The Republican Culture of Corruption is back, not that it was ever gone to those of us paying attention. The scandals that I believe had as much to do with the Republicans' "thumpin'" in 2006 as Iraq did never really went away, but they have fallen off the media radar. Maybe the indictment of Sen. Ted Stevens will bring it back to the media's attention. TPMMuckraker has kept an eye on these scandals better than anyone else. They are nonpartisan, to the undoubted chagrin of corrupt Democrats who sometimes find themselves frequently the subject of scandal updates, but the bulk of scandals are still heavily Republican. The Anchorage Daily News, the site linked above, has closely followed the scandals in Alaska, which must barely leave space for stock quotes and sports scores. Stevens is just the biggest fish caught in the VECO Corp. scandal. Follow that search on the ADN site or this search on TPMMuckraker, and you'll find this scandal has resulted in the conviction of the CEO, another senior executive, and several state legislators. Steven's son, for State Senate President, is still under investigation. In case you thought VECO was it for Alaska, the junior senator, Lisa Murkowski -- yes, a Republican, has her own whiffs of financial impropriety. Rep. Don Young is spending most of his campaign fund on legal defense and will likely lose to a Democrat if he even gets through the Republican primary. Gov. Sarah Palin, elected to clean out corruption and rumored to be a VP candidate, has previously been mentioned here for sharing a Dead Polar Bear Award. She's probably blown ("probably" -- this is the GOP we're talking about) her VP chance with the appearance that she fired a state Public Safety Commissioner for resisting her pressure to fire her sister's ex-husband.

Folks, this all was just Alaska!

Lobbyist Cecelia Grimes has pled guilty to destroying evidence in the investigation of former Rep. Curt Weldon. Weldon was one of the corrupt Republicans tossed by the voters in 2006, and one of several congressmen and former congressmen still being investigated.

The Dept. of Justice Inspector General has released a report on investigations kicked off by gonzogate, the firing of seven US Attorneys in December 2006. Many accusations have been borne out, like hiring career employees based on political opinions and affiliations, and firing similarly. The firing of the attorneys was just more public, but otherwise normal. Some people names are still there, and others will likely be seeking pardons pretty soon.

Steve Payne, a lobbyist close to Bush, was caught on tape selling access to Bush to someone he thought was deposed dictator. Several years ago he hired Randy Scheunemann, now McCain's top foreign policy advisor. Payne's connections are still being dug out, but it's looking like he operated as a foreign agent without registering as such, as lobbyists for foreign governments are supposed to do. The connection to McCain looks tenuous, but the connection to Bush is strong.

Blackwater is back too, this time being tricky to qualify for SBA (Small Business Administration) contracts. They claimed employees were contractors. this way they were small enough to qualify as a small business, with the bonus that their employees weren't covered by FICA and might not be eligible for unemployment compensation. They appear to have screwed over employees, taxpayers, and whoever would have honestly gotten those contracts, all in one go.

It's starting to feel like 2006: another week, another GOP scandal.

Conspiracy of circumstances
July 24

McCain must be wondering why he can't catch a break (something to do with saying things that aren't true?). He was going to give a speech at an oil platform in the Gulf of Mexico off New Orleans, and presumably he was going to repeat his line about Katrina causing no oil spills as part of the GOP campaign to trick the public into thinking offshore oil drilling has no risks. So, what do you think happened in New Orleans today? That's right, a big oil spill. McCain canceled the speech, saying it was because of the weather. The spill didn't affect the platform, but I can't help wondering if the coincidence would have made for really bad TV. I'll tell the Republicans again: if you would stop saying things that are demonstrably false, this would stop happening to you. If you would stop being the handmaids of the oil companies, events like today wouldn't happen to you. If you would break your delusions about Iraq, your encouragement of Obama to go to Iraq would have been apparent as a bad idea --- for you. You thought Obama would stumble, but Obama wasn't what you thought he was, and got to make a boffo speech in Berlin that wasn't coincidental with an oil spill. You kept pretending the Iraqis didn't want a timetable, so the Iraqis used Obama's visit to finally get their point across. If it makes Republicans feel better, I'll readily concede the spill came from a barge, not an off-shore platform. It doesn't negate the point that the risk of spills is not zero.

But where's the beef(s)?
July 24

The Norm Coleman ads using actors pretending to be regular guys sitting around a bowling alley are an attempt to use some humor, and they aren't bad in terms of production values. I'll even grant that trying to go on to Franken's turf in terms of using humor is a strong choice. I just want to point out something: notice how Coleman still hasn't gone after Franken on any issues. None. It's all character attacks. Yes, his surrogates made up the ads lying about the Employee Free Choice Act, and Coleman has told some whoppers, but other than that the GOP side of the Minnesota senate race has been issue free --- which should tell you something.

McCain doesn't know Iraq basics
July 23

McCain is showing that he doesn't know much more about Iraq now than when he couldn't keep Sunni and Shiite straight. In an interview on Today, he said, "I've been there too many times, I've met too many times with them, and I know what they want. They want it based on conditions, and of course they'd like to have us out, that's what happens when you win wars, you leave. We may have a residual presence there as even Sen. Obama has admitted, but the fact is, that it should be based, that the agreement between Prime Minister Maliki, the Iraqi government, and the United States is it will be based on conditions." It's as if he didn't know the Iraqi government has been quite plain that they want a timetable. Maliki mentioned it several times, specifying Obama's timetable. Perhaps McCain is just ignoring Maliki, like the Republicans have ignored the Iraqis the other times they asked for a timetable, like in 2005, or like in 2006, or even two weeks ago before the mainstream media finally picked it up from Der Spiegel. If that's the case, then clearly, the Republicans don't listen to the Iraqis or respect their sovereignty, perhaps thinking they could have the puppet government they've always pretended they didn't want. That makes Obama not only the clear winner in the debate over withdrawal, but the one more willing to work with the Iraqi government. It's also a another case where the mainstream media needs a spanking, because they appear to have taken the Republicans' insistence on ignoring the Iraqi calls for a timetable as a sign the media should ignore it too. They only told the whole public when Obama went to Iraq and the prime minister specifically mentioned him.

McCain ignorance in his proclaimed area of expertise again in an interview on the CBS Evening News, when he said, "I don't know how you respond to something that is such a false depiction of what actually happened. Colonel MacFarland was contacted by one of the major Sunni sheiks. Because of the surge we were able to go out and protect that sheik and others. And it began the Anbar awakening. I mean, that's just a matter of history." The "Awakening" started in September 2006, four months before the acting president announced the surge, and it's the main reason conditions in Iraq have improved. Amazing what happens when after three and half years of stupidity, you finally do the obvious and stop treating the Sunnis like a monolith, but instead work with those who aren't Al Qaida. Among those who agree with me are Maliki, who left out the surge as one of the causes of the security improvement in the Spiegel interview. McCain not only doesn't get that the troop increase wasn't what helped, but he can't even tell in what order things happened where he claims to be an expert.

I can't let the CBS interview go without mentioning the helping hand CBS tried to give him. CBS did put up the transcript, but what was shown on TV --- the part that matters --- was an answer to whole different question. CBS faked part of the interview to protect McCain from his gaffe. Wait, haven't the Republicans been complaining the media is biased in favor of Obama? Anyone think Obama would ever get a gaffe covered up? This is the same media making it out that Obama flip-flopped on Iraq because he said he would "refine" his policy. Kudos however to whoever sneaked out the real video.

Since the gaffe came out, McCain can't admit a mistake. He's pathetically saying the surge really started months earlier. His spokespeople are trying to say the Democrats want to debate whether the surge helped the awakening. In a typical Republican debating trick, they're making up what the other side is saying instead of addressing what's really being said. Yes, Obama has gotten lucky on his trip, but the Republicans are making that luck by ignoring what the Iraqis are saying and saying stupid things themselves. Face facts: just like with saying repeatedly that Iran was training Al Qaida and repeatedly referring to Czechoslovakia, McCain doesn't know the basics of foreign policy. That's why he has to speak in cliches and keep repeating "radical Islamic extremists". Compare that to Obama's statements on his Middle East trip, where he keeps displaying a grasp of complexity, such as: "The notion is, is that either I do exactly what my military commanders tell me to do or I'm ignoring their advice. No, I'm factoring in their advice but placing it in this broader strategic framework ... that's required."

"Main Core" might make the recent telecom immunity debate look small
July 23

Salon came out with an expose today indicating that not only might the acting president's spying on Americans go much further than previously revealed, but his predecessors might have engaged in some similar activity, going back to Reagan. Civil liberties organizations are trying to get Congress to start something like the Church Commission in 1975, which investigated illegal government spying in the 1960's and 70's, and they might be getting somewhere. "Main Core" appears to be a secret government database with information going beyond anything so far discovered. The Church Commission found Nixon was going after political opponents as much as spying on actual security threats. That hasn't been shown yet with Bush, but we didn't know about Nixon when he was in office. The suspicion about Bush comes from his willingness to engage in political prosecutions, to lie to start wars, to use secret prisons and torture, but we don't know for sure his administration has has used the apparatus of national security to spy on political opponents. It just seems like the kind of thing he would do. The Salon reporter, Tim Shorrock, quotes an anonymous source identified as a "...senior Democratic congressional aide who is familiar with the proposal and has been involved in several high-profile congressional investigations" saying, "If we know this much about torture, rendition, secret prisons and warrantless wiretapping despite the administration's attempts to stonewall, then imagine what we don't know."

One more time for Republicans: Katrina did indeed cause oil spills
July 20

I've written about this before because among the Republicans spreading the myth that there were no oil spills caused by Hurricane Katrina is my own Republican senator, Norm Coleman. I bring it up again because they keep saying it. They're factually wrong, and I don't mean a little wrong, depending on how you look at it. I mean they're speaking the reverse of the truth. So why are they saying it? Are they lying or merely wrong? I'll answer the second question first: both, since some (like Coleman) seem to forgo fact-checking of their party's talking points, but there comes a point where the debunking must have gotten through and they just think it's a point that helps their side (in fact, McCain used it again on July 15th).

They're saying it to bolster their campaign to open more coastlines to offshore drilling. If even Katrina didn't cause oil spills, then there's no risk. A reasonable person certainly could argue that the risk is low, and that a Santa Barbara spill is highly unlikely to occur again, but the risk is not zero as the Republicans imply. In terms of fact-checking, they didn't need to wait for the debunking in Think Progress that I linked to. They could have checked the same government reports, or looked back at news reports from the time like this, or this. Since the point was never true, someone either knowingly lied, or didn't care if it was true, which I suppose is a lie of a sort. Possibly the rest of them just picked up the point, even though they ought to have learned by now that Republican talking points are factually unreliable.

The Republicans' continued use of this point, aside from the specific policy issue of oil drilling, shows a willingness to lie, or to use a point regardless of it's accuracy. Agree with them about opening environmentally sensitive areas to oil drilling if you want to, but for crying out loud, CHECK THEIR FACTS before believing them --- and be careful of your sources. If your fact-checking on this point of Coleman's consists of hearing John McCain saying the same thing, you would still be wrong.

It turns out there are several other Republicans who ought not be relied upon for fact-checking in this regard. That last link above is about other conservatives using the same point McCain was caught using, including current Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne. Isn't knowing better part of his job description? Typical bushie competence I suppose. Besides those Think Progress found, and besides my catch of Coleman, there's also Kentucky senator Mitch McConnell who said, "I think people are reassured that not a drop of oil was spilled during Katrina or Rita. Those rigs in the Gulf, there was not a single incident of spillage that anyone reported." Bobby Jindal, who as governor of Louisiana ought to know better, said, "You know, that's one of the great unwritten success stories, after Katrina and Rita, these awful storms, no major spills." Here's Sen. Kit Bond of Missouri repeating it.

I repeat this so there's no confusion: this post doesn't address whether opening more coastline to oil drilling is a good idea or bad idea. I'm just pointing out the bigger aspect that Republicans are willing to lie to open them. Readers ought therefore to be skeptical about their other claims.