There's a short note today in Slate on Louis Freeh by yours truly ... errr, Talking Points.
There's a short note today in Slate on Louis Freeh by yours truly ... errr, Talking Points.
Hi. I'm Harvey. And I was in the wrong place at the wrong time...
I don't know if Harvey Pitt has uttered these words in the last few days. But he should ... especially if he can find the meeting place of the DC twelve-step group for political appointees who through a mix of cruel fate and poetic justice are about to receive the Washington equivalent of a vicious melvin and a two-minute-plus swirly.
If you're harboring any doubts about whether the corporate corruption scandal has political legs, take a gander at Mr. Pitt and watch your doubts melt away. As nearly as I can tell Tom Daschle, Nancy Pelosi, John McCain and just about every other politician who can get a reporter on the phone is now calling for Pitt to resign. And even the administration's defenders are a bit tepid in their defenses.
Pitt is, in a word, toxic -- as welcome at your political fundraiser as a handfull of plutonium. He's the poster boy for the hot political evil of the day. And everyone and their uncle wants to call for his resignation because there's absolutely no political downside to it.
Got any names of politicians who called on Tom White to resign? Nope? I didn't think so.
Don't get me wrong. I don't have much sympathy for Pitt. But the calls for his resignation don't seem to have much to do with anything he's actually done. Or at least not anything he's done since the Senate (if I recall right, unanimously) confirmed him as head of the Securities and Exchange Commission.
The problem for Pitt is that his calling card was the proposition that the SEC was simply too harsh on corporate America and that anti-business busybodies like Pitt's predecessor Arthur Levitt needed to just give the CEOs a *$%#*%* break and let them get about the business of doing the right thing without so much un-fun big government oversight. Now of course we know that at just the time Pitt was parading these views corporate America was actually becoming a Hieronymus Bosch painting of fraud, skullduggery and 'aggressive accounting,' and that, if anything, the SEC hadn't done nearly enough to make folks behave.
That of course makes Harvey Pitt into something like the Neville Chamberlain of corporate governance. And when you consider that even Neville Chamberlain wasn't really quite Neville Chamberlain that's actually saying quite a lot.
In any case, Pitt is really no better or worse than the entire administration. He's a pretty good advocate of what was -- until a few weeks ago -- the administration's stance on corporate government and oversight. Watching Pitt accuse Arthur Levitt of going too easy on CEO shenanigans is more than a touch comic. But it's no more a case of ideological cross-dressing than what the president is going to try to pull off tomorrow. He's just first in line to get the treatment.
More bad news for anyone who puts much stock in the truth-telling abilities of the OMB. TPM regulars will remember the controversy over an inaccurate statistic in a recent OMB press release, and the resulting brouhaha involving Messrs. Krugman, Kaus and, I suppose, TPM.
On Tuesday I questioned whether even the follow-up letter from the OMB -- the one calling Krugman to task -- may have contained some inaccuracies or falsehoods. Now Brendan Nyhan of Spinsanity/Salon has the goods.
The complaining letter to the Times itself contained a statistical inaccuracy. More damningly though, the claim that the original inaccurate data had been "retracted weeks ago" turns out to be utterly bogus. And in this case, unlike the others, this is clearly a fudge or a lie, not a slip-up.
When OMB Communications Director Trent Duffy wrote the Times he said the error had been corrected "weeks ago" to underscore the sheer extent of Krugman's irresponsibility and tendentiousness. On Tuesday I said this sounded very unlikely. And yesterday Nyhan got Duffy to admit that OMB had only erased the false number from the document on July 26th, after the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities publicly called them on the error, a mere five days earlier. And they didn't issue an actual retraction until last night, after Nyhan called them on the error about the error.
Live by the honesty card, die by the honesty card.
A few weeks back I reported -- and took a little heat for reporting -- that South Dakota's closely-watched Thune-Johnson Senate race might be looking a bit better for Tim Johnson than some people in DC realized. The upshot of the post was that key Republicans in DC weren't entirely sure Thune's team was up to snuff, or at least up to taking on the campaign team Tom Daschle ... errr, I mean, Tim Johnson had put together.
One of DC's sharpest political observers subsequently told me that he thought it was less that Thune's team was weak than that Johnson's team was just so strong, the strongest campaign team in any Democratic campaign in the country, perhaps any campaign in either party. But, whether in relative terms or absolute ones, I stick by the story.
In any case, since then there have been a run of small news items in the state that have make it look like the Johnson campaign might be a bit stronger than some outside the state realized. In recent weeks the Thune campaign has opened up with a fusillade of negative ads. The Johnson folks ran them too. But mainly stuff from outside groups and in any case, not to the same extent.
More recently rumors have spread through the state that the Thune campaign's most recent internal polling had him behind Johnson for the first time ever. Not by much. Well within the margin of error. But behind.
Now, I haven't been able to get to the bottom of those rumors. Republicans officials have denied it to me flatly, if not altogether convincingly. But today the Sioux Fall's Argus Leader reports that a new Johnson campaign internal poll (which of course they've obligingly released) has Johnson up by two points -- 49% to 47%. That's the first poll that's ever had Johnson ahead in this race, to the best of my knowledge.
Now, a few necessary points. This a hardly a big lead. In fact, it's statistically insignificant, since it's in the margin of error. But put it together with the run of polls over recent months and it's hard not to get the impression that Johnson has the momentum in this race. That may explain that round of negative ads from Thune.
One other point about the poll deserves mention. More striking than the tightness of this race is the extremely small percentage of undecideds. Here's why this is important. Many Republicans have looked at this race and said that Johnson's in trouble because he's not over 50%. Normally, this would be true: Incumbents who poll under 50% are by definition in trouble because the voters know the incumbent and polling under 50% means most voters don't think the incumbent deserves reelection. They're just not sure they're willing to take a chance on the challenger. But history says most opt to take that chance.
Democrats have argued that this logic doesn't apply in this case. Their reasoning is that Johnson and Thune are really both incumbents since Johnson represents the whole state in the Senate and Thune currently represents the whole state in the House. That's a pretty good argument. And this poll, I think, tends to show that it's also true.
Isn't it obvious why Al Gore blew off the DLC cattle-call in New York last week? I suspect it has nothing to do with Nader or cross feelings about Al From. Gore's the eight hundred pound gorilla of the Democratic field. The most important question about the 2004 primary race is whether or not he runs. Gore was able to dominate the event simply by blowing it off.
Going to the event only would have pulled him down to the level of the other half dozen chirping monkeys who did tricks for the attention of the New Dem faithful. That would have generated news stories about how the one-time heir-apparent had to duke it out with the likes of John Edwards for another go at the presidency.
Going to the event would have diminished him. Simple as that.
America's political leadership is about to face a devilishly difficult question. Assume that you believe, as I do, that deposing Saddam Hussein by force is in America's national interest. Under the present circumstances, believing this forces upon you a second question which is in many ways more difficult than the first.
Here is how I would frame the question: Is it possible that regime change by force is the right thing to do, but that this administration is inclined to do it in such a reckless, ill-conceived and possibly disastrous manner that, under these circumstances, it is better not to do it at all?
This is a question I've recently been asking myself. And I don't find it easy to answer.
There are many problems in how the administration is approaching this. My chief worry is how they would handle the aftermath, specifically the nation-building. Everyone who's thought this through believes that success will require a long-term committment of a robust and quite American peace-keeping force. The phrase peace-keeping really doesn't quite do it justice. What you're talking about is really an army of occupation and reconstruction -- more on the order of post-war Germany or Japan, than Bosnia or Kosovo. Ideally a substantial number of these troops would come from NATO and other well-situated Muslim countries. But a dominant US presence would be required to make the whole thing work.
Unfortunately, it is very difficult to suppose that the Bush administration has the stomach for an operation of such scope or duration. Very difficult. In what has to be one of the best -- perhaps the best -- piece written on the Iraq questoin, Fareed Zakaria makes the point eloquently. "The administrationâs actions in Afghanistan are not an encouraging sign, where an ideal, moderate, pro-Western leader, Hamid Karzai, is being slowly destroyed largely because the Pentagon will not extend security protection outside Kabul." If the administration won't deign to nation-build in Afghanistan, where it could be done with little expense in lives or treasure, how likely would it be to do so in post-war Iraq where it would be expensive by almost every measure? The question answers itself.
Such quibbles can easily become the cavils of choice for those who don't quite want to be against an Iraq war but don't really want to support one either. But for those who do support the idea, the Bush administration's approach is a big problem.
More postcards from the responsibility era.
When President Bush was at the West Point commencement on June 1st he pulled aside Army Secretary Tom White and told him: "As long as they're hitting you on Enron, they're not hitting me. That's your job. You're the lightning rod for this administration."
So says a dynamite new article in the soon-to-be-released new issue of the Washington Monthly.
Ari, this is Houston. We have a problem ...
Saturday's Post has more disturbing information about the leaks probe on Capitol Hill. Everything about this probe shows why the FBI should never have been allowed to conduct even such a low-grade form of congressional witch-hunt. Leaks of classified information abound. The administration picked this one to become exercised about -- for no clear reason, or at least no distinguishing reason. The Chairmen far too quickly caved in to the administration's bullying.
John McCain seems to have it right. "What you have here is an organization compiling dossiers on people who are investigating the same organization," he told the Post. That's exactly right. And there is little, very little about the FBI that's gives you any confidence they can trusted with such a task.
There's something very wrong going on here. The attitudes the administration brought to handling criminals and alien detainees are seeping into the way it treats other branches of the government, even if it is now only slightly and at the margins. It's not simply that the administration is indifferent to civil liberties, there is a contempt for constitutional propriety. They seem to believe that 9/11 frees them from any concern with precedent or discretion.
Everyone who pays any attention to politics has long known that back in his days as a Texas oil man President Bush failed upwards through a series of business transactions -- at least one of which looks quite similar, albeit on a far smaller scale, to what WorldCom and Enron got caught doing. Only now, with all the dust kicked up over corporate malfeasance, does it fit into a larger framework with political bite.
As DC Democrats and Republicans are realizing, this has legs. And a soon-to-be-released article contains some as-yet-undisclosed and, I think, very embarrassing statements from the president which will give the story even more steam.
Check back with TPM tomorrow for some choice examples.