In 2000, John McCain didn’t vote for the Republican candidate for President.

In 2001, John McCain considered leaving the Republican Party.

In 2004, John McCain considered leaving the Republican Party again, this time to be John Kerry’s running mate.

How does it feel to know that, instead of nominating a principled conservative, you nominated yourselves a political opportunist? If I were you guys, I would be suffering some serious buyer’s remorse right now.

Media Matters is taking the media to task for their hypocritical treatment of Cindy McCain.

As I wrote a few days ago, the media heaped huge amounts of scrutiny–and scorn–on Theresa Heinz-Kerry in 2004 due to the role her wealth played in her husband’s Presidential campaign.

Now–just four years later–the media can’t seem to muster the same skepticism when it comes to Cindy McCain.  McCain is an heir to the Anheuser-Busch brewing fortune, which is worth well over $100 million.  In addition, Anheuser-Busch was one of John McCain’s biggest and earliest supporters–he owes much of his political career to their financial support.

This is just another sad, shameful case of “It’s okay if you’re a Republican.”  A Democratic Presidential candidate gets massive amounts of scrutiny for benefitting from his wife’s personal fortune, while a Republican Presidential candidate who does the same gets barely any notice.

When is the shameful double standard going to end?

Today brings us this headline from Think Progress:

McCain Aides Say Hagee Endorsement Was The Result Of ‘Poor Vetting’

More:

McCain’s aides attribute the Hagee controversy to poor vetting. But even some Republicans (not affiliated with the campaign) privately wonder how the pastor’s extreme views slipped through without notice. McCain personally wooed Hagee for more than a year.

[...]

Are we really to believe that neither Mr. McCain nor his camp knew anything then about Mr. Hagee’s views? This particular YouTube video — far from the only one — was posted on Jan. 1, nearly two months before the Hagee-McCain press conference. Mr. Hagee appears on multiple religious networks, including twice daily on the largest, Trinity Broadcasting, which reaches 75 million homes. Any 12-year-old with a laptop could have vetted this preacher in 30 seconds, tops.

John Ashcroft. Alberto Gonzales. Donald Rumsfeld. Michael Brown. Tom Ridge. Michael Chertoff. Dick Cheney.

After eight years of a President who surrounded himself with some of the worst advisers in Washington, I’d like a President who will take the time to actually vet someone before adding them to his/her inner circle.

Is it too much to ask for someone who wants to become leader of the free world to spend a few minutes actually looking up the people he/she relies on for guidance? Or are the American people supposed to accept overwhelming incompetence from our government?

John McCain is not fit to be President of the United States. America can’t take four more years of George-Bush-style government. We just can’t.

Feingold writes a letter to the Government Accountability Office inquiring about the Pentagon’s in-house propaganda outfit.

Excerpts:

The Pentagon is free to air its views on any military operation but it should do so openly.
Potential covert production of press materials by the Defense Department would
undermine full and open public debate on one of the most important matters facing this
country, the war in Iraq. Such debate is essential to our democracy.

According to the article, the documents suggest that the Pentagon supplied retired
officers serving as analysts for several major American broadcasters with private
briefings with Sec. Rumsfeld, talking points in anticipation of appearing on TV, and
commercial airfare. Allegedly, the Pentagon discouraged the analysts from publicly
describing the nature of their relationship with the Pentagon. This clearly violates the
spirit, if not the letter, of the law.

Basically, the Pentagon supplied pro-war, pro-administration retired army officers to news outlets for the purpose of providing what was advertised to the public as unbiased analysis of the war in Iraq.  On-air, these officers’ connections to the Pentagon was undisclosed, and the American people were misled into thinking they were getting analysis based on field expertise, not political bias.

We know the Republicans sold their war to the American people with lies; we just didn’t know how far and how deep those lies went.  Now, at least, we have a little more of the whole picture.

Mickey Kantor’s words–if they are what they appear to be–are going to cause some trouble…

Can this primary just end already?

UPDATE: Already this video’s veracity is being called into question. The original source for it appears to be War Room, the documentary about Bill Clinton’s 1992 campaign. The part in question is this, about 4:15 in:

If you turn the volume up, the first subtitle is clearly wrong–there’s an extra syllable there; it sounds like Kantor is saying “those people are shitting.” As for the second line, though, the subtitle seems to reflect what he says.

You could argue that he’s not talking about the people of Indiana; that’s possible, since the topic at hand is the polls, not necessarily the states. A few people who heard it also claim to hear the name “Charlie Black” in Kantor’s whispering (Black was George H.W. Bush’s spokesman at the time) after the supposed slur. But as far as I can tell, the subtitle appears to be accurate.

UPDATE II: D.A. Pennebaker–an ally of the Clintons and the director of War Room–says the video is a fake.

Here’s Atrios’ take on it:

I’m not going to try for a complete transcript, but basically Kantor gets polls from Indiana. They’re close. He says even if they don’t win the White House has got to be shitting themselves. Then what I think he says is something along the lines of “how would you like to be beaten by a worthless white n*****,” presumably meaning Bill Clinton himself and referencing the Bush I campaign team’s likely view of Clinton.

Last night’s ABC debate was pretty much a travesty:

In perhaps the most embarrassing performance by the media in a major presidential debate in years, ABC News hosts Charles Gibson and George Stephanopolous focused mainly on trivial issues as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama faced off in Philadelphia.

Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the health care and mortgage crises, the overall state of the economy and dozens of other pressing issues had to wait for their few moments in the sun as Obama was pressed to explain his recent “bitter” gaffe and relationship with Rev. Wright (seemingly a dead issue) and not wearing a flag pin while Clinton had to answer again for her Bosnia trip exaggerations.

Then it was back to Obama to defend his slim association with a former ’60s radical — a question that came out of rightwing talk radio and Sean Hannity on TV, but delivered by former Bill Clinton aide Stephanopolous. This approach led to a claim that Clinton’s husband pardoned two other ’60s radicals. And so on.

More time was spent on all of this than segments on getting out of Iraq and keeping people from losing their homes and other key issues. Gibson only got excited when he complained about anyone daring to raise taxes on his capital gains.

And then there’s this:

[Radical right-wing radio host Sean ] Hannity, who for months has been aggressively pushing a story about Barack Obama’s connections to a former member of a radical anti-Vietnam 1970s organization called the Weather Underground, interviewed Stephanopoulos on his radio show on Tuesday, where he pressed the ABC host to ask Obama about this

[...]

In the debate last night, Stephanopoulos asked a question that mirrored almost word-for-word what Hannity pressed him to ask

This is ridiculous. There are so many issues facing the American people today–Iraq, the economy, health care, global warming, the mortgage crisis–yet the political press wastes it’s time focusing on trivial nonsense. These wealthy, influential pundits don’t have to deal with the rest of the issues we all have to deal with, so the jettison the important policy-based issues in favor of trivial, culture war nonsense.

We’ve spent eight years suffering under a President who–eight years ago–showed that he was completely incompetent, but who the press fawned over because of his regular-old-guy schtick. Haven’t we learned anything since 2000??

I want a President who can fix our country. I don’t care about their pastors, I don’t care about their bowling scores, I don’t care about what they drink or eat, I don’t care about which sports teams they like, I don’t care if they hunt or fish or not. I care about if they can solve our nation’s problems.

When is this nonsense going to end?

UPDATE: Well, it’s not all bad:

Sen. John McCain yesterday offered sweeping rhetoric about the economic plight of working-class Americans, promising immediate assistance even as he spelled out a tax and spending agenda whose benefits are aimed squarely at spurring corporate growth.

In a speech billed as the most comprehensive summary of McCain’s economic vision to date, the candidate proposed to eliminate the alternative minimum tax, slash corporate income tax rates and offer a grab bag of other business breaks. His most direct proposal for relief to working-class voters was a call to suspend the federal gasoline tax for the summer driving season.

[...]

As the U.S. economy slides toward a possible recession, McCain has struggled to find the right pitch for his economic proposals. When he first suggested the government should not rescue speculative lenders or reckless home buyers, he was greeted with withering criticism from Democrats who accused him of insensitivity in the face of a housing crisis. When he tacked to the left to suggest he did favor government intervention, he was called a flip-flopper.

[...]

But much of what he detailed was a corporate special pleader’s dream: a cut in the corporate income tax rate, from 35 percent to 25 percent, a proposal to allow businesses to write off the cost of new equipment and technology from their taxes, a ban on Internet and new cellphone taxes, and a permanent tax credit for research and development.

He promised to remove the “myriad corporate tax loopholes that are costly, unfair and inconsistent with a free-market economy,” but he offered no specifics.

Isn’t it sad when the media taking a politician to task is the exception, not the rule? Then again, when you’re John McCain, the rules don’t apply to you…

We already know John McCain isn’t a maverick–he’s a pure Washington insider, steeped in 25 years of D.C. culture.

In fact, not only does McCain have inappropriate relationships with lobbyists, but his entire Presidential campaign is run by special interest lobbyists.

Need proof?Take a look at just how far special interests have infiltrated the McCain campaign (a handy visual analysis is here):

How can thus guy claim to be some maverick standing up for the little guy while paying millionaire special interest lobbyists to run his campaign? How does McCain get away with being so two-faced? Well, because the media lets him get away with it:

The media is particularly fond of the myth that John McCain is the senatorial thorn in the side of Washington lobbyists. This myth is pervasive and it suggests that McCain is the “maverick, moderate reformer” that he claims to be. Despite all of his posturing, McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign is rife with lobbyist connections.

Not only does the McCain campaign have more current and former lobbyist bundlers than any other candidate, but McCain has more current and former lobbyists working on his campaign staff than any other candidate in the 2008 presidential election.

The conservative press loves John McCain. Too bad their skewed representation of one of America’s most corrupt Senators leaves the American people in the dark.

Want to fight back? Demand accountability and honesty here.

John McCain has some problems to deal with.

First, his latest FEC report shows his campaign violating the $54 million fundraising limit set by campaign finance laws. McCain opted into the public financing system months ago; by exceeding this limit, he has broken the very campaign finance reform laws he shepherded through Congress in 2002.

Then again, this isn’t unexpected. On this issue, McCain declared that the laws don’t apply to him–that he’s no longer restricted by public financing limits. Unfortunately for him, this isn’t his decision to make–McCain opted into public financing (receiving benefits such as money and ballot access) and he can’t pull out until and unless the FEC agrees.

A month ago, the FEC sent McCain a letter:

The nation’s top federal election official told Sen. John McCain yesterday that he cannot immediately withdraw from the presidential public financing system as he had requested, a decision that threatens to dramatically restrict his spending until the general election campaign begins in the fall.

[...]

The implications of that could be dramatic. Last year, when McCain’s campaign was starved for cash, he applied to join the financing system to gain access to millions of dollars in federal matching money. He was also permitted to use his FEC certification to bypass the time-consuming process of gathering signatures to get his name on the ballot in several states, including Ohio

[...]

By signing up for matching money, McCain agreed to adhere to strict state-by-state spending limits and an overall limit on spending of $54 million for the primary season, which lasts until the party’s nominating convention in September. The general election has a separate public financing arrangement.

[...]

Knowingly violating the spending limit is a criminal offense that could put McCain at risk of stiff fines and up to five years in prison.

In response to John McCain breaking campaign finance laws, the DNC filed an FEC complaint. In addition, a number of progressive bloggers also filed an FEC complaint; they’re coupling it with a petition, which you can sign here.

Second, McCain gave what was billed as a major foreign policy speech yesterday. Unfortunately for him, it was light on specifics, and the policies he actually proposed were more than lacking.

McCain echoed George W. Bush’s rhetoric on Iraq, casting the war as a choice between staying the course and winning or ‘cutting and running’ and surrendering to Al-Qaeda. Middle East expert and former Ambassador Marc Ginsberg had this to say about McCain’s false choice:

The trouble with this set up is that McCain’s core premise is dead wrong. By our own senior commanders’ accounts, Al Qaeda is but a minor player in Iraq, and there is no way the U.S. presence, surge or not, that will keep a lid on sectarian tensions. Just look at what is going on in Iraq at the very tragic milestone of 4,000 Americans killed: the worst sectarian violence in months has broken out with hundreds of lives lost despite a McCain’s surge that he continues to tout as the fire extinguisher that will stop sectarian strife from igniting once again.

McCain proposed forming a ‘League of Democracies,’ a new international institution that would provide political cover for whatever disastrous foreign policies a McCain presidency would come up with.

But the League of Democracies would be the ‘Coalition of the Willing’ by a different name, made up of countries trying to curry our favor by rubber-stamping our foreign policy decisions, no matter how idiotic or ill-fated. In other words, it would be the exact kind of wrong-headed ad-hoc alliance that helped get us into Iraq in the first place.

In addition, the League of Democracies would be a formalized version of Bush’s cowboy diplomacy–it would institutionalize our current foreign policy, which ignores and marginalizes any country that doesn’t follow our foreign policy directives. Much like the Bush presidency, this plan will both galvanize and unite America’s enemies, creating a dangerous, unstable bi-polar world.

Ambassador Ginsberg says it best:

What is so strikingly and inherently wrong with McCain’s world vision is that America’s global leadership will not be restored by ignoring adversaries that, left to their own devices, may further challenge and undermine America’s national security.

If this is the kind of foreign policy insight 25 years in Congress gets you, then I’d say Barack Obama has a point.

Third, McCain’s speech invoked this gem from his childhood:

When I was five years old, a car pulled up in front of our house in New London, Connecticut, and a Navy officer rolled down the window, and shouted at my father that the Japanese had bombed Pearl Harbor.

Good God, John McCain remembers Pearl Harbor. Nothing like reminding the American people that, if elected, you would be the oldest President in American history.

Along those lines, take this quote from a McCain staffer:

If America is looking for a second term of the Jimmy Carter Administration of high taxes at home and weakness abroad vote Obama. I doubt they are.

Looking over the 2000 census numbers, roughly half of the voting-age population in the United States is 40 years or younger. If you’re 40 today, that means you were born in 1967 or 1968; since Jimmy Carter left office in January, 1977, it stands to reason that if you’re 40 or below, you probably don’t remember very much about the Carter administration.

So the McCain campaign is invoking the Carter administration, despite the fact that nearly half of America’s voting-age population aren’t old enough to even remember it. (Hell, I wasn’t even born until the Reagan years)

Of course, there’s a good way to re-work that quote to make it more recent…and more accurate:

If America is looking for a second term of the [George Bush] Administration of [economic devastation] at home and weakness abroad vote [McCain]. I doubt they are.

There. Perfect.

It’s a busy time in the campaign.

The polls remain mostly unchanged from last time–Pollster shows Obama winning North Carolina and Indiana, while Clinton is leading in Pennsylvania.

Meanwhile, it’s been a good few days for Barack Obama.

Today he secured the endorsement of former Presidential candidate Bill Richardson–Richardson is America’s only Hispanic governor, and he boasts an impressive resume which includes Governor of New Mexico, Congressman, UN Ambassador, Clinton administration cabinet member, and many others.   Richardson had this to say about Obama:

You are a once-in-a-lifetime leader…above all, you will be a president who brings this nation together.

[...]

“There is no doubt in my mind that Barack Obama has the judgment and courage we need in a commander in chief when our nation’s security is on the line. he showed this judgment by opposing the Iraq war from the start, and he has shown it during this campaign by standing up for a new era in American leadership internationally.”

This is a big blow to Sen. Clinton, whose husband appointed Richardson to a position in his cabinet.  And in the wake of Richardson’s endorsement, there’s word that Obama is planning a string of high-profile endorsements before the PA primary:

Campaign sources indicate Obama hopes to roll out a series of such endorsements and announcements during the long run-up to the Pennsylvania primary April 22 to create a sense of momentum. There’s still former Sen. John Edwards out there and, of course, former senator, former vice president and former presidential candidate Al Gore, who’s not always had the closest relationship with his ex-boss’s wife.

While Obama has been trying to get past the Wright controversy, Clinton is becoming ensnared in it.  She criticized Obama for associating with Rev. Wright, but will she have to eat her words soon?

The Obama campaign provided a photograph to the New York Times of Bill Clinton greeting the Rev. Jeremiah Wright in an attempt “to divert some attention to the Clintons after a week in which Mr. Obama’s relationship with Mr. Wright has left him facing one of the biggest challenges of his campaign.”

The encounter occurred “during one of the most difficult periods in the presidency of Bill Clinton” when he “addressed a group of clerics at an annual prayer breakfast in September 1998 just as the Starr report outlining his dalliance with Monica Lewinsky was about to be published.”

Meanwhile, the release of Clinton’s records as First Lady are receiving a ton of media scrutiny:

While Clinton’s advertisements have boasted that she is best prepared for a 3 a.m. crisis phone call, the schedules contain no evidence that Clinton was at the table during major national security decisions. They do not list her as attending National Security Council meetings or joining briefings in the Situation Room. She did not have a national security clearance. And the documents make clear that at moments of major crisis, Clinton was often busy with her own agenda.

Expect those records to not only raise questions about her claims of having extensive experience, but to dredge up plenty of old demons from Bill Clinton’s presidency.

Finally, Clinton has been having some fundraising issues:

Clinton’s campaign ended the month with $33.1 million cash on hand. But, that’s deceptive. Clinton has been aggressively raising money for the general election, too. As AP notes, $21.7 million is off limits to the primary campaign. That means her cash on hand is really $11.4 million. In addition, the Clinton campaign reports $8.7 million in debt (including $2.5 million to Mark Penn’s firm) bringing her number down to $2.7 million if she pays the debts. Subtract the $5 million loan she made to herself and we’re talking negative cash balance of -$2.3 million.

On the other hand, Obama had $38.8 million cash on hand at the end of February. Only $7 million is off limits in the primary leaving $31.8 million. The Obama camp had debts of $625,000 and no personal loans to the campaign, meaning he had over $31 million available.

[Emphasis Added]

Thankfully, John McBush’s fundraising has been pretty pathetic, too–$11 million in February, $4.3 million of debt, leaving the Republican nominee with just $5.7 million in the bank.  February was when McBush blew his competitors out of the water and became the presumptive Republican nominee; all of those pocketbooks and wallets that were supposed to open to him right after he became the nominee have remained closed.  Considering the huge advantage the Democratic candidates have had in terms of fundraising, McBush is in major trouble.

Of course, that could be why McBush is moving toward public financing:

Sen. John McCain “has taken a step towards accepting public financing in the general election — a move that would provide an $84 million infusion for his presidential campaign, but also limit its spending and potentially put him at a steep disadvantage to a better-funded Democratic opponent,” according to The Politico.

This month, “he filed papers with the Federal Election Commission creating a separate campaign account that would enable him to make the public money go further.”

McBush knows he can’t come close to raising the money that either Clinton or Obama will in the general election.  And he knows he is already tied into the public financing system–his attempts to weasel out of it prompted a rebuke from the FEC chairman and an FEC complaint filed by the DNC.  So his strategy is going to be to opt into public financing while browbeating the Democratic candidate for not doing the same.

McCain-Feingold was a groundbreaking piece of campaign finance reform law.  Unfortunately, it didn’t go nearly far enough in revamping the public financing system, particularly  in providing more funding for candidates who opt into the system.

In addition, campaign donations are a form of free speech–people express themselves through the candidates they choose to donate to.  Setting such unreasonable limits prevents people from exercising their rights and keeps citizens from developing a stake in the political system.  Don’t get me wrong, I’m in favor of publicly financing all campaigns, but the current system just doesn’t work and candidates shouldn’t be held to it.

It’s going to be a long slog to PA, so steel yourselves for more finger-pointing and dirt-throwing.  Still, the primary is preparing both our candidates to go up against the Right-Wing Noise Machine; the more primary wrangling they endure, the better prepared they will be for all the GOP will throw at them come the fall.

Recently, we learned that several State Department employees improperly accessed the passport files of all three major Presidential candidates.

First, we learned Barack Obama’s file was breached:

Two State Department employees were fired and a third has been disciplined for improperly accessing Sen. Barack Obama’s passport file, the State Department announced last night.

Senior department officials said they learned of the incidents only when a reporter made an inquiry yesterday afternoon. They said an initial investigation indicated that the employees — all of whom worked on contract — were motivated by “imprudent curiosity.”

Bill Burton, spokesman for Obama’s presidential campaign, called the incidents “an outrageous breach of security and privacy.” He said this is “a serious matter that merits a complete investigation,” adding that the campaign will “demand to know who looked at Senator Obama’s passport file, for what purpose, and why it took so long for them to reveal this security breach.”

[...]

[Undersecretary of State Patrick F.] Kennedy said that he did not know yet whether any laws were broken or whether the employees shared the information with others. He said that the incidents, which occurred at three offices, on Jan. 9, Feb. 21 and March 14, should have been “passed up the line” much sooner and that officials were seeking to determine why they had not been disclosed earlier.

Then, we learned that the same thing happened to Sen. Clinton and Sen. McCain:

The passport files of U.S. presidential candidates Sen. Hillary Clinton, a Democrat, and Sen. John McCain, a Republican, were improperly accessed by State Department workers, a U.S. official said Friday.

The official, who asked not to be named because of the sensitivity of the matter, declined further comment. On Thursday, the State Department said it had fired two employees and disciplined a third for having snooped in the passport files of Sen. Barack Obama, an Illinois Democrat running for president.

What is going on at the State Department? Why are their contractors looking through the confidential passport records of both party’s Presidential candidates? And why wasn’t any of this disclosed sooner? Why weren’t the higher-ups at State–as well as the candidates themselves–informed of these breaches?

And what were the political affiliations of these contractors? The official line is that they were ‘curious,’ but how did State come to that conclusion? And how do they know none of that information has been–or will be–used against any of the candidates?

There has been a shocking lack of oversight at the State Department, which has allowed unauthorized individuals to access sensitive information about Presidential candidates. And the higher-ups at State are so detached they didn’t even find out about those security breaches until months later; once they found out, they failed to inform the aggrieved parties.

This is the kind of government six years of Republican rule gets you–incompetent at best, maliciously harmful at worst. For the love of God, can’t we get some competent adults in charge, for once?

UPDATE: Some information on what’s in someone’s passport file:

A passport record typically consists of applications made by a person for a U.S. passport, together with supporting evidence of U.S. citizenship. The records include details such as date and place of birth, naturalization details, family status, occupation and physical characteristics. Passport records do not include evidence of travel, such as exit and entrance stamps, visas or residence permits.

In other words, it can’t tell you where someone’s been.  But it can tell you vital personal information about someone, and it can also tell you if they lied about or fabricated some aspect of themselves or their political identity.  And that information is far likelier scandal fodder than looking at where someone went and when they came back.

Cross-posted at Daily Kos.

First, a disclaimer: Eliot Spitzer deserved what he got. He broke the law by soliciting high-priced prostitutes. He hurt his wife and his family with his infidelity. Most of all, he was a hypocrite–cultivating a clean image by going after the corruption of others and hiding his own. It bothers me that Eliot Spitzer had to resign while another prostitute-loving hypocrite–David Vitter–gets to stay in office, but I prefer the double standard remain intact and Spitzer resign.

With that said, there’s something fishy about how Governor Spitzer was caught. The problem wasn’t that he got caught–he deserved that, and more–but that the way in which he got caught was extremely unusual; in involved numerous exceptions-to-the-rule.

This started as an IRS investigation of Spitzer’s finances. Legally, financial transactions of $10,000 or more will automatically trigger federal scrutiny. In order to avoid that scrutiny, Spitzer paid the prostitution ring with a series of smaller transactions. The problem here was that paying someone a series of small transactions to avoid triggering a federal investigation is illegal; it’s called ’structuring.’ Spitzer’s shady transactions tipped off at least one bank–Capitol One–who in turn tipped off the IRS. So this began with Capitol One flagging Spitzer’s finances to the IRS; that’s sensible enough in and of itself.

But why did the IRS to for the DOJ? How did this turn into an FBI sting operation? We’ve been told that the feds looked at Spitzer’s finances and suspected there was bribery going on, which lead them to start a wiretap on the Governor. But that charge doesn’t make sense–Spitzer is the heir to a large family fortune, so there’s no reason for him to take bribes, particularly bribes of such small amounts. Why would a millionaire take bribes of a few thousand dollars? Plus, what raised suspicion was money moving out of Spitzer’s accounts, not into them–that means they couldn’t have suspected him of taking bribes. Did they suspect him of making bribes? To who? He’s the Governor of New York; who would he need to bribe?

So, we don’t know why the inquiry went from the IRS to the DOJ. What we do know is that once the investigation began, the feds found out that Spitzer was involved in a prostitution ring. Now, in most jurisdictions the solicitation of a prostitute is a misdemeanor; these cases are almost always prosecuted on the state level, since they’re seen as relatively minor crimes. Yet, the FBI and DOJ set up a sting to catch Spitzer in the act; only after he was caught did this story leak to the press.

This just doesn’t make sense.

Paul Campos does some digging, and he comes to the same conclusions:

Be that as it may, it’s far more probable that what happened was something like this: An IRS office is tipped off by officials at various banks that Spitzer is depositing a few thousand dollars in different accounts within a day or two. Realizing it has a potential political tiger by the tail, the IRS then contacts the Department of Justice and the FBI.

At the DOJ, the Public Integrity Section launches an investigation. This unit itself has come under intense criticism during the Bush administration for investigating nearly six times more Democratic politicians than Republicans. Furthermore, many of the section’s investigations have seemed timed to coincide with elections and the like.

With a little digging, the feds soon establish that Spitzer is seeing high-priced call girls. This is a petty misdemeanor in most jurisdictions, but the DOJ goes ahead and constructs an elaborate and costly sting operation, for the express purpose of catching one of the country’s most powerful Democratic politicians committing a petty crime.

In the course of the sting, Spitzer makes a really big mistake: He pays a call girl to travel from New York to Washington. This puts him in technical violation of an 85-year-old federal law, the Mann Act, which has a long history of being used for politically motivated prosecutions of the worst sort, such as those of the boxer Jack Johnson and movie legend Charlie Chaplin.

Only then is the existence of the investigation leaked to the media.

[Emphasis Added]

The Wall Street Journal also picked up on the idiosyncracies in this case:

It isn’t clear why the FBI sought the wiretap warrant. Federal prostitution probes are exceedingly rare, lawyers say, except in cases involving organized-crime leaders or child abuse. Federal wiretaps are seldom used to make these cases; search warrants usually suffice. Wiretap applications generally are reserved for serious crimes, such as drug, weapons and terrorism-related cases. There typically are no more than 1,400 wiretaps in use nationwide at any given time.

[Emphasis Added]

Remember, the DOJ is controlled by Republicans. And Spitzer was a thorn in the side of a lot of conservatives–not just corrupt politicians, but wealthy interests like CEOs, corporate executives and Wall Street financiers. In short, a lot of wealthy, well-connected conservatives had a high stake in taking Spitzer down.

And politically-motivated prosecutions are nothing new to the Bush DOJ; remember Don Siegelman, who was knocked out of the Governorship of Alabama because of a politically-motivated ethics investigation triggered by Karl Rove. And remember that a key part of the U.S. Attorneys Scandal was that many of the attorneys were fired for not aggresively prosecuting Democrats enough.

Simply put, this case leaves a lot of questions unanswered–why did the IRS turn the case over to the DOJ? Why did the federal government devote so much time, effort and money to investigating Spitzer? Why did they use a wiretap instead of a search warrant? And once they figured out he was involved with prostitution, why did they set up a sting instead of allowing the state to prosecute this, as they normally do? Why were there so many exceptions made in this one case?

Someone needs to answer for this. Because if any part of the investigation into Spitzer was politically motivated, then someone at the DOJ deserves to be punished just as much as Spitzer does.

UPDATE: The New York Times has more on this:

Bradley D. Simon, a veteran Justice Department trial lawyer who was federal prosecutor in Brooklyn throughout the 1990s, said that although it was rare for the department to use so many resources on the workings of a prostitution ring, the involvement of such a high-level politician must change the equation.

“If they’ve got some evidence of a high-ranking public official involved in violations of federal criminal code, it may not be unreasonable for them to pursue it,” he said. Still, he said, “I don’t think prostitution has been a high priority at the Justice Department.”

[...]

In defending their handling of the case, officials said that in the end, investigators chose to monitor his conduct but made no effort to set up a sting, or an arranged situation in which Mr. Spitzer might implicate himself. They did not surreptitiously record his activities inside the hotel or seek to obtain DNA evidence. It was not necessary, as Mr. Spitzer proved to be easy prey, according to the affidavit, which was signed by an F.B.I. agent.

It indicated that on Feb. 13 federal agents staked out his hotel in Washington, and it contained recorded conversations that amply demonstrated that he willingly had a sexual encounter with a prostitute. Afterward she was recorded on a wiretap telling an Emperor’s Club employee: “I don’t think he’s difficult. I mean it’s kind of like, whatever.”

On March 10, when Mr. Spitzer was first identified by name by The New York Times on its Web site, the affidavit was widely used by news organizations to describe graphic details about his conduct.

Several current and former federal prosecutors and prominent defense lawyers who reviewed the document said the inclusion of such salacious details about Mr. Spitzer’s encounter with the prostitute went far beyond what was necessary to provide probable cause for the arrests and for searches, the purpose of the affidavit.

The government has not accused Mr. Spitzer, a Democrat, of any wrongdoing

[...]

Mr. Simon said it was unusual for the department to bring criminal charges in a prostitution case in which there was no allegation of the exploitation of children, human trafficking or some far more serious crime.

He said that in his eight years in the Brooklyn office in the 1990s, he could not recall a single major criminal case that centered on prostitution charges. “There were a lot of serious crimes — organized crime, narcotics cases, major financial crime investigations,” he said in an interview. “Prostitution was not a high priority.”

Law enforcement officials said the F.B.I. has about 450 active prostitution cases under investigation, almost all involving enterprises and some using techniques like wiretapping. In addition, since 2005, the F.B.I. has led an initiative known as Innocence Lost, which investigates prostitution involving underage women.

Justice Department officials insist that it has a strong record of breaking up large prostitution rings around the country, but many of the cases they cite involve case brought several years ago, especially before the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks; after that, the department vowed to focus its attention on national security threats.

And for years, they acknowledge, the department has rarely, if ever, prosecuted or even identified the clients of a prostitution ring.

UPDATE II: TPM brings us this piece from McClatchy:

Almost four months before Gov. Eliot Spitzer resigned in a sex scandal, a lawyer for Republican political operative Roger Stone sent a letter to the FBI alleging that Spitzer ”used the services of high-priced call girls” while in Florida.

The letter, dated Nov. 19, said Miami Beach resident Stone learned the information from ”a social contact in an adult-themed club.” It offered one potentially identifying detail: The man in question hadn’t taken off his calf-length black socks “during the sex act.”

Stone, known for shutting down the 2000 presidential election recount effort in Miami-Dade County, is a longtime Spitzer nemesis whose political experience ranges from the Nixon White House to Al Sharpton’s presidential campaign. His lawyer wrote the letter containing the call-girl allegations after FBI agents had asked to speak to Stone, though he says the FBI did not specify why he was contacted.

There’s something incredibly suspicious about the investigation into Eliot Spitzer. With so many exceptions to the rule–along with the Bush administration’s history of politicizing the Department of Justice–this definitely warrants further investigation.

How can we get that to happen?

Easy–contact Henry Waxman, Chairman of the House Oversight Committee, and demand an investigation into the DOJ’s takedown of Eliot Spitzer:

In Washington, D.C.
2204 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
(202) 225-3976 (phone)
(202) 225-4099 (fax)

Eliot Spitzer resigns as the Governor of New York:

“I am deeply sorry that I did not live up to what was expected of me,” he said in a brief news conference announcing his intention to resign, effective Monday. “I will try once again outside of politics to serve the common good.”

With his wife, Silda, at his side, he added, “Our greatest glory consists not in never falling but in rising every time we fall.”

The announcement came as the New York governor faces allegations — but no charges — that he is tied to an international prostitution ring ensnared in a federal probe.

[...]

U.S. Attorney Michael Garcia in New York issued a statement saying, “There is no agreement between this office and Gov. Eliot Spitzer relating to his resignation or any other matter.”

Lieutenant Governor David Paterson will take over, making him the first African-American Governor of New York and the 4th African-American Governor in American history.  More on Governor-to-be Paterson:

“Like all New Yorkers, I am saddened by what we have learned over the past several days,” Paterson, 53, said Wednesday in a statement issued by his office.

“On a personal level, Gov. Spitzer and Silda have been close and steadfast friends. As an elected official the governor has worked hard for the people of New York.

“My heart goes out to him and to his family at this difficult and painful time,” the statement continued. “I ask all New Yorkers to join Michelle and me in prayer for them.

“It is now time for Albany to get back to work as the people of this state expect from us.”

[...]

“The public is hoping for that replacement to redeem the office and to redeem their faith in elected officials in general. So David Paterson, in a sense, walks into a great opportunity,” said Steve Kornacki of the New York Observer.

Paterson is legally blind, and although documentation is scarce, it is widely believed that he will be the nation’s first blind governor when he takes office Monday.

Unfortunately, Republican Joe Bruno, the Majority Leader of the New York State Senate, will take over as Lieutenant Governor.  Bruno is a partisan hack, a right-wing Republican who has blocked progressive reforms like gay marriage  and campaign finance reform, while pushing for greater use of the death penalty and for anti-choice parental notification laws.  Now he’ll be able to bring his brand of extremist, obstructive conservatism to Albany, where he’s sure to do all in his power to trip-up David Paterson.

It’s a sad time for my home state of New York. Hopefully we’ll be able to move past this scandal; hopefully Paterson will continue the reformist spirit Spitzer had before his fall from grace; and hopefully New York Democrats will be able to limit the damage Joe Bruno is hoping to do to our great state.

The New York Times thinks so:

Top aides to Gov. Eliot Spitzer said Tuesday morning that they expect the governor to resign his office, although the timing of the resignation remains uncertain.

Lt. Gov. David A. Paterson and his staff have begun laying the groundwork for him to take over as governor and are reaching out to members of the Legislature, the aides said.

[...]

As the governor pondered his decision, Assemblyman James Tedisco, a Republican and the Assembly minority leader, said he would begin moving to have Mr. Spitzer impeached if the governor did not step down within 48 hours.

[...]

Mr. Spitzer has not been charged with a crime. But one law enforcement official who has been briefed on the case said that Mr. Spitzer’s lawyers would probably meet soon with federal prosecutors to discuss any possible legal exposure. The official said the discussions were likely to focus not on prostitution, but on how it was paid for: Whether the payments from Mr. Spitzer to the service were made in a way to conceal their purpose and source. That could amount to a crime called structuring, which carries a penalty of up to five years in prison.

We’ve been hearing rumors about Spitzer’s resignation since the story broke yesterday, but so far nothing has happened. It’s likely that Spitzer is using his office to bargain for a more lenient penalty, offering the prospect of resignation as part of his punishment.

While he hasn’t yet been indicted, it’s possible that he will be–not for hiring or transporting prostitutes, but for structuring his payments to the prostitutes in a way designed to avoid federal scrutiny of his expenses.

Once again, I can’t help but make the comparison to David Vitter–both men contradicted their clean public images by cavorting with prostitutes; the only difference is that Spitzer’s cost more. The double standard is a major issue here–the GOP (and, to some extent, the media) turned the other way when David Vitter got caught with prostitutes and shrugged it off, yet they’re going into an apolopectic rage and threatening impeachment when Spitzer does the same thing. And while I think stepping down is the right thing for Spitzer (and Vitter) to do, the double standard still bothers me a lot.

More as it comes…

UPDATE: CNN brings us this headline:

A top legislative staffer says N.Y. Gov. Eliot Spitzer, who is linked to a prostitution ring, is holding transition meetings

UPDATE II: Congresswoman Kirsten Gilibrand, a freshman Democrat from upstate New York, has released the following statement:

“This is very grave and sad news. My heart goes out to the governor’s family…if these serious allegations are true, the governor will have no choice but to resign.”

Gilibrand campaigned with Spitzer in 2006.

Breaking, from The New York Times:

Gov. Eliot Spitzer has informed his most senior administration officials that he had been involved in a prostitution ring, an administration official said this morning.

Mr. Spitzer, who was huddled with his top aides early this afternoon, had hours earlier abruptly canceled his scheduled public events for the day. He is set to make an announcement about 2:15 this afternoon at his Manhattan office.

I was an early fan of Eliot Spitzer, who made a name for himself as New York’s Attorney General, protecting New York’s citizens by going after corporate corruption. As the Bush administration weakened regulatory policies and refused to go after corrupt corporations, Spitzer took it upon himself to enforce the law and protect consumers.

I gladly voted for Spitzer in 2006; I had faith he would do a great job as Governor, cleaning up corruption, protecting regular people from corporate & government abuses, and finally ending the massive legislative logjam in Albany.

A press conference is coming soon; I’ll bring you it as it comes…

UPDATE: Spitzer endorsed Hillary Clinton for President back in May; I would imagine that she will release a statement on this and, in all likelihood, renounce his endorsement.

UPDATE II: New York’s Lieutenant Governor is David Paterson, the former NY Senate Minority Leader. He’s New York’s first African-American Lieutenant Governor; he is also legally blind.

UPDATE III: I wonder if the media is going to treat Eliot Spitzer the same way they treated David Vitter.

In light of the news that Republican Senator David Vitter was involved in the D.C. Madam prostitution scandal, the media treated him with kid gloves. Vitter said that he made peace with God and his wife–never admitting that he did anything wrong, despite the evidence–and right went back to the Senate. That scandal hasn’t hurt his standing in Louisiana or among the GOP–despite the fact that his behavior contradicted his ‘family values’ image. In addition, neither the media nor the GOP rally called for him to step down, despite his hypocritical law-breaking.

In light of this, will the media treat Spitzer the same way? Will they allow him to shrug off his involvement and go back to doing his job? Or will this be another case of the media holding Democrats to a higher standard than Republicans?

We’ll have to see…

UPDATE IV: Here’s Spitzer’s public statement from earlier today:

I have acted in a way that violated the obligations to my family and that violates my — or any — sense of right and wrong. I apologize first, and most importantly, to my family. I apologize to the public, whom I promised better. I do not believe that politics in the long run is about individuals. It is about ideas, the public good and doing what is best for the State of New York. But I have disappointed and failed to live up to the standard that I expect of myself. I must now dedicate some time to regain the trust of my family. I will not be taking questions. Thank you very much. I will report back to you in short order. Thank you very much.

Nothing about resignation; he’s probably going to wait to see what the political fallout is before making a decision for sure.

UPDATE V: More on the investigation that snared Spitzer:

According to an affidavit by an FBI agent filed for a search warrant in the case the investigation, led by the FBI and IRS criminal investigators, began in October of last year and focused on the ring itself for prostitution and money laundering charges. The Emperors Club ring allegedly used more than 50 prostitutes and set up dates all over the country and international cities like London and Paris, and had more than $1 million in proceeds through its front company, called QAT.

The feds intercepted more than 5,000 telephone calls and text messages used by the company’s alleged managers and 6,000 emails in the course of their investigation. The wiretaps lasted from January 8th through February 7th, when it expired, and then were renewed on Februrary 11th. As you can see from the excerpt from the affidavit posted below, investigators intercepted calls involving “Client 9,” who is reportedly Spitzer, starting on February 12th and into February 13th.

And more about what triggered the investigation to begin with:

The federal investigation of a New York prostitution ring was triggered by Gov. Eliot Spitzer’s suspicious money transfers, initially leading agents to believe Spitzer was hiding bribes, according to federal officials.It was only months later that the IRS and the FBI determined that Spitzer wasn’t hiding bribes but payments to a company called QAT, what prosecutors say is a prostitution operation operating under the name of the Emperors Club. …

The suspicious financial activity was initially reported by a bank to the IRS which, under direction from the Justice Department, brought in the FBI’s Public Corruption Squad.

“We had no interest at all in the prostitution ring until the thing with Spitzer led us to learn about it,” said one Justice Department official.

The ABC report goes on to say that Spitzer will be charged with structuring, according to its source. If I’m remembering my white collar crime law correctly, structuring is basically trying to avoid triggering the federal reporting requirement for any cash transaction that exceeds $10,000. So a series of $9,000 payments to the same person in a short period of time would raise suspicions, for example.

And Hillary Clinton says she’s going to wait and see before she does anything about Spitzer’s endorsement of her:

When asked whether Gov. Spitzer could survive politically she said “let’s wait and see what comes out of the next few days. Right now I don’t have any comment. I think it’s appropriate to wish his family well and see how things develop.”

UPDATE VI: To be fair in the Vitter-Spitzer comparison, Spitzer is facing an indictment, whereas Vitter was never indicted for his conduct.

Of course, Vitter and Spitzer’s offenses are nearly identical, in that they contradicted their clean, moral public image by cavorting with prostitutes.  Spitzer’s indictment is related solely to how he paid for the prostitutes–he paid for them through a series of smaller payments in order to avoid triggering federal scrutiny of his finances, which is in and of itself illegal.

The indictment could prove to be a sticking point, but the fact remains that Spitzer and Vitter both contradicted their clean public images by hiring prostitutes on the side.

Bill Gillespie, who’s challenging Republican Jack Kingston in GA-01, has released a new video focusing on Kingston’s hypocricy; Kingston likes to criticize Democrats for not wearing American flag lapel pins, even though he doesn’t bother wearing one himself.

The lapel pin line is a stupid attack, a way to score cheap shots against Democrats; Kingston’s hypocricy underscores just how stupid of an attack it is.

Here’s the video from the Gillespie campaign:

Gillespie is an Iraq war veteran and a fighting Democrat, and he’s definitely worth our support. You can view his site here, and you can contribute to his campaign here.

Just 24 hours left until VOTR Day.

There are two polls out showing the results of early voting in Texas–depending on who’s right, Obama either has a slight lead or a big lead:

SurveyUSA. 3/1-2. Likely voters.

Clinton 50
Obama 48

Public Strategies (PDF). 2/27-3/1. Likely voters.

Obama 56
Clinton 44

That same Public Strategies poll has a gem for November:

McCain (R) 50
Clinton (D) 46

McCain (R) 49
Obama (D) 42

The Democrats are still trailing, but it’s mind-boggling that Texas could be competitive. It may not stay this way, but it shows us that–no matter how tomorrow goes–we should be ready to fight for the fall.

And all of the final polls out of Texas show the race basically tied:

Candidate	SUSA	Rasm.	PPP	Zogby	IA	Pollster	RCP
Obama	49	48	44	47	44	47.0	46.5
Clinton	48	47	50	44	49	46.0	46.8

Basically, Clinton supporters are hoping that tomorrow will be like New Hampshire, where they defy everyone’s expectations and pull out a big victory despite significant struggling beforehand. Obama supporters are hoping that tomorrow will be like Wisconsin, where it appears that Clinton has a foothold but Obama end up pulling off a big victory in the end.

Meanwhile, former Presidential candidate Bill Richardson came out and all but endorsed Obama–in an interview, Richardson said that the candidate with a clear lead after tomorrow should be the nominee, and he criticized the Hillary ‘red phone’ ad that widely panned for mirroring Republican fearmongering. Richardson has always been very cautious–it’s obvious he wants to get back in the White House, and I doubt he’ll endorse anyone until it becomes clear who the nominee will be.

For all the focus on tomorrow, though, the results may not entirely matter. The bar is extremely high for Clinton–she has to walk away with both Ohio and Texas, otherwise she’ll be portrayed as the loser and will be pressured immensely to step aside. The Obama campaign’s bar is lower–all they have to do is win one of those two major states to be seen as the winner and basically the nominee.

Even if Clinton pulls off big victories tomorrow, it may not matter. If tomorrow doesn’t resolve this primary, the nominee will be the person who ends up with the most pledged delegates–the superdelegates will face enormous pressure to obey the will of the people, and there will be a lot of fear of party disunity and conflict if the superdelegates throw the nomination to the person who lost the popular vote. The Atlantic’s Marc Ambinder crunches the numbers for the remaining states and comes to this conclusion:

So — under these most rosy of scenarios — since March 4, she’ll have earned 520 delegates to Barack Obama’s 461, having reduced his earned delegate total by about 80 — or — by about 60 percent — but he’ll still have a lead of approximately 100 delegates in total… and be that much closer to 2025.

Tomorrow may resolve a lot of our questions, but it might also not. It depends on whether tomorrow is New Hampshire or Wisconsin.

On the Republican side, John McCain had a rough February. Despite being crowned the GOP nominee, he’s been stumbling straight out of the gate:

McCain was accused of having a romantic relationship with a lobbyist by The New York Times (he vehemently denied it). The DNC filed a complaint against McCain with the Federal Election Commission questioning whether he is violating the spending limits imposed on a campaign that takes public funds.

[...]

At this point in the campaign, nothing seems to alarm Republicans more than the incessant sound of ringing cash registers coming from the other party. The jaw-dropping fundraising by Democrats — and Obama in particular — is leading Republican officials both in and out of McCain’s campaign to think that they’ll never be able to match the war chests of their likely rivals. And this from a party that traditionally has pummeled Democrats when it comes to fundraising.

Adding to his rocky start, McCain makes two major gaffes in a row. First, he pledges not to raise taxes, and then backtracks on his promise:

Two weeks ago, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) took the “Read My Lips” plunge, proclaiming that as president he would not raise taxes for any reason. “No new taxes,” he declared twice in an interview with ABC News.

[...]

The Wall Street Journal reports today that McCain is now distancing himself from the pledge not to raise taxes, saying his statement was not a firm commitment:

[...]

McCAIN: I’m not making a “read my lips” statement in that I will not raise taxes. But I’m not saying I can envision a scenario where I would, OK? But I’m not making it a centerpiece in my campaign.

Second, he contradicts his own proposed plan for Social Security:

In 2000, he supported President Bush’s efforts to divert part of Social Security payroll taxes to fund private accounts. Asked about his current position, McCain said, “I’m totally in favor of personal sa