Prairie Weather

Craig's replacement named

Idaho Sen. Larry Craig will announce his career plans Saturday after widespread calls from fellow Republicans to resign over a men's room sex sting, his spokesman said Friday.

Craig will hold a news conference in Boise on Saturday, his spokesman, Dan Whiting said, but he would not say whether the three-term senator planned to step down. Idaho Gov. C.L. "Butch'' Otter, however, appeared to have settled on a successor: Lt. Gov. Jim Risch, according to several Republicans familiar with internal deliberations.

Hard not to imagine what Craig's career plans are at this point.

So who's getting bailed out?

In a word, speculators.   Bernanke implied and Bush said outright that speculators shouldn't be bailed out.   But look at Andrew Leonard's speculation about their intentions:

...Let's look a little more closely at exactly how they intend to bail out and protect investors and speculators.

That's right: speculators.The Mortgage Bankers Association released the results of a survey on Friday indicating that in four of the hottest real estate markets in the country, California, Nevada, Arizona and Florida, a significant proportion -- sometimes as much as 30 percent -- of the defaults on prime-quality loans can be traced to properties that aren't occupied by their owners. These would be second homes bought as investment opportunities by speculators looking to flip their properties before interest rates reset.

As economist Dean Baker notes this morning, it is as yet unclear whether any technical distinction is being made between such speculators and the people who really do need help. In fact, one could argue that the opposite is true. One of Bush's proposals will permit borrowers with good credit but who can't afford their current payments to refinance with Federal Housing Authority loans. But aren't the people with bad credit who got sucked into subprime loans the ones that really need help? The people with good credit are likely the dastardly flippers!

Yeah.  But the poor -- the people with bad credit -- are, by definition, unworthy.  What were these low-class persons thinking of when they responded to, for example, Bush's urgings to "go shopping"?  They stupid or something?

Anyway, what happens to them is their problem as long as the market is happy... lifts all boats... puts food on the family...  However, there may be another reason for Bush's imitation of liberalism.

Even if there isn't much real meat to chew on, from a political perspective, the moves may serve a calculated purpose in outflanking Democratic candidates who have been making mortgage reform a key campaign plank, such as Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

John Edwards' success in Iowa

They're saying that Edwards' showing in Iowa, according to the latest Time poll, shows the success of "retail polling," and note that he didn't miss a county on his hand-shaking tour.  I've been on-again-off-again about John Edwards, so when I heard the news I asked myself, "What is it that grabs me about John Edwards?" 

What grabbed me first was his anger at John Kerry for not protesting the 2004 vote in Ohio.  We were all angry.  Some of us have a lingering anger at the Democratic party for its weakness.  John Edwards was the one person in a top leadership and in the spotlight who spoke up.

* Likeability: Edwards (32%) and Obama (30%) lead as "most likeable." Clinton finishes last, at 12%, just below Bill Richardson (16%).

* Strongest Leadership: Clinton holds a commanding lead over Edwards and Obama, 36% - 23% - 20%. Richardson (9%) trails badly on leadership.

* Handling of Iraq: Clinton (27%) leads Obama (19%), Edwards (18%) and Richardson (16%).

* Protecting Against Terrorism: Clinton leads the field by a wide margin, picked by 27%, compared to Edwards, at 19%, Obama at 15%, and Richardson at 14%.

So an an overall 5 points ahead of Hillary Clinton?  Hurrah!  Clinton postures like a leader but she caves on important issues.  I'm tired of Bush-like calculation and wrongheadedness.  Bush-like incompetence?  Don't know.

Tony Snow, John Warner

Will we miss Tony Snow as press secretary?  No.  But there was a moment yesterday when we passed a TV screen and stood mesmerized for a moment by the image of Snow leading a press conference.  He had shrunk within his suit.  He looked haggard.  Perhaps it's not financial necessity which is taking him away from the White House job but the chemo.  Like him or not, miss him or not, it's difficult not to feel a good deal of compassion for the man as he deals with illness and the tortures of cancer therapy.

John Warner is leaving the Senate.  An article in New York magazine some years ago named him the dumbest man in the Senate.  I read that after he'd bought some of my work and associated the two ideas in my mind.  But here's the thing about John Warner.  He may be the key Republican Senator in turning that slow barge of a party towards port in the matter of Iraq.  So I'm grateful to him in several ways, probably his truthful response to the Iraq situation more than anything.

Legal immunity for telecoms? or for the administration?

The Bush administration wants the power to grant legal immunity to telecommunications companies that are slapped with privacy suits for cooperating with the White House's controversial warrantless eavesdropping program.

The authority would effectively shut down dozens of lawsuits filed against telecommunications companies accused of helping set up the program.

It's not just that the administration wants this, it wants it now, and it's negotiating with Congress to give the power to the attorney general to grant immunity.  At least some Congressional Democrats are demanding narrower authority than the White House would like.

Democrats say McConnell's first draft of the immunity proposal is far too murky. Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., an intelligence committee member, fears the language would go far beyond protecting private companies and their employees, also giving cover to any government officials who may have broken the law.

''I and others are going to make sure that anything that is done is done in a narrow, targeted way,'' Wyden said.

Unfortunately, the Democrats are split on this issue.

There is a divide among Capitol Hill's majority Democrats about whether the companies deserve any protection. Some believe they were operating in good faith, on orders that appeared to be lawful. Others believe lawyers at the companies had a responsibility to ensure the requests weren't an abuse of presidential power.

This another case in which the decision about corporate liability should be given by the court, not by the White House lawyer -- that's the way the position of Attorney General has been used by the Bush administration.  Any proposal to give this kind of power to a Bush-appointed AG should be looked at very carefully by Congress.

One former Justice Department official raises an interesting question.

David S. Kris, former associate deputy attorney general for national security issues, said the debate over immunity raises a broad policy question: ''To what extent is the private sector supposed to be a check on government power?''

Answering that question is difficult, he said, because lawmakers and the public don't know exactly how the government crafted its request for cooperation. ''If the attorney general says, 'Your country needs you to do this to save lives,' that may generate some sympathy for a company that cooperates,'' Kris said.

How the government conducts surveillance during national security investigations is expected to be a leading issue when the Democratic-controlled Congress returns next week and contemplates changes to FISA.

But a judge questions this immunity authorization for the right reason:

U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth, who presided over the 11-member FISA court from 1995 to 2002, believes judges play an important part of the process.

The value added by having judges in the process ''is that we recognize the rights of the person who is not represented,'' said Lamberth, who continues to follow FISA matters. ''We're ensuring there is some valid national security purpose. I don't know why you wouldn't want that value added.''

We do.  We know that this administration -- which has been both seriously incompetent, partisan, and corrupt --  is likely to use the authority to cover up its own malfeasance.  The Bush administration should never be granted such power.  And, on principle, neither should even the cleanest adminstration.

Of course, the Democrats will get blamed for this eventually

Whoever is the next president (that's the way the statement usually begins) he or she will have to deal with the enormous budget cuts at [insert government function].   If it's a Democrat who channels funding to repair the damage done by Bush's policies, Democrats will be nailed as "big government tax-and-spenders."

Whoever succeeds Alberto Gonzales as attorney general will face a long list of challenges at the Justice Department, from unfilled senior positions to sagging morale. One of the most pressing, according to dozens of current and former federal prosecutors, is a budget squeeze at U.S. attorneys’ offices that has led to declines in crime prosecutions and delays in major investigations.

But the mutiny taking place within the Department of Justice goes beyond problems with budget cuts.  Scott Horton, writing in Harper's today, reports that "a large part of the attorney staff at the Department of Justice are refusing to appear on behalf of the Department and make arguments or write briefs connected with Guantánamo."   

What Alberto Gonzales is experiencing during his final days in office, says Horton, is "truly unprecedented in America’s history, is now being manifested in clear physical signs."

With only a little more than a year left in the Bush administration, the worst mess -- and it's government-wide and extends to the Middle East -- will be tossed into the lap of the next administration and congress.   Perhaps the next Congress should pass one enormous spending bill to cover the entire clean-up and label it the "Post-Bush Repair Bill."  More on the DOJ mutiny  here...