Oh Yeah

As our good old Crank points out, Specter's move will probably not encourage Coleman to settle his little dispute with Franken.

BREAKING: Specter to Switch Parties?

H/T Nat-Wu:

Several officials say veteran Republican Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania intends to switch parties, advancing his own hopes of winning a new term next year while pushing Democrats one step closer to a 60-vote filibuster-resistant majority.

The sources said an announcement could come later in the day — or Wednesday. The officials who provided the information did so on condition of anonymity, saying they were not authorized to discuss his plans.

Specter is a 79-year-old veteran of five Senate terms, and one of only a handful of moderate Republicans left in Congress in a party made up largely of conservatives.

Specter is facing a very difficult primary against a more conservative GOP challenger in 2010. This will certainly help him sidestep that particular problem. Incidentally, once Franken is seated, this would put the Democrats at the 60-seat filibuster proof majority, though of course Specter would join the ranks of the conservative Dems whom Reid sometimes has difficulty corralling.

UPDATE: It's official.

"I have decided to run for re-election in 2010 in the Democratic primary," said Specter in a statement. "I am ready, willing and anxious to take on all comers and have my candidacy for re-election determined in a general election."

He added: "Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right. Last year, more than 200,000 Republicans in Pennsylvania changed their registration to become Democrats. I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans."

Welcome aboard Sen. Specter (D-PA)!

UPDATE II: The bitter tears of the right wing please me.

UPDATE III: John Cole tastes their sweet tears as well.

Senate Intelligence Torture Memos "Narrative" Released

McClatchy has this report out about a "narrative" released by the Senate Intelligence Committee that purports to provide an overview of the legal advice provided to the CIA from the OLC regarding torture. As McClatchy explains, the narrative makes clear that lawyers for the DOJ were operating under the guidance of senior Bush administration officials:

A newly declassified narrative of the Bush administration's advice to the CIA on harsh interrogations shows that the small group of Justice Department lawyers who wrote memos authorizing harsh interrogation techniques were operating not on their own but with direction from top administration officials, including then-Vice President Dick Cheney and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice.

At the same time, the narrative suggests that then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and then-Secretary of State Colin Powell were largely left out of the decision-making process.

Specifically, the narrative states:

In the spring of 2003, the DCI [Director of Central Intelligence] asked for a reaffirmation of the policies and practices in the interrogation program. In July 2003, according to CIA records, the NSC [National Security Council] Principals met to discuss the interrogation techniques employed in the CIA program. According to CIA records, the DCI and the CIA’s General Counsel attended a meeting with the Vice President, the National Security Adviser, the Attorney General, the Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel, a Deputy Assistant Attorney General, the Counsel to the President, and the Legal Adviser to the National Security Council to describe the CIA’s interrogation techniques, including waterboarding. According to CIA records, at the conclusion of that meeting, the Principals reaffirmed that the CIA program was lawful and reflected administration policy.

According to CIA records, pursuant to a request from the National Security Adviser, the Director of Central Intelligence subsequently briefed the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense on the CIA’s interrogation techniques on September 16, 2003.

In addition to these and other revelations, the narrative is useful to anyone who's having trouble keeping up with the bevy of OLC memos and other factoids that have come to light in the last several years. It's a short document, and I recommend reading it.

Quite frankly, it's astonishing, the amount of information that has been revealed in only a week about the crafting of the torture policies. Between the OLC memos, the Senate Armed Services Committee report and this narrative from the Senate Intelligence Committee, we now have a far more comprehensive portrait of the evolution of the legal advice regarding torture, as well as the role of various members of the Bush administration in the crafting of that policy. And I don't see how this news doesn't continue to add to the building momentum for the investigation/prosecution of those involved in torture.

Senate Toughens Executive Pay Limits

Senate Democrats went against the wishes of the Obama administration and inserted even tougher executive compensation provisions in the stimulus package passed last night:

The pay restrictions resemble those that the Treasury Department announced this month, but are likely to ensnare more executives at many more companies and also to cut more deeply into the bonuses that often account for the bulk of annual pay.

The restriction with the most bite would bar top executives from receiving bonuses exceeding one-third of their annual pay. Any bonus would have to be in the form of long-term incentives, like restricted stock, which could not be cashed out until the TARP money was repaid in full.

The provision, written by Senator Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut, highlighted the growing wrath among lawmakers and voters over the lavish compensation that top Wall Street firms and big banks awarded to senior executives at the same time that many of the companies, teetering on the brink of insolvency, received taxpayer-paid bailouts.

“The decisions of certain Wall Street executives to enrich themselves at the expense of taxpayers have seriously undermined public confidence,” Mr. Dodd said Friday. “These tough new rules will help ensure that taxpayer dollars no longer effectively subsidize lavish Wall Street bonuses.”

Not everyone is happy about the restrictions of course:

But some experts on executive compensation warned that the restrictions could unleash unintended consequences, like encouraging banks to increase salaries to make up for diminished incentive pay. Even then, they warned, banks were likely to lose top talent.

“These rules will not work,” James F. Reda, an independent compensation consultant, said on Friday. “Any smart executive will (a) pay back TARP money ASAP or (b) get another job.”

[...]

One unintended effect, compensation experts said, is that financial firms might increase banker salaries in order to increase the restricted stock awards. “About the only way to address these limits is to pay large salaries,” said Michael S. Melbinger, an executive compensation lawyer at Winston & Strawn in Chicago. “There’s no pay for performance in this.”

Others warned that because of the rules, firms might lose their best traders and managers to hedge funds and foreign banks.

Is this a hint of things to come?

Alan Johnson, a compensation consultant who advises many Wall Street banks, said that the rules would make it hard to recruit new managers, too.

“At some point, you begin to wonder: has the government given up on these companies anyway?” he said. “Why would the government or White House want to go along with that unless they have come to the conclusion they will have to nationalize these firms anyway?”

The idea has been bandied about, no doubt, largely because measures enacted and announced to this point have failed to get credit flowing again. Marc Ambinder at the Atlantic says the Obama administration is resistant to the idea, but if the latest plan announced by Geithner on Tuesday fails to get things moving, what alternative is there?

Stimulus Bill to Pass?

So sayeth the Dems:

Senate Democrats say they have enough votes to pass a $780 billion compromise plan on an economic stimulus package President Obama has promised voters.

Sen. Max Baucus, the Montana Democrat who heads the Senate Finance Committee, said the $780 billion package has the support of all 58 Democrats and at least three or four Republicans.

"We're going to do it, if not tonight, in the next day or so," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told colleagues on the Senate floor.

That report earlier today probably helped.

Stimulus Lacks Votes? Pass it Anyway

Look, like anybody who isn't a liberal economist, I have some reservations about the amount of money we're talking about spending here. But I'm not interested in watching Democrats on the Hill dick around trying to make Republicans happy, so they can get punked over the stimulus package in the Senate just like they did in the House (by which I mean Senate Republicans haggle with Senate Dems over cuts to the bill, then remain solidly against it.) Senate Dems have a self-imposed deadline of the 13th to get a compromise bill with the House passed, and they should meet that goal even if it means-as Kevin Drum suggests-ditching efforts to compromise with Senate Republicans and avoid an embarassing filibuster. I trust that there are some actual Republican Senators who sincerely believe that a bill should be passed, but I'm not interested in accomodating them while they wait for just the "right" moment to come out for the bill, and neither should the Dems. 

Senate Resolution Supports Israel

Israel bombs Palestinians in Gaza, and our Democratic politicians applaud. Look, I know that generally we're much better off for having Democrats in power than Republicans, but sometimes, just sometimes, I really would like to dunk everybody up there in a cold pond.

Senate Republicans Reject Auto Bailout

John Cole on the stupidity and mean-spiritedness of Republican Senators:

Just in case you are confused- Republicans object to a car czar overseeing the bailout because it is too much government interference, but a few Republican Senators dictating from Washington how much companies pay their workers is just the invisible hand of the free market bitch-slapping you while you are down.

No doubt, this principled stand against auto workers making too much money has nothing to do with the GOP's propensity to screw blue-collar workers and everything to do with a re-discovery of fiscal conservatism, a frugality they've discovered just in time to oppose bailouts that are needed to save our economy.

Biden's Senate replacement chosen

Delaware Gov. Ruth Ann Minner announced she will appoint Ted Kaufman, a former chief of staff to Sen. Joe Biden, to fill the senator's seat until a 2010 special election. Kaufman will not seek reelection, leaving the seat open for Biden's son Beau (who recently shipped off to Iraq).

Cowardly Dems Reward Lieberman's Bad Behavior

In a closed-door meeting, Democrats voted to allow Sen. Joe Lieberman to keep his chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee, instead opting to strip him of a subcommittee chairmanship on climate change as punishment for support John McCain in the 2008 presidential election. If any punishment was to be given, this move makes little sense given that Lieberman is actually still a good Democrat as far as environmental issue go, but opposes President-elect Obama and most Democrats on many issues relating to Homeland Security (and had failed to conduct any real oversight over the Bush administration since he’s been in charge).

Democrats no doubt went with such toothless action in response to his threats to join the Republican caucus. However, it is hard to see what real effect this would have had. Being a part of a certain caucus doesn’t determine how you’ll vote 100% of the time, just how you’ll vote for majority leader of the Senate. Moderate Republicans vote for some bills that most Democrats do, and vice versa. Lieberman already isn’t voting with Democrats on issues relating to foreign policy and national security, and he is unlikely to have changed on economic issues where he is still mostly votes with Democrats.

However, if Lieberman had been stripped of his most important chairmanship and bolted to the Republican Party, it would have seriously hurt his re-election chances in 2012 in the very blue state of Connecticut. Let us hope that this move does not help that bid in any way.

Senate Shuffle

Sen. Robert Byrd has decided to voluntarily step down as chairman of the Appropriations Committee which could set off a chain reaction:

First, Byrd’s departure paves the way for Sen. Daniel Inouye of Hawaii to take over Appropriations.

Inouye will then give up the chairmanship of the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, which could be taken over by Sen. John D. Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), who is next in line on that committee.

Rockefeller's move opens up the chairmanship of the Intelligence Committee. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) is next in line on that committee, and Democratic sources said she is interested in becoming chairwoman. Rockefeller’s office would not comment on his future plans.

Feinstein, for her part, chairs the Rules and Administration Committee, and would have to give that up. Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) could end up as chairman of that panel, since the other senators who are more senior to him there already wield gavels on other committees, and senators usually don’t chair two committees.

More exciting is the potential for the great Sen. Russ Feingold to become head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Sen. Joe Biden, the curren chair, has just been elected as the next Vice President. Sen. Chris Dodd has decide to stay head of the Banking Committee, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee. If Sen. John Kerry joins President-elect Obama's cabinet as Secretary of State, Feingold would be next in line.

Meanwhile, Sen. Joe Lieberman is in talks with Minority Leader Mitch McConnell to join the Republican caucus if Democrats remove him as chair of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. Lieberman's fate may be put up to a caucus vote.

U.S. Senate Races Thread

This thread will serve to provide updates on the outcome of the United States Senate races. A handy link to this post is on the upper right-hand corner of the blog, but I will probably keep promoting this post along with our other election threads to the top of the blog. For the sake of ease of reading, I'll skip the "Update" addendum that usually accompanies a change to the post, and just add information as we get it.

For your convenience, FiveThirtyEight predicts a 7-8 seat pick-up for Democrats based on last-minute polls. Unfortunately it looks like Saxby Chambliss and Mitch McConnell will hang onto their seats, but Norm Coleman and Al Franken are likely to be up very late tonight.

6:37 CMT, CNN calls Virginia for Warner.

Shaheen has defeated Sununu in New Hampshire. Lunsford will not upset McConnell in Kentucky.

MSNBC gives North Carolina to Hagan.

Democrats now hold a 54 seat majority based on current projections.

There are four key races left, in Minnesota, Oregon, Mississippi and Georgia. Mark Udall wins in Coloardo, Begich is leading Stevens in Alaska, and Landrieu will survive in Louisiana.

Chambliss will probably escape a runoff, as he's maintaining a 51% lead in Georgia. Merkley is slightly ahead of Smith in Oregon. Franken and Coleman are tied in Minnesota. Polls have just closed in Alaska, though Begich is expected to win.


UPDATED: See our newest post with the latest totals! Four races are still too close to call!

Election Day Eve

For us partisans, Election Day is something of a holiday, and the day before is of course a holiday eve. For Democrats, this election day is starting to feel like Christmas, so you can imagine how giddy with anticipation we are, as well as with trepidation that we won't get what we asked Santa to bring us. Nonetheless, it's shaping up to be a very good day for Democrats tomorrow. A survey of the polls finds Obama leading nationally by anywhere from two to thirteen points, depending on how the poll is being conducted. Obama maintains a steady and insurmountable lead among likely voters, and McCain's only hope is that an astonishingly high percentage of undecideds turn out to vote for him in key states, a possibility that is vanishingly slight. Given that Obama has several routes to victory, the compelling story may really be which formerly Republican states flip over to Obama.

As for the Senate, several races have shifted to the Democrats in recent weeks, though it does not appear likely that Democrats will seize the 60-member majority that was hoped for. The Stevens conviction has apparently sunk any hope the GOP had of retaining Alaska, Kay Hagan has pulled ahead of Elizabeth Dole in North Carolina, and Jeff Merkley has pulled ahead of Gordon Smith in Oregon. Franken and Coleman remain neck-and-neck in Minnesota. At the same time though, McConnell and Chambliss have opened up small leads over their opponents, and Texas appears to be out of reach for the Democrats and Rick Noriega. So, a seven seat pick up is likely, an eight seat pick up remains entirely possible, but anymore seats after that would require minor upsets which don't seem likely at this point.

Of course the not-so-secret Democratic weapon in all of these contests is turnout, and by a large measure early voting in Texas is dwarfing 2004 totals. This is of course inspired by the massive interest in the Presidential election, but early indicators about the affect this will have on down-ballot races in Texas are mixed at best. Democrats are turning out in huge numbers, but Republicans may turn out in significant numbers in certain districts to vote against Obama and down-ballot Democrats as well. There simply is no way to tell what impact turnout is having before the votes are counted tomorrow night.

Lieberman Out?

Provided Obama wins, this will be like a tasty dessert after a rich and satisfying meal:

Democratic leaders are discussing a major reshuffling of Senate committee chairmanships, according to multiple sources, and the proposed changes include ousting Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) from his coveted chairmanship.

Lieberman, a former Democrat who supports Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) for president, is likely to lose his gavel on the Homeland Security Committee he has chaired since January 2007, say the sources who see him being replaced by Sen. Daniel Akaka (Hawaii), the committee’s third-ranking Democrat.

Dare I to dream?

Stevens Convicted

Well, despite the shenanginas of prosecutors and the loss of a juror over the weekend, Alaska Senator Ted Stevens was convicted of seven counts of corruption in D.C. today. 

Senate Democrats request perjury probe for Gonzales, subpoena Rove

From the Washington Post:

Four Senate Democrats today formally asked the Justice Department to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate whether Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales lied to Congress in his testimony about a domestic surveillance program for terrorists.

At the same time, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), chairman of the Judiciary Committee, issued subpoenas to White House adviser Karl Rove and one of his deputies, demanding their testimony by Aug. 2 in the panel's long-running investigation into the firing of nine U.S. attorneys and the alleged politicization of the Justice Department.

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), a senior committee member, accused Gonzales of taking an oath, both when he assumed his current office and before each of his congressional appearances, that he has now broken through deliberately misleading testimony...

Schumer pointed to Gonzales's testimony to the panel Tuesday, when he said that a critical March 10, 2004 meeting with congressional leaders at the White House concerned intelligence activities other than the NSA's controversial warrantless surveillance program.

Several Democrats who were at that meeting have said it was about the surveillance program, and a May 2006 letter from then-Director of National Intelligence John D. Negroponte to Congress showed the same thing.

Gonzales testified Tuesday that the intelligence program he referred to was supported by congressional leaders in the 2004 briefing, despite resistance from senior Justice Department officials who were refusing to re-authorize the program because of concerns about its legality.

But several Democrats present have said they opposed the program and were unaware at the time that Gonzales, who was then White House counsel, and then-White House chief of staff Andrew Card, would next attempt to persuade then-Attorney General John D. Ashcroft to overrule his deputies. The two went to Ashcroft's hospital room, where he was recovering from emergency gallbladder surgery.

"This attorney general simply has not been straight with the Judiciary Committee," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who signed the letter to Clement along with Schumer, Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wisc.) and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.)...

In expanding the U.S. attorney investigation, Leahy today issued subpoenas today to Rove and J. Scott Jennings, the White House's deputy political director. Both Rove and Jennings appear in Justice Department e-mails discussing various steps in the plan to fire the prosecutors.

That assertion by congressional leaders is backed up by documents and FBI Director Robert S. Mueller confirmed today "the government's terrorist surveillance program was the topic of a 2004 hospital room dispute between top Bush administration officials, contradicting Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' sworn Senate testimony." Now things are getting interesting...

Senate Republicans block Iraq withdrawal plan

After an overnight debate over Iraq in the Senate, the Republican minority still refused to allow an up-or-down vote on the Levin-Reed amendment to the 2008 defense authorization bill that would establish a timeline for troop withdrawal from Iraq. The vote was 52-47 in favor of cutting off debate and moving to a vote, 8 votes short of the 60-vote threshold Senate Republicans are insisting on. The Democratic caucus was united behind the vote (except for independent Joe Lieberman and Tim Johnson who is still recovering from his stroke) and 4 Republicans joined them, including Maine Senator Susan Collins (though she supported a simple-majority vote, she said she would opposed the plan if it actually came to that).

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid voted against it, but only for procedural reasons allowing him to bring the measure up again. He also announced that until the Republicans quit their obstructionist tactics, he would not allow a vote on any other Iraq-related amendment nor will he allow a vote on the entire 2008 defense authorization bill. It's great to see "Give 'em Hell" Harry is living up to his name and not letting Republicans off the hook for this.

Harry Reid to force Republicans to filibuster Iraq withdrawal bill

YES!!

Forcing his Republican colleagues to put up or shut up on the notion of an up-or-down vote, Senate Majority leader Harry Reid (D-NV) just moments ago announced that he will immediately file a cloture motion on the Reed-Levin troop redeployment bill and, if Republicans follow through with a filibuster, will place the Senate in a prolonged all-night session Tuesday to force a true continuation of debate.

"Now, Republicans are using a filibuster to block us from even voting on an amendment that could bring the war to a responsible end," said Reid. "They are protecting the President rather than protecting our troops. They are denying us an up or down – yes or no – vote on the most important issue our country faces."

Senators usually don't actually take to the Senate floor and talk until they drop. The intent to filibuster is just taken as the same thing, and a cloture motion is filed that requires a 60-vote threshold instead of a simply majority. Well, now Harry Reid has decided to make Republicans actually filibuster ala Jimmy Stewart in "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington."

In making this move (based on my understanding of Senate rules), Reid is invoking the provisions of Rule 22 (Precedence of Motions) of the Standing Rules of the Senate, which provides, at the Majority Leader's discretion, up to 30 hours of debate if a filibuster is initiated -- as the Republicans will most certainly do, knowing that Reed-Levin may very well have the 51 votes needed for passage.

Sixty votes are needed to achieve cloture (end debate) and move legislation to a full, deciding vote.

Reid will be using the provision of Rule 22 that allows for up to 30 hours of continuous debate once it's made clear -- in this case, by Republicans trying to avoid an up-or-down vote on Reed-Levin -- that there is a desire to continue debating the issue.

In other words, the Majority Leader is saying "You want to debate? We'll stay all night and debate."

Reid plans to have cots dragged into Senate chambers and could hold the Senate in continuous session overnight Tuesday and into midday Wednesday unless Republicans agree to a simple-majority vote on Reed-Levin

This will definitely be a nice visual to see on TV if it actually happens.

And I'm sure more than one Democratic Senator will remind the public that Republicans screamed at the top of their lungs last year when it came to getting up-or-down votes on Bush's right-wing judicial nominees, but expressing the sentiments of most Americans and protecting America's troops gets no such treatment from them.

Damn straight.