Month: March 2007

Boo Hoo

by digby

I think I followed the impeachment saga about as closely as an average citizen could. I was so shocked and appalled I made some personal enemies with my vehement opposition to what was obviously an undemocratic usurpation of the constitution against the will of the people. You didn’t have to be clairvoyant to know that it was a partisan feeding frenzy that portended the illegal abuse of power that we are seeing today.

And I knew all about Newtie, or at least I thought I did. His immature peevishness was obvious, as that famous Daily News cover shows. But even though I am pretty well informed about this period, I was unaware of this piece that I came across this morning, written in 1998 by a very well-connected journalist for whom I have the utmost respect, Elizabeth Drew:

BARRING a miraculous turn of events — such as a Democratic sweep of the November elections, which nobody expects, or even a draw, which also isn’t expected — President Clinton will be impeached by the House. It will happen because House Republicans, led by Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., are determined that he be impeached, and also because the Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee have already passed the point of no return. It will happen because the ever-stronger Republican base, the Christian Right, demands that it happen, and few Republicans will risk crossing them. This is more important to most Republicans than the president’s job approval ratings.

Some Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee jumped out early for making perjury — whatever the subject — an impeachable offense, without appearing to give the matter much thought. In 1974, what constituted impeachment was considered a solemn subject, and the then-Judiciary Committee members spent nearly a year before deciding. The bar is being lowered dramatically — and dangerously.

As of now the House leadership’s plan is that before Congress adjourns for the elections, the House committee will vote on — inevitably in favor of — a resolution to begin a formal impeachment inquiry; the inquiry would perhaps begin before the elections. After the elections, the committee would vote articles of impeachment, and the House would approve the articles (or article) before the end of the year, maybe even before Thanksgiving.

Gone, apparently, is the insistence of Rep. Henry Hyde, R-Ill., the committee’s chairman, that impeachment must be bipartisan. And Gingrich’s statement a month ago that “only a pattern of felonies” and not “a single human mistake” should constitute grounds for an impeachment inquiry. (When Gingrich made this statement, he assumed — as did a lot of people — that Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr would come up with a report charging a broad pattern of obstruction of justice on the part of the Clintons.)

Gingrich, the moving spirit behind the current strategy — shared by the other House leaders — is driven, according to colleagues, in some substantial part by vengeance. Not against Clinton. Not against what he might see as serious offenses. A major motivation for Gingrich, these people say, is his lasting resentment of his treatment by the House ethics committee. (After a long investigation, the committee in January 1997 voted to reprimand Gingrich for use of tax-exempt foundations for political purposes and recommended a financial penalty for providing “inaccurate information” to the committee, causing a lengthened investigation. The House voted its agreement on Jan. 21.)

Gingrich feels that the process against him was unfair, that even the Republicans on the ethics committee didn’t protect him from the Democrats, who were on a tear, so why should he protect the president? This is an unusual rationale for proceeding to impeach a president.

The various establishmentarians’ efforts to put together a deal notwithstanding, Gingrich and the other Republican leaders, including Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., have no interest in letting Democrats off the hook before the elections, or even in talking about a deal before the House has voted to impeach.

“They are discussing it as casually,” says one prominent Republican, “as if they were talking about passing a highway bill and saying `let the Senate fix it.’ “

This fits with Gingrich’s m.o. He was known for his petulance and childishness. You’ll recall that after the election that fall, Gingrich was finally tossed out by his own people. But I honestly did not know that the drive to impeach Bill Clinton was motivated in part by Gingrich’s hurt feelings over the ethics committee probe. It’s so like him.

Run, Newt, Run.

An Inconvenient Gasbag

by digby

On his widely syndicated radio talk show Thursday, Rush referred to those who accept global warming as fact as, “environmentalist wackos.” Sure Rush, the scientific community at large, as well as the Bush administration, are all environmentalist wackos. He then went on to address “some guy” aka John Kostyack of the National Wildlife Federation, as well as the environmental movement as a whole, with the following: “you are all wrong, and whether you know it or not, you are lying to your audiences.” In a further attempt to somehow make himself look even more ridiculous than he already does, Rush also claimed that the habitat of polar bears is not shrinking.

Here’s what he said:

Polar bears can swim 100 miles. They aren’t like us. We might be “stranded” on an ice floe if there’s no land nearby, and we had no helicopter and no jet ski. We might be in trouble, but they’re polar bears, and they can live in icy cold water by design. They love it. Have you ever been to the polar bear exhibit at the Central Park Zoo? I went to the polar bear exhibit, Central Park Zoo in June and it was scorching hot and one of the polar bears was nowhere to be seen. The other polar bear was outside and the zoo people had to come in with giant blocks of ice every hour or so for the polar bear to lay on. You talk about cruelty. Who’s doing more to hurt polar bears: the Central Park Zoo putting them out there in June in 100 degree temperature needing blocks of ice, or where they’re living, thriving naturally on these ice sculptures made by waves that had nothing to do with global warming or a melting glacier? It was so utterly false and propaganda — and here’s Sam Champion now on Good Morning America doing a story on how we’re killing the polar bears.

CHAMPION: The polar bear for many has become a living symbol of the dangers of global warming. The powerful kings of the arctic are finding their habitat shrinking.

RUSH: They’re not!

[…]

RUSH: The ozone is not being depleted. We’re not cooking because of it. You’re freezing your tush out there in Hartford. Aren’t you curious about how this is happening?

CALLER: No, I’m not looking at… I think the science has looked at centuries, not March 8. It is cold today.

RUSH: Records only go back 150 years in this temperature business. That’s another thing that’s fraudulent. Look, if you want to talk about the pollution coming from Ohio, please don’t leave out the pollution coming your way from China.

CALLER: Oh, absolutely.

RUSH: Well, okay.

CALLER: Absolutely.

RUSH: China is not guilty of anything! They’re not even subject to any restrictions based on the Kyoto treaty. This is all aimed at the United States, but the vast majority of CO2, which is the number one greenhouse effect gas, occurs naturally: water vapor and other natural sources. Automobiles, these smokestacks in Ohio? (I told you people that they hate you in Ohio in the Northeast.) Four percent of green house gas is manmade.

And 100% of political gas is Rush-made.

The National Wildlife Foundation has some words for Dr. Limbaugh:

Unfortunately for Rush, the facts are on our side:

1) NASA photos and documentation showing a steady decline in polar sea ice since at least the 1970s.

2) The scientific community, as evidenced by the IPCC (pdf), has reached a consensus that it is “very likely” that global warming is caused by human emissions.

3) The National Snow and Ice Date Center: “If current rates of decline in sea ice continue, the summertime Arctic could be completely ice-free well before the end of this century.” Click here to see a graph depicting this decline between 1978 and 2005.

You can take action on this now by contacting U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director Dale Hall and informing him you are among the majority that supports the proposal to list the polar bear as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. The Fish and Wildlife Service is only taking public comments on this until April 9th so it is essential that you make your voice heard immediately!

Please distribute this message broadly and freely. The best way to counteract the work of global warming deniers is to let the truth spread like wildfire.

.

The Screaming Minority

by digby

I hope that nobody gets the idea that Newt Gingrich’s comments to James Dobson exposing him as a rank hypocrite are going to mean anything to the Christian Right. They have proven that they are remarkably flexible when it comes to the personal morality of Republican leaders. If they repent for what they’ve done, they are forgiven, no harm no foul. (See most recently, Mark Foley.)

When it comes to Democrats, you have a very, very different story.

Here’s Dobson in September of 1999:

As with many Christians around the country, Shirley and I have been in prayer for our leaders in government who must deal with the fallout from this scandal. They will need great wisdom and discernment in the days ahead. Our most serious concern, however, is not with those in Washington; it is with the American people. What has alarmed me throughout this episode has been the willingness of my fellow citizens to rationalize the President’s behavior even after they suspected, and later knew, that he was lying. Because the economy is strong, millions of people have said infidelity in the Oval Office is just a private affair–something between himself and Hillary. We heard it time and again during those months: “As long as Mr. Clinton is doing a good job, it’s nobody’s business what he does with his personal life.”

That disregard for morality is profoundly disturbing to me. Although sexual affairs have occurred often in high places, the public has never approved of such misconduct. But today, the rules by which behavior is governed appear to have been rewritten specifically for Mr. Clinton.

[…]

How did our beloved nation find itself in this sorry mess? I believe it began not with the Lewinsky affair, but many years earlier. There was plenty of evidence during the first Presidential election that Bill Clinton had a moral problem. His affair with Gennifer Flowers, which he now admits to having lied about, was rationalized by the American people. He lied about dodging the draft, and then concocted an incredulous explanation that changed his story. He visited the Soviet Union and other hostile countries during the Vietnam War, claiming that he was only an “observer.” Numerous sources reported that he organized and participated in anti-war rallies in the United States, Great Britain, and Norway. Clinton evaded questions about whether he had used marijuana, and then finally offered his now-infamous “I didn’t inhale” response. There were other indications that Bill Clinton was untruthful and immoral. Why, then, did the American people ignore so many red flags? Because, and I want to give the greatest emphasis to this point, the mainstream media became enamored with Bill Clinton in 1992 and sought to convince the American people that “character doesn’t matter.”

[…]

It is obvious that the media now realizes they misled the American people. Most of the largest and most influential newspapers in the country are calling for Clinton’s resignation. Maureen Dowd, writing in The New York Times, said, “Mr. Clinton has killed something worthy and important in public life. All this carnage, and for what? To cover up some seamy sexcapades? His game has grown exhausting.”

[…]

As it turns out, character DOES matter. You can’t run a family, let alone a country, without it. How foolish to believe that a person who lacks honesty and moral integrity is qualified to lead a nation and the world! Nevertheless, our people continue to say that the President is doing a good job even if they don’t respect him personally. Those two positions are fundamentally incompatible. In the Book of James the question is posed, “Can both fresh water and salt water flow from the same spring” (James 3:11 NIV). The answer is no.

[…]

Well, that brings me back to the issue with which we began. The American people have now heard the President’s dramatic confession of adultery. There is no longer any reason to speculate, and yet, the media reports that the majority continues to believe “it doesn’t matter.” At one point during the shocking revelations last month, Clinton’s public approval rating approached 70 percent! I just don’t understand it. Why aren’t parents more concerned about what their children are hearing about the President’s behavior? Are moms and dads not embarrassed by what is occurring? At any given time, 40 percent of the nation’s children list the President of the United States as the person they most admire. What are they learning from Mr. Clinton? What have we taught our boys about respecting women? What have our little girls learned about men? How can we estimate the impact of this scandal on future generations? How in the world can 7 out of 10 Americans continue to say that nothing matters except a robust economy?

I am left to conclude from these opinions that our greatest problem is not in the Oval Office. It is with the people of this land! We have lost our ability to discern the difference between right and wrong…Clearly, this nation has been blessed because it was based on a commitment to biblical morality. But that is changing. Eleven years ago, Gary Hart was forced to withdraw from the Presidential race after a brief tryst, and yet the majority today seems to find nothing wrong with behavior that is too disgusting to be reported on the evening news.

We are facing a profound moral crisis — not only because one man has disgraced us — but because our people no longer recognize the nature of evil. And when a nation reaches that state of depravity — judgment is a certainty.

Keep in mind that Clinton had publicly expressed remorse and asked for forgiveness numerous times at this point. He did everything but crawl down Pennsylvania avenue flagellating himself with a cat-o-nine-tails. The Christian Dobson would have none of it.

Like his soul-mate Joe Lieberman, his concern was not really with the alleged legal transgressions but rather with Clinton’s inherent bad character and the “evil” message it sent to the nation to have an admitted adulterer leading the nation.

He wasn’t alone.
Here’s more from a Christian Coalition meeting during the Lewinsky scandal:

At this year’s convention, which ends on Sunday, the group’s leaders used the Clinton scandal as the ultimate evidence that Washington was in need of a restoration of ”family values.”

”Character matters, and the American people are hungry for that message,” said Mr. Reed, the coalition’s former executive director and now a private political consultant. ”We care about the conduct of our leaders, and we will not rest until we have leaders of good moral character.”

I know. I know.

It’s possible that these people will reject Newt Gingrich and Rudy Giuliani for the same “moral” reasons they condemned Clinton. But I very much doubt it. Dobson and Falwell and all these guys are hucksters and the people who follow them either have no moral consistency or they are shallow and insincere. Oh, they’ll find some lame rationale, as all Republicans do, but it’s long been clear that the only thing that matters to them is that the candidate be a member in good standing of the tribe and that they pay tribute to the High Priests.

I continue to wonder when the Democratic establishment is going to recognize that the Christian Right is run by a bunch of powerful phonies and that this small slice of the American electorate has been the tail that very cleverly wagged the dog of American politics for far too long.

These people will very likely back Newt in my opinion. He’s a real member of the right wing tribal leadership. And if they get behind him, he may win the nomination. Newt Gingrich is one of the most unlikeable politicians in America.

Run, Newt, run.

Update: Here’s Falwell today:

I was pleased to hear Mr. Gingrich state: “I’ve gotten on my knees and sought God’s forgiveness.”

He has admitted his moral shortcomings to me, as well, in private conversations. And he has also told me that he has, in recent years, come to grips with his personal failures and sought God’s forgiveness.

I have been very impressed with the spiritual maturity of this man and am convinced that he has been honest and forthright in clarifying his past failings and his quest, as a Christian, for God’s forgiveness.

Mr. Gingrich, now 63 and a grandfather, openly discussed his two divorces with Dr. Dobson, including the affair that took place during the Clinton impeachment proceedings. It is a “very painful topic and I confess that to you directly,” he stated.

As a pastor with more than a half-century of experience of working with fallible people, I have ministered to a few men who have experienced moral collapse. I have usually been able to tell which of these men was genuinely seeking forgiveness for their actions. My sense tells me that Mr. Gingrich is such a man. He is today happily married to wife Callista, and committed to be the husband he should be.

I well remember the challenge we evangelicals faced in 1980 when our candidate, Ronald Reagan, was the first presidential candidate who had gone through a divorce. We wisely made allowance for God’s forgiveness and America was the beneficiary of this historic champion.

Consequently, I decided earlier this week to invite Mr. Gingrich to come to Liberty University on May 19 as our graduation speaker. This will be his second commencement speech at Liberty, previously addressing graduates in 1991.

In recent years, Mr. Gingrich has dedicated much of his time to calling America back to our Christian heritage.

His most recent book, “Rediscovering God in America,” is a brilliant essay that highlights the unique and obvious Christian influence that inspired our nation’s dawning. The book takes readers on a tour of Washington, D.C., inspecting many documents, memorials, friezes and writings of presidents and national leaders who clearly put allegiance to Almighty God at the forefront of the nation’s development.

There has been a war on God in our nation in recent years and the effort to rekindle our national commitment to God is urgently needed.

Mr. Gingrich is certainly one of the brightest men I know in public life today, and he is becoming one of our great ambassadors for reawakening the spirit of our Founders.

In fact, his topic during the May 19 graduation will be, “Rediscovering God in America.” I am already anxious to hear it and am pleased that our young people will hear this modern American statesman.

I’m proud to call Mr. Gingrich my friend and I will continue to pray for him and his family as he contemplates a run for the presidency and as he deals with the coming media scrutiny of his past, present and future.

.

Republican Stroke Thyself

by poputonian

WASHINGTON (AP) — Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich was having an extramarital affair even as he led the charge against President Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky affair, he acknowledged in an interview with a conservative Christian group.

“The honest answer is yes,” Gingrich, a potential 2008 Republican presidential candidate, said in an interview with Focus on the Family founder James Dobson to be aired Friday, according to a transcript provided to The Associated Press.

“There are times that I have fallen short of my own standards. There’s certainly times when I’ve fallen short of God’s standards.”

Gingrich argued in the interview, however, that he should not be viewed as a hypocrite for pursuing Clinton’s infidelity.

“The president of the United States got in trouble for committing a felony in front of a sitting federal judge,” the former Georgia congressman said of Clinton’s 1998 House impeachment on perjury and obstruction of justice charges.

“I drew a line in my mind that said, ‘Even though I run the risk of being deeply embarrassed, and even though at a purely personal level I am not rendering judgment on another human being, as a leader of the government trying to uphold the rule of law, I have no choice except to move forward and say that you cannot accept … perjury in your highest officials.”

A new word for the lexicon:

typocrite (‘tip-uh-krit noun): A typical Republican hypocrite.

1 : a typical Republican who fakes good by putting on a false appearance of virtue or religion
2 : a typical Republican who fakes good but acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings
3 : a typical Republican whose need for self-gratificaton extends to the public sphere

Surprise, surprise

by digby

Krugman:

For those of us living in the Garden State, the growing scandal over the firing of federal prosecutors immediately brought to mind the subpoenas that Chris Christie, the former Bush “Pioneer” who is now the U.S. attorney for New Jersey, issued two months before the 2006 election — and the way news of the subpoenas was quickly leaked to local news media.

The subpoenas were issued in connection with allegations of corruption on the part of Senator Bob Menendez, a Democrat who seemed to be facing a close race at the time. Those allegations appeared, on their face, to be convoluted and unconvincing, and Mr. Menendez claimed that both the investigation and the leaks were politically motivated.

Mr. Christie’s actions might have been all aboveboard. But given what we’ve learned about the pressure placed on federal prosecutors to pursue dubious investigations of Democrats, Mr. Menendez’s claims of persecution now seem quite plausible.

In fact, it’s becoming clear that the politicization of the Justice Department was a key component of the Bush administration’s attempt to create a permanent Republican lock on power. Bear in mind that if Mr. Menendez had lost, the G.O.P. would still control the Senate.

[…]

The bigger scandal, however, almost surely involves prosecutors still in office. The Gonzales Eight were fired because they wouldn’t go along with the Bush administration’s politicization of justice. But statistical evidence suggests that many other prosecutors decided to protect their jobs or further their careers by doing what the administration wanted them to do: harass Democrats while turning a blind eye to Republican malfeasance.

Donald Shields and John Cragan, two professors of communication, have compiled a database of investigations and/or indictments of candidates and elected officials by U.S. attorneys since the Bush administration came to power. Of the 375 cases they identified, 10 involved independents, 67 involved Republicans, and 298 involved Democrats. The main source of this partisan tilt was a huge disparity in investigations of local politicians, in which Democrats were seven times as likely as Republicans to face Justice Department scrutiny.

[…]

And let’s not forget that Karl Rove’s candidates have a history of benefiting from conveniently timed federal investigations. Last year Molly Ivins reminded her readers of a curious pattern during Mr. Rove’s time in Texas: “In election years, there always seemed to be an F.B.I. investigation of some sitting Democrat either announced or leaked to the press. After the election was over, the allegations often vanished.”

This little gambit has the mark of Rove all over it. The Arkansas crony was his little house boy. He even made the mistake of defending the decisions today and drawing himself into it publicly.

It’s long past time for Bush Brain to testify before congress, don’t you think?

(And why are the taxpayers still paying his salary? I don’t think he has any more elections to steal. Isn’t it time for him to spend some time with ihis family?)

.

.

Republican Amnesia Syndrome

by digby

So, the post by Michael Barone that so many of us were agog over this morning is allegedly a hoax:

This is weird. Earlier today I linked to a supposed post by Michael Barone attacking the Bush administration over the fired attorneys scandal. It certainly seemed out of character, given the tone of Barone’s commentary over recent years. Some readers have been pointing out that though the post itself shows up on the specific URL, it doesn’t show up on the main blog page. The post in question very much seems to reside on the US News website. It’s not an instance of spoofing. But Michael Barone has confirmed to Andrew Sullivan that he did not write the post. According to Sullivan, relaying on Barone I assume, a hacker got into Barone’s site and inserted the post.

Here’s what Michael Barone told Sullivan:

“I’m pretty sure I haven’t commented on the firing of the U.S. attorneys. I really haven’t looked into it enough to be able to comment knowledgeably.”

Rather bizarre way of denying it, don’t you think?

I may not always remember what I’ve written, but I always remember what I wrote today.

Very strange.

Action Items

by digby

Here are a couple of things for you to do before the end of the day:

From Barbara Boxer:

There may be no single person who has done more for our environment than Al Gore. That’s why I’m so pleased that Vice President Gore has accepted my invitation to testify before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on March 21st! And I want you to help me give him the warmest welcome possible.

Please sign my online thank you card to Al Gore now — so I can personally deliver it to him when he comes to testify later this month!

Here’s one from Dick Durbin:

Don’t Pardon Scooter Libby!

Recently, Lewis “Scooter” Libby was found guilty of obstructing justice and lying under oath during an investigation of the Administration’s role in the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame.

Now, some are saying that the White House is considering pardoning Scooter Libby for his role in this mess. That would be a terrible decision, and I hope you’ll join me in speaking out against it.

Tell President Bush to respect the findings of the jury — Don’t Pardon Scooter Libby!

Indeed.

(Matthews, by the way, had the juror back this afternoon, saying that she thinks it’s fine if Bush pardons Libby. Denis Connor pretty much said the same thing here. Michael Smerconish rightly pointed out that they are giving Bush exactly the cover he needs to pardon Libby. It occurs to me that all that weepy nonsense from Wells wasn’t for the trial after all, but rather to build this kind of sympathy for the aftermath.)

Check out this fine decision by PoliticsTV (the fine folks who brought you the Jane and Marcy show during the Libby trial) to not prostitute themselves for FOX. Very nicely done.

Finally, if you overate at lunch and feel the need to purge, you might want to head over to TBOGG’s place to watch this excruciating Michele Malkin video, which I assume is indicative of the kind of “humor” she will be sharing with the FOX audience on her new program “It’s Out There.” Let’s just say that Stephen Colbert doesn’t have anything to worry about. (For that matter, the freshman improv class at Santa Monica High doesn’t have anything to worry about.)

.

Loving Rudy Out Of The Race

by digby

Atrios says:

Rudy’s going to try to make this an issue of family privacy, but to the extent his ex-wife and estranged son want to talk about the issue it’s unclear what the hell that actually has to do with anything.

True, but we already know how this will be handled by Rudy and the right wing. They will follow the Cheneys gay daughter formula. If anyone brings it up, Rudy and his followers will immediately growl in the impudent reporter’s face about the invasion of privacy, even if the kids and the ex are out there stumping for Hillary. They will further go out and condemn any Democrat who brings it up saying “this is not a gooood man.” The press will be flummoxed and drop it. So will the Democrats. The wingnuts and the Christian Right will ignore it just as they self-servingly ignored Cheney’s glaring hypocrisy about his daughter.

The Republican base does not really care about social conservatism. It just hates liberals. This is something people have not yet come to terms with.

The Democrats need to make it unpalatable for the base to accept Rudy for other reasons than his personal behavior, which they don’t really care about. For instance, the conservative base would be very unhappy with Rudy if gay groups gave him an award for his open and tolerant attitude. It’s not that they care that he’s worn more ugly evening gowns than Celine Dion. But they just can’t stand anyone that liberals like.

Therefore, I wholeheartedly welcome Rudy into the race because he proves that the culture war is over and that we no longer have to worry about it. I congratulate the Republicans for their new found embrace of social tolerance and progressive values. If they are willing to nominate a man who looks like this, then I think we have to admit that they have come a long way.

Welcome to our big tent, Republicans. Come over here and let all us liberals give you a great big kiss.

.

Stop The Presses!!!

by digby

The Boston Globe has a blockbuster story on its hands:

Obama paid late parking tickets
Racked up penalties while at Harvard

By David Abel, Globe Staff | March 8, 2007

Barack Obama is no longer a scofflaw, at least in Cambridge and Somerville.

Two weeks before the US senator from Illinois launched his presidential campaign, he paid parking tickets he received while attending Harvard Law School, officials said yesterday.

Obama received 17 parking tickets in Cambridge between 1988 and 1991, according to the city’s Traffic, Parking & Transportation Department.

Of those tickets, he paid only two while he was a student and paid them late, said Susan Clippinger, the office’s director.

In January, about when the Globe began asking local officials about Obama’s time at Harvard, including any violations of local laws, someone representing the senator called the parking office to inquire about the decades-old tickets.

On Jan. 26, the remaining $375 in fines and fees were paid by credit card using the city’s website, Clippinger said. She said she didn’t know who paid them.

“I think it’s fabulous he finally paid them,” Clippinger said by phone yesterday. “I think others who owe us money should pay us, too.”

Jen Psaki, a spokeswoman for the Obama campaign, said last night that the senator paid for the tickets out of a personal account.

She would not comment on why it had taken him so long to pay the tickets and fees. “All I can do is confirm that he paid all the tickets and late fees in full,” she said.

Clippinger said her records show that Obama received the tickets between Oct. 5, 1988, and Jan. 12, 1990, for violations including parking in a resident-only area, blocking a bus stop, and failing to put money in meters.

He received most of the tickets in fall 1988, in his first year at Harvard Law School, a grueling trial for many of the students. A meter violation then cost only $5; the penalty for not paying promptly tacked on another $15. At times, he received multiple tickets in the same day for exceeding the time limit at a meter.

In total, he incurred $140 in fines and $260 in late fees. In February 1990, he paid two of the tickets, one for $10 and the other for $15.

“He’s certainly not our worst ticket scofflaw,” Clippinger said. “Unfortunately, it’s not that abnormal. It’s actually pretty run of the mill.”

Obama’s payment of the Cambridge tickets was reported yesterday by The Somerville News.

The Globe reported in January that in Somerville, where Obama lived while attending Harvard, the senator still owed the city $73 in excise taxes and $45 in late penalties for parking in a bus stop in 1990 and in a street-sweeping zone in 1991. Both of the tickets had been paid.

Tom Champion, a spokesman for the city of Somerville, said he called Obama’s office after receiving a query about the late fees from the Globe in late January.

It’s not so much that he had parking tickets. It’s what it says about the character of the man. Anyone who gets that many parking tickets shows that he can’t be bothered to follow the normal rules. And the more people dig into Obama’s past the more of these shady dealings come to light. Sure, each story may be trivial in itself. But when you add them up a picture begins to emerge of a spoiled, somewhat corrupt young politician “cutting corners” while he’s pretending to be a man of the people. (And would all these major papers waste resources on something that isn’t important? I think not.)

I hope the Globe puts at least one more reporter full time on this parking ticket story. Who knows where it might lead? He might have been late with his rent more than a time or two. Or perhaps, he had a history of under-tipping in Cambridge coffee shops. (Who can believe he didn’t after this parking ticket scandal?)

All these stories shine the light in the dark corners of the life of a privileged ivy leaguer who couldn’t even be bothered to move his car so the hard working man who cleans his streets could properly do his job. It shows the typical liberal contempt for the average American who doesn’t get to go to Harvard. How many bus drivers and meter maids are in Iraq today, defending this country so “taxachusetts liberals” like Obama can spit in their faces?

Thank goodness the NY Times company is back on track. We haven’t seen the likes of this kind of in-depth investigative journalism for oh, 15 years or so. They’re back in the saddle.

.

The Empty Conscience

by digby

I’ve written a lot about how the Democrats need to hold Republicans accountable for what they do or they will rise from their electoral graves and return to do it again — just as they have been doing since the dawn of the dirty tricks, modern conservative movement. Character assassins are not impressed by Christian forgiveness and the American people are too busy working two jobs to pay off their sub-prime mortgages and their 28% interest credit cards to notice the details. It’s up to the Democrats to do this.

So when George W. Bush has the utter chutzpah to nominate the biggest contributor to the Swift Boat Liars as an ambassador, it is imperative that the Democratic senate reject him. Otherwise Republicans will once again be assured that there is no price to pay, even when they lose elections.

During the hearing for this reprehensible GOP moneybags, John Kerry was appropriately steely eyed and angry. Jim Webb says he won’t vote for the guy. The nomination has been tabled for now. But it still isn’t settled and it really shouldn’t even be a question.

Which leads us to this atrocity

Joe Lieberman was beaming. “Sam Fox represents what America is all about,” he said, “and that’s why he will be, when confirmed, an extraordinary ambassador.”

The scene was last week’s Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Connecticut’s junior senator was making a highly unusual appearance to lobby for Fox’s nomination to be the U.S. ambassador to Belgium.

Fox has come under fire from Democrats because of his role in helping to bankroll the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth in 2004 – the group that many Democrats still hold responsible for John Kerry’s narrow loss to President Bush that year.

The day after the 2006 election, Lieberman, elected as an independent, got a $10,500 contribution from Fox and another $10,500 from Fox’s wife. Both are generous GOP donors.

Lieberman dropped into Fox’s confirmation hearing last week to praise the St. Louis businessman, a somewhat unorthodox step for a senator who is not a committee member.

[…]

Lieberman concluded his testimony by telling colleagues, “I’m honored to call Sam Fox my friend. I appreciate his friendship. And I’m honored to ask you to send him to Brussels as our next ambassador.”

Lieberman left, and later Kerry roared in. The session became more like prosecutor vs. witness, as Kerry wanted to know who asked Fox to give to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

“I can’t tell you specifically who did because, you know, I don’t remember,” Fox said. “As a matter of fact, I …”

Kerry interrupted. “You have no recollection of why you gave away $50,000?”

“I gave away $50,000 because I was asked to,” Fox replied.

He decried the current campaign finance system, but said he gave the money because “politically it’s necessary if the other side’s doing it.”

Kerry didn’t seem to believe Fox did not know how the money was used. Fox’s contribution is dated Oct. 29, 2004, and the senator cited reports from the summer and fall of 2004 about the Swift Boat group’s allegations.

In August 2004, Kerry said, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Fox’s hometown newspaper, wrote: “The smear campaign was funded and orchestrated by a coterie of Texans with strong ties to the Bush family and political director Karl Rove.”

Then, said Kerry, “a month later [actually two months later], you nevertheless contribute to that very group that is smearing and spreading lies.”

“Yes sir,” said Fox, “all of the [similar groups] were smearing lies.” Later, he added, “I have never gotten involved in the campaign side,” meaning he simply gave money but did not dictate or help create policy.

Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., asked Fox point blank: “Did you have anything to do with the messaging, any involvement in the messaging of the Swift Boat ads?”

“No,” Fox said, “absolutely none.”

Kerry said this week he still had “unanswered questions” for Fox. So did other Democrats.

As the hearing ended, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., a 2008 front-runner for the party’s presidential nomination, looked squarely at Fox.

“I found your statement somewhat unsatisfying to say that you gave because it’s ugly out there and … somebody asked you to give,” Obama said, adding later, “I would have preferred you saying, you know, `In retrospect looking back, contributing to the Swift Boat campaign was a mistake and I wish I hadn’t done it.'”

It doesn’t matter what he says or what he feels. He’s a lying piece of garbage, as he proved when he bankrolled those swiftboat scum. If this guy is confirmed by a Democratic senate the word will once again go forth that there will be no price to pay for character assassination. Indeed, Republicans will laugh their asses off. Not only can you destroy a man’s reputation, his friends and allies will reward you for it. (And then you can do it to them too!)

Lieberman took money from this creep — the same man who spent $50,000 to perpetuate lies about Kerry’s war record in 2004 in one of the most despicable examples of character assassination in American history. He made a point of making an unusual appearance at his confirmation hearing which also proves that the establishment’s failure to properly oppose Lieberman’s candidacy resulted in Lieberman finally showing his true Republican colors in the most partisan political way possible. If it looks like a despicable Republican duck and walks like a despicable Republican duck…

It’s not that Democrats have to make a note of every slight and issue payback. But they do have to draw some bright lines. The swift boat project was beyond the pale and anyone who had anything to do with it should never be rewarded at the hands of Democrats. If they do not make it a point to hold these people accountable in any way they can, they are the architects of their own demise. The ghost of Don Segretti is working feverishly as we speak, training the zombies to do the same thing to the next presidential candidate. That’s how Republican zombies and Joe Lieberman work. They don’t have consciences.

.