Politics

Deja Vu All Over Again: Bush Admin Interference in Judicial Matters

Sharon Eubanks, the lead attorney in the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) case against tobacco companies, recently told the [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/21/AR2007032102713.html Washington Post] that Bush appointees at DOJ pressured her to weaken the government's case against the tobacco companies. The Bush administration has been linked to political rigging of judicial matters recently with the firing of the eight U.S. Attorneys, but while these activities are in the headlines today, it's not the first time. A February 15, 2000 [http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D00E5DD1531F936A25751C0A9669C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print New York Times] article shows that [[George Walker Bush|President Bush]]'s longtime political advisor [[Karl Rove]] (now a senior advisor in the White House) interfered with Texas Attorney General Dan Morales' plans to bring a lawsuit against the major American tobacco companies to recoup state Medicaid funds spent treating sick smokers. Rove helped draft a 1996 push poll aimed at maligning Morales in an attempt to pressure Morales not to file the suit. The push poll was financed by tobacco companies.

A Talent for PR

Submitted by Judith Siers-Poisson on

It didn't take Former Republican Senator Jim Talent of Missouri long to take a spin through the revolving door between government and the private sector. Talent just lost the Senate seat that he had held since 2003 in November, but the public relations firm Fleishman-Hillard has already hired him as co-chairman of its Government Relations subsidiary.

No
Main Source: 
Bulldog Reporter's Daily 'Dog, March 27, 2007
Topics: 
U.S. Congress
Politics
Public Relations
Think Tanks
U.S. Government

Congresspedia: Where Wonks and "Regular Citizens" Work Collaboratively

The Congresspedia project on SourceWatch has been receiving a lot of great edits lately by students, wonks and people who are simply interested in policy and politics (and have a modem). As the "managing editors" of the site, we keep an eye on the edits made to articles to do fact checking, help citizen editors and watch for vandalism. One editor, Lczikowsky, caught our eye by systematically expanding the page on minimum wage legislation to include state-level legislative proposals in 30 states, resulting in an in-depth article that's a great resource for anyone researching the minimum wage. Here's Lczikowsky to discuss his contributions in more detail:

The Appearance of an Independent Judiciary Goes Up in Smoke

Things are looking grimmer and grimmer for U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales these days. The scandal involving the firing of 8 U.S. attorneys has led to accusations that Gonzales runs the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) to suit the Bush Administration's right wing political ideology instead of to protect the interest of U.S. citizens. Now Sharon Eubanks, the lead attorney in DOJ's racketeering case against the major American tobacco companies, has emerged from her silence and confirmed suspicions of the extent to which politics is running DOJ instead of public interest. Eubanks told the [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/21/AR2007032102713.html Washington Post] that Bush administration political appointees within DOJ repeatedly ordered her to take steps to weaken the government's case against the industry. Eubanks says she was ordered to tell key witnesses change their testimony, was forced to ditch her own closing remarks and made to read closing arguments that her superiors had written for her, and that the DOJ team was told to greatly scale back its requests for remedies against the tobacco companies. Of course, high-ranking Justice Department officials claimed at the time that there was no political meddling in the case, but tobacco control people following the case knew differently. Now Ms. Eubanks has confirmed what we knew all along.

Pakistan People's Party Plans U.S. Lobbying Campaign

Submitted by Bob Burton on

In February the Pakistan People's Party (PPP) hired BKSH & Associates, Burson-Marsteller and the polling company Penn, Schoen and Berland Associates, to promote the need for "free, open and transparent elections in Pakistan in 2007." The contract, which runs to June 2007, could be worth as much as $250,000.

No
Main Source: 
The Hill, March 20, 2007
Topics: 
Democracy
International
Lobbying
Media
Politics
Public Relations
Think Tanks

Congress to consider spending bills calling for 2008 U.S. combat withdraw from Iraq

With the Iraq War now in its fifth year, both the House and Senate are (for the first time) poised to consider supplemental appropriations bills which would call on President Bush to remove U.S. combat troops from the country by 2008. In the House, a vote is expected soon on a $124 billion spending bill which includes a binding provision demanding withdraw by September 2008.

Congressional Corruption Cases at Issue in Attorney Firings

Guest poster: Paul Blumenthal of the Sunlight Foundation:

The controversy around the firing of several U.S. attorneys in December has dominated the news coming out of Congress this week and Congresspedia’s staff and citizen editors have been busy tracking developments on our thorough page on the subject. Of central importance to the controversy is the issue of why those eight particular U.S. attorneys were fired. I’ve been looking into the analyses of the documents released by the Justice Department, and they show that the attorneys were at least partially judged by their willingness to toe-the-line — or, as one internal administration document put it, to be good “Bushies” — and were deemed expendable if they moved too far from administration priorities. In the case of some of the fired attorneys, it appears that the offense committed may have been their investigations into Republican officials, including members of Congress, in the lead-up to the 2006 congressional elections.

Here is a look at four of the attorneys at issue and their respective corruption investigations:

96% of MoveOn Members Did Not Show Support for the Pelosi Bill

(NOTE: See an update on this issue at: https://www.prwatch.org/node/6081 )

On Sunday, March 18, Sheldon Rampton and I wrote "Iraq: Why Won't MoveOn Move Forward?", an article now widely circulated online. It has helped to focus debate on whether the Democratic Party is really attempting to end the war in Iraq, or is content to simply manage the war for supposed electoral advantage in 2008.

Iraq: Why Won't MoveOn Move Forward?

MoveOn candlelight vigils
MoveOn's vigils: candles in the wind?

(NOTE: See an update on this issue at: https://www.prwatch.org/node/6081 )

This week marks the fourth anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. To commemorate the occasion, the online advocacy group MoveOn.org is organizing more than 1,000 candlelight vigils throughout the United States. "We’ll solemnly honor the sacrifice made by more than 3,000 servicemen and women, and we'll contemplate the path ahead of us," states MoveOn's website. "We cannot send tens of thousands of exhausted, under-equipped, and unprepared troops into the middle of an Iraqi civil war. ... Honor the sacrifice. Stop the escalation. Bring the troops home."

MoveOn's 3.2 million members strongly oppose any continuation of the war, and the language above seems to suggest that MoveOn's leadership agrees. But MoveOn's organizing around Iraq has become notably ambiguous lately. Although it talks in general terms about bringing the troops home, specific timetables or meaningful steps in that direction are nowhere discussed. Most strikingly, MoveOn has adamantly refused to support the Iraq amendment from Congressional Progressive Caucus leaders Barbara Lee, Lynn Woolsey and Maxine Waters, which calls for "a fully funded, and systematic, withdrawal of U.S. soldiers and military contractors from Iraq" by the end of 2007.

Pages

Subscribe to Politics