Goldy

Coming up tonight on “The David Goldstein Show”, 7PM to 10PM on Newsradio 710-KIRO:

7PM: Where is Sound Transit going?
Ric Ilgenfritz, executive director of policy and public affairs joins me to talk about Sound Transit’s current projects and future plans, and what a proposal for a regional transportation commission might hold for light rail in Seattle and beyond. Is Seattle’s light rail on track? Will it ever reach to the Eastside? Give Ric a call and ask for yourself.

8PM: Were the U.S. attorney filings illegal?
Ousted U.S. Attorney for Western Washington John McKay appeared on NBC’s Meet the Press today, where he suggested that those involved in the scandal may have not only acted improperly, but “even illegally.”

9PM: TBA

Tune in tonight (or listen to the live stream) and give me a call: 1-877-710-KIRO (5476).

Coming up tonight on “The David Goldstein Show”, 7PM to 10PM on Newsradio 710-KIRO:

7PM: How much is a baby worth?
A Texas legislator has proposed offering women consider abortion $500 not to end their pregnancies, while at the same time college students will see the cost birth control triple as the federal government ends a subsidy to college health systems.

8PM: TBA

9PM: TBA

Tune in tonight (or listen to the live stream) and give me a call: 1-877-710-KIRO (5476).

A caller to the show last night seemed unconcerned with the government snooping into every aspect of his personal life. “I’ve got nothing to hide,” he told me, insisting that secret wiretaps and other intrusions were a small price to pay during “a time of war.” Of course the Bush administration and its strongest backers expect the war on terrorism — or “The Long War” as some administration officials have frighteningly called it — to go on indefinitely, resulting in an indefinite suspension of some of our most basic personal liberties… rights like habeas corpus, which actually predates our Constitution.

Well, for those who are less sanguine than my caller about our ever eroding civil liberties, an anonymous guest column in this week’s Washington Post is a disturbing illustration of how our government’s expanding program of secret domestic spying intrudes on the personal lives of average, law abiding citizens.

Three years ago, I received a national security letter (NSL) in my capacity as the president of a small Internet access and consulting business. The letter ordered me to provide sensitive information about one of my clients. There was no indication that a judge had reviewed or approved the letter, and it turned out that none had. The letter came with a gag provision that prohibited me from telling anyone, including my client, that the FBI was seeking this information. Based on the context of the demand — a context that the FBI still won’t let me discuss publicly — I suspected that the FBI was abusing its power and that the letter sought information to which the FBI was not entitled.

Rather than turn over the information, I contacted lawyers at the American Civil Liberties Union, and in April 2004 I filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the NSL power. I never released the information the FBI sought, and last November the FBI decided that it no longer needs the information anyway. But the FBI still hasn’t abandoned the gag order that prevents me from disclosing my experience and concerns with the law or the national security letter that was served on my company. In fact, the government will return to court in the next few weeks to defend the gag orders that are imposed on recipients of these letters.

Living under the gag order has been stressful and surreal. Under the threat of criminal prosecution, I must hide all aspects of my involvement in the case — including the mere fact that I received an NSL — from my colleagues, my family and my friends. When I meet with my attorneys I cannot tell my girlfriend where I am going or where I have been. I hide any papers related to the case in a place where she will not look. When clients and friends ask me whether I am the one challenging the constitutionality of the NSL statute, I have no choice but to look them in the eye and lie.

I resent being conscripted as a secret informer for the government and being made to mislead those who are close to me, especially because I have doubts about the legitimacy of the underlying investigation.

[…] I recognize that there may sometimes be a need for secrecy in certain national security investigations. But I’ve now been under a broad gag order for three years, and other NSL recipients have been silenced for even longer. At some point — a point we passed long ago — the secrecy itself becomes a threat to our democracy.

The NSL received by the author was only one of more than 140,000 the FBI issued between 2003 and 2005, without prior judicial approval or showing of probable cause, seeking sensitive, private information about U.S. citizens and residents.

If you support this and other similar provisions of the USA Patriot Act, then you must support the notion that the author of this column, should his identity be revealed, be criminally prosecuted and imprisoned for speaking publicly about his experiences under the law. And if you support that, then I’m not quite sure what it is about America that you are hoping to defend. Or, as Benjamin Franklin more eloquently put it: “Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

I’m filling in again for Frank Shiers tonight on 710-KIRO from 9PM to 1AM. Call in and give me a piece your mind: 1-877-710-KIRO (5476).

Oh man was I jealous yesterday to learn that 710-KIRO colleagues Jane Shannon and Tony Miner had scored an interview with embattled U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, but I certainly wasn’t disappointed with the result. Jane and Tony lobbed follow-up after follow-up as Gonzales ducked and dodged. Give a listen to the proper way to conduct an interview, no matter how important or uncooperative the interviewee.

[audio:http://sea.bonnint.net/2007/0323gonzalesARC.mp3]

Of course, Gonzales knew he was going to be asked these questions, and he had no intention of answering them. The very premise of this PR tour — an educational campaign about online sex predators — was cynically designed to give Gonzales the excuse to evade reporters by accusing them of focusing on the politically trivial, while he was out their focusing on “protecting our children.” So it came as no surprise when Gonzales answered every question by rephrasing it.

Jane: Seattle as you know, is home of former U.S. Attorney John McKay. Mr. Gonzales, why was he fired?

Gonzales: Listen, we made a decision at the department as to the appropriate way forward. And there was nothing improper about the decision here. The president of the United States has the authority to hire and remove political appointees for any reason. Obviously the question here is whether or not, were these political appointees removed for improper reasons?

No… the question here is “Why was McKay fired?” I thought Jane made that pretty damn clear.

Gonzales went on to emphasize that it is “reckless and irresponsible to allege that these decisions were based in any way on improper motives,” an allegation Jane never implied. So she tried to ask the question more specifically:

Jane: Was it a matter of McKay’s performance?

Gonzales: Again, the question is whether or not it was improper. It was not.

And again, no… that was not the question.

Perhaps it was a bad phone connection, so this time Miner steps in and puts the same question another way:

Tony: Mr. Attorney General, as a way to diffuse this controversy now, why not just come out and tell the American people exactly why these prosecutors were fired? What did they do?

Gonzales: Well, of course that’s something we’re engaged with in a dialogue with the Congress.

Yeah… a dialogue they want to have behind closed doors, off the record, and not under oath.

Gonzales: Some of the information is already out there. Some of that information is available in the documents.

And some of the information we’ll never know, because White House and DOJ officials refuse to testify in public, on the record and under oath.

Gonzales: But I want to remind your listeners about one thing, whatever those reasons are, and people have subjective views as to whether that person should go or should that person not go, there may be disagreements about that, but the president has the authority and the discretion to make that decision. And whether or not you agree with it, he has the authority and it is OK for him to do so based on my recommendation.

Well, he may have the legal authority, sure… but, um, once again, that was never the question.

Gonzales: What we should all be concerned about is, whether or not were the firings, the removals, based on improper motives, and I am saying to the American people and to your listeners, that the answer to that is no.

Oh. Well, I guess that answers all our questions. Well, at least that answers the one question Gonzales keeps posing to himself. But wait, there’s more…

Gonzales: And it is irresponsible and reckless to continue to insist that this great Department of Justice was involved in something improper.

Hmm. I think I heard that sound bite somewhere before.

So Jane bravely tries one more time:

Jane: Well you can certainly understand some confusion, sir, when in August of last year one of your deputies recommended McKay for federal judgeship and just a month later McKay’s name was put on a list, basically, of prosecutors to be pushed out. This is according to e-mails obtained from your department. What changed in that short period of time?

Gonzales: Listen, the fact that someone may have had an idea or a discussion, that does not necessarily represent the view of the department or represent my view. These U.S. attorney positions … are on the front lines protecting our kids, they’re out there today talking about this ad campaign that I want to talk with your listeners about with respect of what we can do to further protect our kids from predators. And so this an issue that’s very important for me, and we will continue to focus on the work for the American people, and that’s what I’m focused on as Attorney General.

Translation: “I’m not going to answer your question because I’m busy protecting our children from predators. Hmm. Maybe you’re a sex predator yourself. Are ya Jane? Huh, are ya?”

We all knew Gonzales would show up ready to play dodge ball. Kudos to Jane and Tony for continuing to wing ’em at his nuts.

[And a special thanks to David Postman. I was halfway through laboriously transcribing the interview, when I discovered that he had already done most of the work. You can read a full transcript over at Dave’s place.]

[Update: The AP is reporting:

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales approved plans to fire several U.S. attorneys in a November meeting, according to documents released Friday that contradict earlier claims that he was not closely involved in the dismissals.

That’s got to hurt! — Darryl]

Wow. I guess voters aren’t quite as stupid as Karl Rove took them for, after all:

Public allegiance to the Republican Party has plunged since the second year of George W. Bush’s presidency, as attitudes have edged away from some of the conservative values that fueled GOP political dominance for more than a decade, a new survey has found.

The survey, by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center for People and the Press, found a “dramatic shift” in political-party identification since 2002, when Republicans and Democrats were at rough parity. Now, half of those surveyed identified with or leaned toward Democrats, while 35 percent aligned with Republicans.

What’s more, the survey found the public attitudes are drifting toward Democrats’ values: Support for government aid to the disadvantaged has grown since the mid-1990s, skepticism about the use of military force has increased and support for traditional family values has edged down.

Rove is reportedly fond of William McKinley, but when it comes to political realignments, I think the Republican presidency George W. Bush will most closely be compared to is that of Herbert Hoover.

UPDATE:
Andrew Sullivan agrees:

It’s a devastating indictment of the Bush-Rove strategy for conservatism and the Republican party. They may have created the most loyally Democratic generation since the New Deal with the under 25s. […] It turns out that Karl Rove has gone a long way toward securing a permanent majority in American politics … for liberals and Democrats. The collapse of a coherent, freedom-loving, reality-based conservatism is surely part of the reason.

I’ll be filling in for Frank Shiers tonight and tomorrow night on 710-KIRO from 9PM to 1AM. Sen Brian Weinstein will join me at the top of the first hour to talk about SB 5550, the Homeowner’s Warranty Bill. I’ll post more on tonight’s show later.

Could the Seattle Times editorial board be any more dense or dishonest? Well yeah, of course they could. But that sloppy, wet kiss they planted today on Rep. Dave Reichert’s manly punim is one humdinger of a premeditated prevarication.

The Times celebrates Reichert’s “independence” and congratulates him for speaking out in defense of ousted U.S. Attorney John McKay:

Reichert picked a good cause and a good time to push back on a White House that clearly blew it by firing McKay.

No doubt it’s a good cause and a shrewd (if obvious) piece of political maneuvering. But a “good time”…? Um… wouldn’t a better time to have displayed his “conscience-driven independence” have been way back in December… when McKay was fired?

Let’s look at the time line here. We heard nothing but crickets chirping from Reichert when news of McKay’s ouster broke back in December, and when Reichert was asked to submit candidates for the office, McKay’s name was noticeably absent from the list. Wouldn’t that have been the “occasion where sticking his neck out really counts”…?

It is not until months later, with the scandal threatening to take down Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and drag our nation into a constitutional crisis, that Reichert finally sticks up for McKay. And even then, he didn’t actually submit McKay’s name for consideration, or formally request he be reinstated. No, he just made a statement to a reporter.

Not exactly a profile in courage.

The only thing accurate about the Times editorial is the headline: “Reichert reacts.” A real leader — a real independent — would have been proactive in defense of John McKay and our justice system, instead of sticking his finger in the political winds and spitting out a sound bite after the fact.

The DC chatter says that John Edwards is pulling out of the presidential race due to his wife’s health. (She was treated for breast cancer in 2004.) I sure hope not. It would be a shame, on both counts.

They will be holding a press conference at 12 noon (ET). We’ll see.

UPDATE:
From The Politico:

John Edwards is suspending his campaign for President, and may drop out completely, because his wife has suffered a recurrence of the cancer that sickened her in 2004, when she was diagnosed with breast cancer, an Edwards friend told The Politico.

“At a minimum he’s going to suspend” the campaign, the source said. “Nobody knows precisely how serious her recurrence is. It’ll be another couple of days before there’s complete clarity.”

“For him right now he has one priority which is her health and the security of the two young children,” said the friend.

As for the campaign, “You don’t shut this machine off completely, but everything will go on hold.”

UPDATE, UPDATE:
The press conference is going on now. Elizabeth Edwards cancer has returned, and has spread to her rib bones. At this stage, once breast cancer has metastasized, it is “treatable but not curable.” Both Edwards and his wife are smiling, and keep expressing their hope.

“The campaign goes on… the campaign goes on strongly.”

Nobody really expects Tom DeLay to actually have written his own book. But you think at least he would have bothered to read it.

I’ve had some fun at Rep. Dave Reichert’s expense in recent posts, mocking our nation’s 419th most powerful congressman for his lack of influence and his ham-fisted recommendations to replace ousted U.S. Attorney John McKay. But it looks like our state’s juniorest congressman could become a much more formidable force in both Washingtons now that Reichert seems to be following the savvy lead of a crack new political advisor: me.

Just last week I advised Reichert that the whole brouhaha was a rare opportunity to combine good policy with political expedience by nominating the eminently qualified John McKay to replace himself. And today we read in the Seattle Times that he’s kinda, sorta doing sorta, kinda that:

Rep. Dave Reichert has come to the defense of fired U.S. Attorney John McKay, whom he praised for pushing the federal government to work more closely with law enforcement in the Seattle area.

“It doesn’t seem to me that John’s being treated fairly,” Reichert, R-Auburn, said Tuesday.

He suggested the Justice Department reinstate McKay as U.S. attorney while the agency and Congress investigate “why they fired him.”

Sure, it’s a couple months late and more than a few dollars short, but it does at least show that somebody on Reichert’s staff is attune to the political danger — and opportunity — inherent in this growing scandal. Reichert’s newfound public skepticism follows that of Rob McKenna, who last week said that President Bush “made a mistake.” But McKay was fired months ago, and both McKenna and Reichert were actively involved in naming his replacement, thus their sudden willingness to speak out in his defense should be viewed in the context of the prior failure to do so.

Perhaps if Reichert and his staff continue reading my column, they can get out in front of the next inevitable scandal. I’m always eager to help.

Update: That’s swell of Reichert to take Goldy’s advice and ask the Justice Department to reinstate McKay as U.S. attorney. Before doing so, I’m sure Reichert listened to all the complaints against McKay, investigated the facts (as he’s inclined to do), and weighed all of the evidence. In the end, it seems Reichert has rejected Stefan Sharkansky’s theories about election fraud and the suggestion that McKay didn’t properly investigate the 2004 election. I’m just sayin’… [—Darryl]

Rep. Chris Cannon (R-Utah) has an interesting relationship with “the truth.”

On Monday Rep. Cannon told a NASA scientist that he was not entitled to free speech — that apparently, he did not have the right to truthfully testify as to the conclusions of his taxpayer-funded research, if those conclusions contradicted White House policy.

“Free speech is not a simple thing and is subject to and directed by policy.”

Rep. Cannon is essentially defending the scientific equivalent of the Downingstreet Memo, only in this case it was the scientific research that was “being fixed around the policy.”

Well today Rep. Cannon shot yet another sophistical broadside through the notion of an open and informed public debate, vociferously arguing against issuing subpoenas that would command top White House aides to testify under oath as to their role in and knowledge of the controversial U.S. attorney firings.

“Let’s get to the truth. Let’s do it in a deliberate, even-handed manner, not in a stampede that will only serve to trample the truth and unnecessarily provoke a confrontation with the president.”

Because, of course, nothing tramples the truth more than, um… sworn testimony.

No, the only way we’re really ever going to “get to the truth,” according to Rep. Cannon, is to have Karl Rove testify behind closed doors, without a transcript, and not under oath. For if the truth, as Rep. Cannon implies, is not a simple thing, and is subject to and directed by policy — and if that policy is largely directed by Rove himself — then surely, anything Rove says must be the truth.

That is the sort of “deliberate, even-handed manner” in which Republicans have exercised their oversight authority these past six years. And that is why voters handed control of Congress over to Democrats this past November.

Rep. Chris Cannon (R-Utah) arguing that taxpayer-funded NASA scientists are not entitled to free speech:

“Free speech is not a simple thing and is subject to and directed by policy.”

Yeah… I guess if the White House pays for the research, it gets to determine the results.

The Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally meets tonight (and every Tuesday), 8PM at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E.

I’ll be bringing a special date who I hope to take home and get into bed at a reasonable hour, so come by early if you want to say hello.

Not in Seattle? Liberals will also be drinking tonight in the Tri-Cities. A full listing of Washington’s eleven Drinking Liberally chapters is available here.