Yesterday’s DOJ/OPR report on the U.S. Attorney firings implicated Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO) in the firing of U.S. Attorney Todd Graves. “Graves faced opposition from the staff of his home-state senator, Kit Bond, which we concluded likely led to his removal,” the report said. Today, CREW filed an ethics complaint against Bond, citing the following:
Sen. Bond’s office became dissatisfied with Mr. Graves after he refused to intervene in a dispute between Sen. Bond’s office and that of Mr. Graves’s brother, Rep. Sam Graves (R-MO). Mr. Graves told investigators that a member of Sen. Bond’s staff had called him to insist that he use his influence to force Rep. Graves to fire his chief of staff. When Mr. Graves refused, the Bond staffer told him “they could no longer protect his job.”
Update
“I am surprised that any sitting senator would decline to cooperate with an investigation by the Justice Department,” said Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO). “That is a startling position to take.”
Some things must be seen to be believed. If you don’t believe Palin could have said this, you can listen to the video on CBS’s website:
Couric: What’s your position on global warming? Do you believe it’s man-made or not?
Palin: Well, we’re the only Arctic state, of course, Alaska. So we feel the impacts more than any other state, up there with the changes in climates. And certainly, it is apparent. We have erosion issues. And we have melting sea ice, of course. So, what I’ve done up there is form a sub-cabinet to focus solely on climate change. Understanding that it is real. And …
Couric: Is it man-made, though in your view?
Palin: You know there are – there are man’s activities that can be contributed (sic) to the issues that we’re dealing with now, with these impacts. I’m not going to solely blame all of man’s activities on changes in climate. Because the world’s weather patterns are cyclical. And over history we have seen change there. But kind of doesn’t matter at this point, as we debate what caused it. The point is: it’s real; we need to do something about it.
This morning, CNN anchor John Roberts questioned Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) about Gov. Sarah Palin’s statement that the U.S. should go into Pakistan after terrorists, a clear contradiction with McCain’s position that such measures should never be discussed publicly. Roberts asked why McCain called this “gotcha journalism.” McCain responded that the “circumstances were very different.” Roberts asked, “How so?”
I believe it was a town hall meeting that he said it. Hers was an encounter in a pizza parlor where the question was framed, so that of course we’re going to go after terrorists.
Watch it:
McCain is wrong. In fact, at a town hall meeting of his own that same week, Sen. McCain said that he supported an end to mountaintop removal, a position his campaign initially denied. McCain also criticized the construction of new coal plants, saying they “will increase greenhouse gas emissions dramatically.” A week later, at the Clinton Global Initiative, McCain said, “We now know that fossil fuel emissions, by retaining heat within the atmosphere, threaten disastrous changes in climate.”
Unfortunately, no one in the media has challenged McCain on these statements, which strongly imply that McCain considers the continued use of coal “disastrous.”
Earlier this month, on the same day that two of Wall Street’s major banking institutions collapsed, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) told a Florida crowd that he “still” believes “the fundamentals of our economy are strong.” Since then, Congress has worked with the White House to put together bailout legislation for the financial system, but it failed to pass the House yesterday.
Speaking to Rep. Steve King (R-IA) today about his vote against the bailout legislation, right-wing radio host Mike Gallagher argued that the financial situation isn’t “as bad” as people say because “we live in an era of exaggeration.” When Gallagher asked King if he agreed, King said that he did because he thinks “the fundamentals of the economy are sound” like McCain said:
GALLAGHER: But I would maintain that none of this is as bad as the pundits and some of the prognosticators have said it is. Would you agree with that?
KING: Well, I would agree from an economic standpoint. When John McCain said the fundamentals of our economy are sound, really, our unemployment is fairly low.
GALLAGHER: Right.
KING: And that’s one of the indicators. We are, our trade deficit has diminished some, it’s way too much yet it’s diminished some. People out there have jobs, they’re working, the economy’s flowing.
Listen here:
In fact, the fundamentals of the economy, as defined by economicexperts, are not strong. Though King claims that “unemployment is fairly low,” the reality is that the unemployment rate is at a five-year high. King also says “people out there have jobs,” but this ignores the fact that the U.S. lost a total of 605,000 jobs in the first eight months of 2008.
Katie Couric asks Sarah Palin which newspapers she reads and Palin replies “um, all of them.”:
COURIC: But what ones specifically? I’m curious.
PALIN: Um, all of them, any of them that have been in front of me over all these years.
COURIC: Can you name any of them?
PALIN: I have a vast variety of sources where we get our news.
Bizarre. I mostly read The New York Times and secondarily The Washington Post as well as individual articles that I find being recommended by others, with The Wall Street Journal, The Los Angeles Times, The Financial Times, USA Today, and The Guardian coming up frequently. But there are an awful lot of newspapers and even though reading stuff is a big part of my job I certainly don’t read “um, all of them.”
They’re back! I’ve been bombarded by people wanting a comment on the new S&N L.A. Times piece, “The green bubble bursts.” How about “naive and dangerous”?
Shellenberger and Nordhaus get coverage in the media because they are green(ish) recyclers of rubbish. They take piles of garbage (i.e. Republican talking points) and repackage them with some green-sounding lingo and then put their green credentials behind them. I have been ignoring them for a while now, but this piece is high profile and even more outrageous than their typical attacks on the environmental community and Al Gore.
The recycling begins in the first paragraph:
Republicans stole the energy issue from Democrats by proposing expanded drilling — particularly lifting bans on offshore oil drilling — to bring down gasoline prices. Whereas Barack Obama told Americans to properly inflate their tires, Republicans at their convention gleefully chanted “Drill, baby, drill!” Obama’s point on conservation and efficiency was lost on an electorate eager for a solution to what they perceive as a supply crisis.
No, that wasn’t written by Karl Rove, although it sounds like it.
Why would anybody claiming to care about progressive politics or clean energy repeat such a lie? In fact, Obama was asked by a voter what individuals can do to conserve. And Obama stated correctly that measures like proper tire inflation and tuning up your car can save more oil than coast drilling would provide.
To ignore Obama’s entire energy plan and suggest that somehow it can be summed up by “Obama told Americans to properly inflate their tires” is to be nothing more than a cynical GOP shill.
Let’s continue with a stunning series of paragraphs, in which Shellenberger and Nordhaus reveal their policies to be all but indistinguishable from those of global warming delayers:
Tonight on the CBS Evening News, host Katie Couric asked Sarah Palin which sources she relies on for her news consumption. Three separate times, Couric tried to elicit a response from Palin about which specific newspapers she reads. Seemingly caught off guard, Palin could not name a single news source:
COURIC: And when it comes to establishing your world view, I was curious, what newspapers and magazines did you regularly read before you were tapped for this — to stay informed and to understand the world?
PALIN: I’ve read most of them again with a great appreciation for the press, for the media —
COURIC: But what ones specifically? I’m curious.
PALIN: Um, all of them, any of them that have been in front of me over all these years.
COURIC: Can you name any of them?
PALIN: I have a vast variety of sources where we get our news.
Tim Westrich ads additional debunking of the “blame the CRA” myth. He also makes this observation:
Moreover, the Bush administration could have taken steps in this decade to further regulate subprime mortgage practices. It wasn’t until July 14 of this year that the Federal Reserve finally cracked down on “unfair, abusive or deceptive home mortgage lending practices” and restricted “certain other mortgage practices,” power given to it under the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act of 1994. The Fed finally prohibited practices that they had ignored for years, such as so-called “stated-income loans,” in which the lender makes a loan without verifying a borrower’s ability to repay from income and assets, or charging exorbitant prepayment fees.
And even more generally, nobody from the Bush administration said or did anything all throughout 2003, 2004, and 2005 as the housing bubble was building. Not so much, in this case, out of ideological zeal but simply because it was in their political interests to go along with the idea that everything was fine and these increases were sustainable.
In the aftermath of the financial crisis, conservative commentators have blamed the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), low-income people, minorities, and past Democratic administrations for the sub-prime mortgage meltdown:
- Laura Ingraham: “When Bill Clinton decided to tell Robert Rubin to re-write the rules the Community Reinvestment Act and push all of these institutions to lend to minority communities.”
- Neil Cavuto: “I don’t remember a blaring call that said, Frannie and Freddie are a disaster, loaning to minorities and risky folks is a disaster.”
- Gov. Mike Huckabee (R-AR): “It was their harsh regulation under the Community Reinvestment Act that started this ball rolling down the hill.”
Watch a video compilation:
While most economists blame the current crisis on market failure and sparse regulation, conservatives are attempting to elude responsibility by smearing the victims of predatory lending. The Wonk Room has more here.
Yesterday, the Bush administration’s proposed $700 billion bailout was defeated in the House, after the Republican leadership failed to deliver their 70-100 promised votes from the conservative side.
Following the bill’s defeat, congressional conservatives took to the airwaves, explaining what should be included in the legislation in order to persuade other conservatives to vote for it. Their additions: cutting the capital gains tax and cutting corporate taxes. Watch a compilation:
From the beginning of the bailout process, conservatives have been advocating tax cuts, claiming that they will fix the current financial crisis. Today, the Washington Times editorial board reiterated this idea, saying that tax cuts will fix “some of the structural problems behind the mortgage meltdown.”
But these tax-cutting proposals do nothing to address the mortgage crisis and don’t help troubled homeowners. They amount to little more than a conservative hand-out to the wealthy and corporations.
As the Wonk Room has previously noted, most capital gains flow to millionaires. Conservatives argue that a cut in cap gains will cause capital to “flood” into the market again, thus solving the crisis. But as Michael Ettlinger notes, this wouldn’t happen because “this money would have to come from somewhere. If it’s interest bearing accounts, the banks would be hurt by as much as Wall Street benefited.”
As for corporate taxes, the U.S. rate is already in line with the G-7 average, and the U.S. raises below the OECD average in corporate tax revenue. An analysis by the Center for American Progress found that corporate profits do not trickle-down, and thus giving corporations tax breaks would not alleviate any of the pressure on the economy.
The legislation that failed to pass yesterday was already short on provisions actively aimed at helping those facing foreclosures. Any restructuring of the bill should address that shortfall – and focus on the root of the crisis – instead of turning the legislation into a gift for corporations and the richest Americans.
UPDATE: On Hardball today, former Rep. Tom Delay proposed suspending the capital gains tax for two years. Host Chris Matthews responded by saying “you guys have wanted that forever…you’re going to reward the people that blew it.” Watch it:
Sen. Bond’s office became dissatisfied with Mr. Graves after he refused to intervene in a dispute between Sen. Bond’s office and that of Mr. Graves’s brother, Rep. Sam Graves (R-MO). Mr. Graves told investigators that a member of Sen. Bond’s staff had called him to insist that he use his influence to force Rep. Graves to fire his chief of staff. When Mr. Graves refused, the Bond staffer told him “they could no longer protect his job.”
Earlier this month, on the same day that two of Wall Street’s major banking institutions 
