Day: August 31, 2007

White House Refuses to Name Mystery I.T. Firm

Trish

ABC’s Brian Ross is reporting that the White House is refusing to name the company it farmed out its email management to. You know, the one whose fault it supposedly is that we can’t read Karl Rove’s email.

The White House will not identify a private company which appears to be involved in the disappearance of millions of White House e-mails.

The company was responsible for reviewing and archiving White House e-mails, a White House official told congressional staff in May, according to a letter yesterday from House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif. Congressional investigators asked then for the name of the company and “have repeatedly requested” the information since then, according to Waxman.

Resistance is futile, thanks to Richard Nixon.

According to the White House, at least five million e-mails were not properly archived and may be lost forever, in apparent violation of the Presidential Records Act. The post-Watergate law states that communications relating to official activity in the offices of the president and vice president are owned by the American public and cannot be destroyed.

Waxman’s new deadline to stop the stonewalling is Sept. 10.

In addition to requesting the firm’s name, Waxman’s staff has also asked to see a White House report which detailed the days on which few or no e-mails were archived; the White House has been similarly unresponsive to that request, Waxman charged, and asked it provide the document by Sept. 10 as well.

Maybe the White House strategy is to stonewall it until Jan. 20, 2009 and then put Bush on one of those secret flights to Eastern Europe and send Cheney to the bunker.

Republicans Painted Themselves Into Gay Corner

Trish

When the Karl Roves and Andrea Laffertys of the world decided that the best way to get out the vote was to fire up the masses about gay rights, they never considered that some of their own were gay too. It’s kind of like forgetting that some Republicans are black, and one or two are poor. Easy to do, but a mistake nonetheless.

Houston Chronicle: “A party that harps on sexual orientation, as the Republicans now do, forces many of its own into furtive, destructive behaviors”

When reality intrudes into their rhetoric, the dissonance stings — hard. The Houston Chronicle notes the consquences for a party, “which since the 1980s has, culturally and legislatively, demonized gay men and women.”

By preoccupying the party with homosexuality…Republican strategists have helped force out or into hiding numerous lawmakers who served the party well. Instead of disclosing their orientation and getting on with their work, gay or bisexual Republicans typically have felt compelled to choose between personal integrity and political survival.

Yet heterosexuality is hardly a bedrock Lincolnesque value. [Sen. Larry] Craig’s own constituents happily re-elected him for years — despite rumors about his orientation — before he began opining on others’ sexuality.

An even better example of this dynamic is the successful career of former U.S. Rep. Steve Gunderson, a Wisconsin Republican who told voters he was gay while still in office. Then he continued working diligently for the causes they cared about most.

…Gunderson backed the balanced budget amendment. He supported President Ronald Reagan’s tax cuts, approved the first Gulf War and promoted the dairy industry. Rural, conservative voters re-elected him eight times in a row for his conservative values before he chose not to run again in 1996…Gunderson never betrayed voters or himself.

In contrast, since 1980 the Republican Party has lost at least three once-closeted House members to scandals…But the scandals were at least partly fueled by each congressman’s need to deny his sexuality. Craig, now frantically trying to deny his guilty plea, may be the latest on the list.

…a party that harps on sexual orientation, as the Republicans now do, forces many of its own into furtive, destructive behaviors.

So while those caught are passing around blame — in Craig’s case to newspapers, lying cops, and wide stances — they should examine their own willingness to jump on the hate train, and partake of the payoff at the end of the line.

GOP Moral Relativism: Sen. Craig Must Resign But Sen. Vitter Can Stay

Jon Ponder

The clamor for Sen. Larry “Wide Stance” Craig to resign is growing by the minute among Republicans in Washington. The senator’s inadvertent self-outing in an airport men’s room in June has rendered him too morally impure to remain in the GOP.

So what are the moral dictates behind the decision that Craig should go but Vitter can stay? There aren’t any. It’s all politics.

But when it was revealed in July that Sen. David Vitter’s number appeared in the D.C. Madam’s call list, these same Washington Republican elites readily accepted his apology for his “sins.” No one among the capitol’s conservative elite called for Vitter to step down.

Whatever happened to the Republicans’ vaunted “moral absolutism” on matters like these?

We have two Republican senators, both vocal supporters of “family values” — both have admitted to engaging in illegal activities. One pleaded guilty to soliciting sex from an undercover cop, the other got nabbed paying for sex, allegedly had a child with a prostitute and reportedly has a fetish for diapers.

So what are the moral dictates behind the decision that Craig should go but Vitter can stay?

There aren’t any. It’s all politics. The governor of Vitter’s state is a Democrat, and she would be eager to replace him with a Democrat. The governor of Idaho is a Republican, so his seat is safe. It’s that simple.

[…]