:

"He's just got a great smile," said Coburn, recalling his first interactions with Obama. "He charmed me."
They have worked together in the past, teaming up on lobbying reform and later on a database to keep track of federal spending.

And aside from a devotion to improving government efficiency and transparency, they share a strong faith in God, Coburn said.

"Sometimes there are people you genuinely like and hit it off with personality-wise and you have certain things in common and you accentuate those and you don't pay much attention to what you don't [have in common], and that's the basis of our relationship," said Coburn.

To be sure, what Barack Obama and Tom Coburn have in common isn't much. And with the battle lines drawn over upcoming health care, energy and Sotomayor votes in the Senate, that camaraderie may be tested. Besides, Tom Coburn already has his hands full; he's got two marriages to save.