Intersection Of Freedom’s Watch And McCain? All Roads Lead To Rove

When you think about the biggest skunk in the Grand Ole Party, does Karl Rove's eau de turdblossom spring to mind? It should:


We have recently learned that Rove has signed a mid-six figure consulting deal with billionaire casino mogul Sheldon Adelson to oversee the activities of the right-wing shadow group Freedom's Watch. With the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) underfunded and in disarray this cycle, it has outsourced its work to Freedom's Watch, a shady soft money group with ties to President Bush and Senator John McCain.

If you ever wondered what the Bush political team is up to this campaign season, you need look no farther than the team behind Freedom's Watch. Rove, along with former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer, former White House Political Director Tony Feather, and a slew of Bush cronies have teamed up with the third richest man in the country, Freedom's Watch's sugar daddy Sheldon Adelson - to form this unprecedented swift-boat operation. Their goal is clear -- to preserve Bush's legacy by delivering a third Bush term....

Please take a moment to visit www.TheRealFreedomsWatch.org and sign our petition demanding the National Republican Congressional Committee and Republican campaigns nationwide denounce Karl Rove's new attack shop....


Funny thing about Rove: he's been writing regular op-ed columns for the WSJ and Newsweek, and doing regular political commentary for Faux News. He also works both for Freedom's Watch AND for the McCain Campaign. All at the same time. All with no regular public disclosure of his rampant conflicts of interest nor with much if any oversight of his pivotal role between McCain's presidential campaign and Freedom's Watch which, as a 501(c)(4), is supposed to have no coordination with McCain's camp or any political campaign.   And yet:

“Karl is up to his eyeballs in this,” says one prominent GOP consultant who has met with Rove a few times this year. “They’re trying to figure out who is going to do the presidential, who is going to do the Senate and who is going to do the House. They’re trying to assign resources to maximize the dollars and minimize duplication. Karl has taken it over.”


Anyone else getting that inevitable whiff of GOP corruption and flouting of the rules?

I'm sure Rove protege Steve Schmidt, newly installed at the McCain campaign's helm, is shocked...shocked, I say...to learn his mentor Karl Rove might be involved in a rule-flouting scheme to game the 2008 election.  Especially when you consider the timely roll-out of prior Freedom's Watch campaigns which just happened to coincide directly with the McCain messaging roll-out of the week?  (And with Congressional campaign strategy, which Blue America has already been fighting.)

Why is it that when we talk Republican corruption, all roads inevitably lead to Rove? And shouldn't we all be asking if Grover Norquist is up to his old launder the Republican money and take a cut tricks again? Is this yet another "follow the money" scheme? Inquiring minds and all...given that after Jackie Boy Abramoff, none of these people ever again get the benefit of any doubt.

Federal Judge Rules White House Aides Can Be Subpoenaed

In June, after White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and former White House counsel Harriet Miers refused to comply with congressional investigations into the U.S. Attorneys scandal, the Justice Department claimed “that senior presidential advisers are absolutely immune from congressional subpoenas.” But today, a federal judge has ruled that “there’s no legal support for that stance” and “aides can be subpoenaed.” Federal Judge John Bates stated that Bolten and Miers must comply with Congress:

U.S. District Judge John Bates disagreed. He said there’s no legal basis for that argument. He said that Miers must appear before Congress and, if she wants to refuse to testify, she must do so in person.

“Harriet Miers is not immune from compelled congressional process; she is legally required to testify pursuant to a duly issued congressional subpoena,” Bates wrote.

He said that both Bolten and Miers must give Congress all non-privileged documents related to the firings.



Update: Bates was appointed by President George W. Bush in December 2001 and was appointed to the FISA court by Justice John Roberts in 2006. On many previous occasions, his rulings have helped cover-up for the administration's wrongdoings.

Update: Read Bates' summary judgment here.

Another Obama "Problem" Group Proves to be Unproblematic

Chicago Sun-Times columnist Carol Marin today:

Women voters aren't warming to 'cool' Obama

July 30, 2008

BY CAROL MARIN Sun-Times Columnist

The Obama campaign has a woman problem. How big? How small? It's not clear, but in a close election, small can be big.


Terrific lede! Except ... Obama's polling among women actually IS quite clear, according to a Research 2000 poll released three days ago:

QUESTION: If the election for President were held today, who would you vote for if the choices were between Barack Obama, the Democrat, John McCain, the Republican, Bob Barr, the Libertarian, or Ralph Nader, an Independent?

OBAMA  MCCAIN  BARR  NADER  OTHER  UND

ALL     51%    39%    3%     2%     1%     4%

MEN     45%    45%    4%     2%     1%     3%
WOMEN   56%    34% 2%     2%     1%     5%


That's a 22-point lead among women overall, Ms. Marin.

But don't let a little thing like empirical evidence mess with the premise of the day's "Obama's got a [fill in the day's demographic] problem!" story. Especially when you have a whole lot of anectodotal crap to cram into a column somewhere, like how Michelle Obama pleaded for support in a roomful of well-off, well-dressed women who seemed disposed to vote for her husband, but hey ...there is still a woman problem, damn it, because the writer has to shoehorn in a little "human interest" crapola to justify her columninizing existence. Enter ... Sarah, angry McCain-supporter news junkie who thinks Obama is "like the organic chicken at lunch. Sleek, elegant, beautifully prepared. Too cool."

But the women Obama needs right now are the ones who do not dine downtown. They're the ones who can't afford organic anything, forced to choose between a gallon of gas and a gallon of milk because they can't buy both on the same day.

Women like Sarah.


What's particularly irritating about this column is that near the end, Marin actually does cite a poll ("The July 15 Quinnipiac University poll shows women overall backed Obama over McCain 55 percent to 36 percent.") ... yet we're delivered the stupid lede and premise anyway. So it's not even the case that she's unaware of how Obama is polling among women overall.

Yeah, Obama might have a woman problem, all right. It just might be Carol Marin.

Update by kos: For more context, check out the 2004 exit polls. Kerry won the female vote 51-48. So while Kerry won that vote by just three points, Obama leads that demographic by 22.

A real problem for Obama, yes.

Washington Post Fans Outrage After Misquoting Obama

Washington Post reporters Dana Milbank and Jonathan Weisman gave the McCain campaign a nipple-stiffening moment today after they picked up a statement by Barack Obama, and used it, apparently, entirely out of context, presenting it for the consumption of Post readers in a way that made it look like Obama was being arrogant.

For Milbank's part, it was all because he wanted to wedge the statement into his preferred frame: "Barack Obama has long been his party's presumptive nominee. Now he's becoming its presumptuous nominee." I believe it was Oscar Wilde who cautioned: "Reality is a MADE thing."

And, as it turns out, Milbank's "reality" is something of a deconstruction. Milbank's remake reads:

"This is the moment . . . that the world is waiting for," adding: "I have become a symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions."

According to a Democratic leadership aide in attendance, the full quote from Obama is:
It has become increasingly clear in my travel, the campaign, that the crowds, the enthusiasm, 200,000 people in Berlin, is not about me at all. It's about America. I have become a symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions.

(For what it's worth, before Milbank's column was published, we received a separate eye-witness account of Obama's meeting with House Dems that mirrored the full context quote above.)

So, in actuality, Obama was attempting to diminish his own importance, not place himself on a pedestal. It was an attempt at humility, not arrogance.

And speaking of arrogance, really - Milbank is a fine one to be speaking on the subject. Via Wonkette, we present to you this video of a slurring Milbank, pompously declaring, "I will not read blogs, I'm sorry...If something is important enough, it will be brought to my attention."

Gotcha! Gallup Commits "Polling Malpractice" Startling New Info/Controversy on Poll

Reposted from DailyKOS.

There were many problems with the latest Gallup Poll, which has McCain up +4 vs Obama. But now with more information (buried deep into the 9th paragraph of USA Today's own write up), it only gets worse. It's potentially "startlingly" worse

It seems that Gallup according to writer Seth Colter Walls, "committed polling malpractice", when describing polling expert, Prof. Adam Abramowitz analysis, of Gallup/USA today's latest halting revelation.

Gallup fudged the numbers in more ways than we ever thought!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...





As for how "likely voters" were identified, USA Today reports that respondents were asked "how much thought they had given the election, how often they voted in the past and whether they plan to vote this fall." Fair enough. But the very next sentence raises even more questions about whether USA Today's effort is actually a snapshot of the electorate, as its website claims, or enters the realm of forward-looking hypothesizing. Buried in the ninth paragraph of USA Today's own write-up, they reveal that "McCain's gains came because there was an even number of likely voters from each party. Last month, the Democrats had an 11-point edge."

Abramowitz says this contradiction is the equivalent of polling malpractice. "It is simply not plausible that there would be an 11-point  swing in party ID among likely voters or that there is now an even split in the likely electorate between Republicans and Democrats," he wrote in an email to the Huffington Post.


Agreed! There is no responsible poll in America that would weigh Democrats and Republicans evenly right now.

As Prof. Abramawitz explained, party ID wouldn't be up 11 points in a month (especially for the struggling Republican party) either. Think about it? When is the last time you've seen, or heard about a poll where Republican and Democratic party ID were equal? Gallup tried to hide this initially. It was bad enough they had given us multiple, shaky reasons/data already. But this one (equal party ID) is just as bad as removing a large sample of 109 so called "unlikely voters", who planned to vote for Obama by 61 to 7% (Yes. They did that, and several other highly questionable decisions) to give McCain the "likely voter edge". Obama should of been up BIG in this poll (as he already hit 50% vs McCain's 44% in their June poll).

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/...

Something really crazy is happening. I wrote a diary yesterday regarding this subject. http://www.dailykos.com/...

There seems to be a confluence of media and polling firms, that are either against Obama or trying to keep this race close.

I don't know. But Gallup Chief Frank Newport practically admits on MSNBC that they lied and were testing new theories. So Back to Mr. Colter of the Huffingtonpost:

But grains of salt aside, there is other evidence to suggest that USA Today's "likely voter" poll runs afoul of its own standards in terms of not forecasting far-off election results. In describing the poll's usefulness on MSNBC Tuesday morning, Gallup chief Frank Newport said "it's important to look at likely voters ... just to see under a scenario where McCain supporters are energized."

"Just to see a scenario where McCain supporters are energized"; so now Gallup is passing off speculation and hypothesis as accurate polling?


Shouldn't this be some type of scandal? What was Gannet's (USA Today's owners) role or influence in this? Why is MSNBC, other media and "pundits", continue to reference this now disgraced poll? What does this mean to our future, the upcoming election, and media/polling priorities and influence?

Gallup/USAToday should certainly feel ashamed and needs to apologize as it attempts to pass off this drivel.  Mr. Colter Walls agrees, and Gallups, Newport even tries to defend/explain himself one more time, as well:

So sure, "under a scenario" where McCain's voters are energized at a level equal to Obama's and the national distribution of party ID is equal between Democrats and Republicans, perhaps it would make sense to see McCain with a four-point lead in a poll with a plus/minus 4 percent margin of error. But engineering coverage of a poll with metrics contrived to show results under a certain "scenario" sounds more prospective and hypothetical than the paper's stated mission of covering polls as momentary snapshots and "not forecasts of far-off election days."

As Newport said on MSNBC this morning: "The likely voters simply tell us that turnout could make a difference."


I'm sure we've all thought it at times. But I hope this is the first, last, and only poll that has McCain ahead (legitimate, or illegitimately). Let's not start any precedents.

Gallup's Frank Newport, The Washington Post's Dana Milbank, John McCain and MSNBC's Joe Scarborough are all a disgrace, and charter members of Keith Olberman's "Worst Person Of The Day". club.

PS: Obama is kicking ass, and the crowd is juiced in his economic townhall in Missouri today.

He's been funny, articulate, honest and emotionally energized.

House Judiciary Committee Cites Karl Rove for Contempt

The House Judiciary Committee just voted along strict party lines, 20-14, to hold Karl Rove in contempt of Congress for his failure to appear in response to the duly authorized subpoenas seeking his testimony in the matter of the US Attorney firings and the allegations of his interference in the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman.

The resolution now goes to the full House, where a straight majority vote will be necessary for formally and officially locking in the contempt citation.

It's at that stage that the decision of which procedure to utilize -- statutory contempt which gets referred for prosecution to the US Attorney, or inherent contempt which is prosecuted by the House itself in a trial before the body -- is made.

The House's earlier contempt citations against Josh Bolten and Harriet Miers were referred under the statutory contempt procedure to the US Attorney who, at the instruction of the White House and the Department of Justice, declined to prosecute the cases. An ironic situation, given that the contempt citations arose in the context of an investigation into whether or not the DOJ and the White House were improperly directing prosecutorial decisions of the US Attorneys.

The House Judiciary Committee subsequently filed suit in federal court, seeking an order compelling the US Attorney to proceed with the prosecution, and somehow -- magically! -- the case was assigned to former Whitewater Deputy Independent Counsel John D. Bates, the federal judge who dismissed the Plame lawsuit, dismissed the Cheney Energy Task Force lawsuit, upheld the validity of Bush's signature on an a bill not properly passed in the same form by both houses of Congress, and dismissed the DNC's lawsuit seeking to force the FEC to rule on John McCain's attempt to withdraw from his presidential campaign's public financing commitments.

I don't know about you, but I'm not really feeling the fear with respect to the statutory contempt thing.

One other possibility: Rep. Brad Miller (D-NC) testified in last Friday's non-impeachment hearing before the Judiciary Committee regarding his legislation that would grant Congress the authority to petition the courts to appoint a special prosecutor in cases where the DOJ refused to take up referrals of contempt of Congress. That bill, H.R. 6508, now sits before the Judiciary Committee awaiting action, albeit with powerful cosponsors including Chairman Conyers, and subcommittee chairs Linda Sanchez and Jerry Nadler.

Probably time to get moving on that.

In the meantime, how about signing the Send Karl Rove to Jail petition?

The petition made a bit of a splash yesterday:

Bush administration critics hand-delivered a petition to a Democratic lawmaker Tuesday containing more than 127,000 signatures calling for former White House adviser Karl Rove to be held in contempt of Congress and jailed.

A coalition of advocacy groups dropped off three boxes of signed petitions at the office of Rep. Linda Sanchez, D-Calif., who heads a House Judiciary subcommittee that took up the matter this month. The full committee is scheduled to take up the contempt charges Wednesday.

The coalition includes advocacy groups such as Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington as well as liberal organizations such as Brave New Films, Campaign for America's Future and The Nation magazine.


Now that the decision goes to the full House as to what procedure to adopt, perhaps those signatures and more should also be delivered to the Democratic Leadership who will guide that decision. Why not add your voice to that growing chorus?

McCain Failure to Visit Troops Charge Against Obama Lacks Evidence

Reposted from the Washington Post.

For four days, Sen. John McCain and his allies have accused Sen. Barack Obama of snubbing wounded soldiers by canceling a visit to a military hospital because he could not take reporters with him, despite no evidence that the charge is true.

The attacks are part of a newly aggressive McCain operation whose aim is to portray the Democratic presidential candidate as a craven politician more interested in his image than in ailing soldiers, a senior McCain adviser said. They come despite repeated pledges by the Republican that he will never question his rival's patriotism.

The essence of McCain's allegation is that Obama planned to take a media entourage, including television cameras, to Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany during his week-long foreign trip, and that he canceled the visit when he learned he could not do so. "I know that, according to reports, that he wanted to bring media people and cameras and his campaign staffers," McCain said Monday night on CNN's "Larry King Live."

The Obama campaign has denied that was the reason he called off the visit. In fact, there is no evidence that he planned to take anyone to the American hospital other than a military adviser, whose status as a campaign staff member sparked last-minute concern among Pentagon officials that the visit would be an improper political event.

"Absolutely, unequivocally wrong," Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor said in an e-mail after McCain's comments to Larry King.

Despite serious and repeated queries about the charge over several days, McCain and his allies continued yesterday to question Obama's patriotism by focusing attention on the canceled hospital visit.

McCain's campaign released a statement from retired Sgt. Maj. Craig Layton, who worked as a commander at the hospital, who said: "If Senator Obama isn't comfortable meeting wounded American troops without his entourage, perhaps he does not have the experience necessary to serve as commander in chief."

McCain's advisers said they do not intend to back down from the charge, believing it an effective way to create a "narrative" about what they say is Obama's indifference toward the military.

McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds said again yesterday that the Republican's version of events is correct, and that Obama canceled the visit because he was not allowed to take reporters and cameras into the hospital.

"It is safe to say that, according to press reports, Barack Obama avoided, skipped, canceled the visit because of those reasons," he said. "We're not making a leap here."

Asked repeatedly for the "reports," Bounds provided three examples, none of which alleged that Obama had wanted to take members of the media to the hospital.

The McCain campaign has produced a television commercial that says that while in Germany, Obama "made time to go to the gym but canceled a visit with wounded troops. Seems the Pentagon wouldn't allow him to bring cameras." The commercial shows Obama shooting a basketball -- an event that happened earlier in the trip on a stopover in Kuwait, where the Democrat spoke to troops in a gym before grabbing a ball and taking a single shot. The military released the video footage.

A reconstruction of the circumstances surrounding Obama's decision not to visit Landstuhl, based on firsthand reporting from the trip, shows that his campaign never contemplated taking the media with him.

The first indication reporters got that Obama was planning, or had planned, to visit the hospital came last Thursday morning, shortly after the entourage arrived in Berlin. On the seats of the media bus were schedules for his stop in Germany and the final entry -- a Friday-morning departure -- indicated that the senator's plane would fly from Berlin to Ramstein Air Base.

When a reporter asked spokeswoman Linda Douglass that morning about the trip to Ramstein, she said that the trip had been considered but that Obama was not going to go. At that point, the campaign provided no other information.

Later that night, after Obama gave a speech in Berlin, a campaign source spoke about the canceled stop on the condition of anonymity. The official said that the trip was canceled after the Pentagon informed a campaign official that the visit would be considered a campaign event.

Overnight, the Obama team issued two statements, one from senior campaign official Robert Gibbs and the other from retired Air Force Maj. Gen. J. Scott Gration, an Obama foreign policy adviser who was on the trip.

Gibbs's statement said the hospital visit, which had been on the internal schedule for several weeks, was canceled because Obama decided it would be inappropriate to go there as part of a trip paid for by his campaign. Gration said the Pentagon had told the campaign that the visit would be seen as a political trip.

Those two statements, while not inconsistent, did not clarify whether the visit was canceled in reaction to Pentagon concerns or because of worries about appearances. They also opened Obama's camp to charges that it was offering slightly different reasons at different times.

Gibbs said yesterday that the campaign had planned to inform the traveling media members sometime on the morning of the flight to Ramstein that Obama was intending to visit the hospital but had made no plans to take reporters, including even the small, protective press pool that now accompanies him most places.

Reporters, he said, probably would have been able to get off the plane but not leave an air base facility close by. "We had made absolutely no arrangements to transport the press to the hospital," he said.

On Friday afternoon, en route from Berlin to Paris, Gibbs briefed reporters traveling with Obama. He noted that the candidate had visited wounded soldiers several weeks earlier at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in the District and at a combat support hospital while in Iraq earlier in the week -- both times without reporters.

At one point, a reporter asked, "Why not just say it is never inappropriate to visit men and women in service?" -- a key McCain charge -- "What is your response to that?"

Gibbs replied: "It is entirely likely that someone would have attacked us for having gone. And it is entirely likely -- and it has come about -- that people have attacked us for not going."

On Saturday in London, Obama addressed the controversy during a news conference. He said Pentagon concerns about Gration's status triggered the decision not to visit Landstuhl.

"We got notice that [Gration] would be treated as a campaign person, and it would therefore be perceived as political because he had endorsed my candidacy but he wasn't on the Senate staff," Obama said. "That triggered then a concern that maybe our visit was going to be perceived as political, and the last thing that I want to do is have injured soldiers and the staff at these wonderful institutions having to sort through whether this is political or not, or get caught in the crossfire between campaigns."

Obama's explanation, which came after more than a day of controversy, was the clearest in noting that it was Pentagon concerns about Gration accompanying him to the hospital that forced Obama to reconsider and, ultimately, cancel the visit.

Gibbs was asked yesterday about the continuingallegations from McCain that the real reason was a desire to bring a media entourage to the hospital.

"That's completely untrue, and I think, honestly, they know it's untrue," Gibbs said.