^{John Boehner and Nancy Pelosi schooled by George Washington Plunkitt}

In a recent feature story on 60 Minutes, Steve Kroft detailed how many in Congress use their privileged access to information on pending legislation, investigations and regulations to line their own pockets. Much of the piece was based on research of Hoover Institute fellow Peter Schweizer from his book “Throw Them All Out”. Among the surprising revelations in the book – Congress is exempt from prosecution for the same kind of insider trading that would send the rest of us to jail.

Coincidentally, über-lobbyist and felon Jack Abramoff was saying much the same thing to anyone who would listen while promoting his new book “Capitol Punishment”. CNBC has been covering the story for a while and offers a succinct summary in the video linked here (I would have embedded it, but my Donk permissions don’t allow).

Abramoff asserts the practice is widespread and growing. Schweizer connects the dots between the increasing entanglement of the federal government in the private economy and the consequential exponential increase in opportunity for our congressional leadership and their staff to partake in the profitable practice of insider trading. Both Abramoff and Schweizer name names.

Kroft focused primarily on the specific examples of our most recent Speakers of the House. He reported John Boehner and Nancy Pelosi participated in investment activity that, at best, created the appearance of conflict of interest. Some have criticized Kroft and 60 minutes for focusing on two of the weaker examples cited by Schweizer, presumably because of their leadership roles. But even these examples are illuminating. More interesting than the exposure of the trading activity itself, was the response from their respective offices. While we already knew that they did nothing illegal, predictably both offices also emphatically denied they did anything wrong.

Kroft described purchases of Visa stock by Nancy Pelosi and her husband while she controlled the timing of legislation that would have hurt credit card companies. Her spokesman:

Current Speaker John Boehner purchased health care stocks when he was aware that the “public option” was about to be dropped from Obamacare. His spokesman:

Note that neither the response of Boehner or Pelosi directly addressed the question of whether their profitable trades benefited from insider knowledge. In both cases they defend their consistent record on the policy issue (credit card consumer protection for Pelosi, opposition to the public option for Boehner), and take umbrage at the mere suggestion that their positions on these issues might be influenced by personal financial gain. Fine and good, but that is not the point. The issue at question is whether they used insider information not generally available to the public to make trades that benefited themselves.

When sorting through these fine gradations in the taxonomy of congressional graft, it is useful to have a guide. There is no better guide or greater authority on the subject than George Washington Plunkitt, who literally wrote the book on political graft.

At the turn of century, George Washington Plunkitt was a Senator in New York, and considered one of the most corrupt members of possibly the most corrupt political machine in our history – New York’s Tammany Hall. He is famous for (among other things) writing his own epitaph – “He Seen His Opportunities and He Took ‘Em.”

Yet – George Washington Plunkitt was not without a moral compass. He made a clear distinction between honest graft and dishonest graft. This distinction was a moral line in the sand that even he would not cross. Moreover he forthrightly defended this distinction in a series of public speeches, which were later compiled into a book: “Plunkitt of Tammany Hall: A Series of Very Plain Talks on Very Practical Politics, Delivered by Ex-Senator George Washington Plunkitt, the Tammany Philosopher, from his Rostrum—the New York County Courthouse Bootblack Stand.”

We’ve have had occasion to consult this valuable reference before, when in 2006 we explored the Speaker of the House Denny Hastert’s land deals and came to the conclusion that they perfectly fit Plunkitt’s definition of “Dishonest Graft”. The Speaker of the House of the United States of America in 2006, the man who was third in line for succession to the presidency of the United States, was engaged in activity that would not meet the moral standards of one of the most corrupt 1906 political participants of the most corrupt political organization in the history of the United States.

That was then, this is now.

Good news. Our last two Speakers are no longer participating in “Dishonest Graft”. They are simply engaging in good old, perfectly acceptable, “grab your opportunities where you see ‘em “Honest Graft”. GW Plunkitt explains in Chapter 7:

There you go. Plunkitt’s criteria for honest graft is: Do nothing illegal (monkey with the penal code); serve your party’s interest (the organization); and serve your constituent’s interest (New York City and the US). If you do those things, and you happen to learn about money making opportunities along the way, no problem. You are entitled to that money. Go for it!

With Plunkitt’s criteria in mind, now go back and reread Boehner and Pelosi’s dismissive brush-off of the 60 Minute charges. Nothing illegal. Good for the party. Good for the country. Nothing to see here. Move along.

Of course, there are always a few spoil-sports who don’t appreciate the moral certitude of Plunkitt’s Razor. These misguided souls continue to introduce The Stock Act every year, where it gets no co-signers, is never brought to the floor, and goes nowhere. Reporter Eamon Javers of CNBC is on the case:

This one bears watching. It looks like Representative Slaughter’s bill might even get some action in the Senate. No one has a better nose for political opportunism than Sarah Palin. Palin jumping on the bandwagon may indicate this issue will have legs. Maybe even – dare I say it? – bipartisan support.

It could happen.

^{X-posted from Divided We Stand United We Fall.}

Out of an apple?

Donar shows you how…

More at Political Graffiti.

Daily Caller:

History will be made when Boehner becomes first orange-American Speaker of the House

“In January, America will pass another milestone on the road to full equality when Ohio Republican Rep. John Boehner becomes the first orange-American Speaker of the House.Boehner’s unique skin has made him a target of liberal mockery, and talk of his tan has often eclipsed discussion of what he actually says or does. Even President Obama has gotten in on the fun, joking at the 2009 White House Correspondence Dinner that he and Boehner “have a lot in common. He is a person of color—although not a color that appears in the natural world.”

Cartoonists, columnists, bloggers, pundits, and humorists get in on the fun, including Olivia Munn’s election report on the Daily Show (at the 4:00 minute mark):

I don’t want to fall into the trap flagged by the Daily Caller and lose sight of the content while caught up in the novelty of our first Orange Speaker of the House. In terms of the meaning of the election and the role John Boehner will play, I cannot say it any better than Jonathan Rauch on the pages of the New York Times:

Divided We Thrive – Jonathan Rauch

A GRAND victory for Republicans in the 2010 midterm election? Yes, of course. But also no. In all three of the most recent earthshaking midterm elections — 1994, 2006 and now 2010 — the same candidate won: divided government. That is not a coincidence. In the last two decades, a strong and persistent pattern has emerged, one that will dominate our politics for some time to come, because it is rooted in two important political realities. First, the public strongly prefers divided government. Second, it has every reason to…

But divided government, in today’s world of ideologically polarized parties, is the only way of attaining sustainable bipartisanship. And that is likely to remain the case for the foreseeable future. By promising to transcend partisanship in an all-Democratic government, President Obama, in 2008, promised something he had no prayer of delivering. Paradoxically, the three words that will do the most to help him deliver on his broken promise of bipartisanship — and, indeed, that offer him the best hope of governing from the center, broadening his support and stabilizing his presidency — are these: Speaker John Boehner.”

Two Speakers, one coming in, one going out, characterized differently in the press. MSM reporting on one focusing on a reputation for toughness, ideological inflexibility and hardball partisan politics. MSM reporting for the other focusing on appearance and a penchant for emotional outbursts. I cannot help but wonder how the public and media would perceive the two if these reported characteristics were reversed. Would Nancy Pelosi get the same media treatment if she had a reputation for weeping on camera?

It is interesting to speculate how John Boehner will be covered by the media during the midterms four years hence. Perhaps a hint can be seen by recalling how Speaker Pelosi was perceived when she won the gavel four years ago.

First, a tip of the hat to a couple of regular Donk commenters – Cranky Critter for introducing me to a field of study I had heretofore been unaware of – Comparative Political Demonology™ – a phrase coined and defined by Tully some years ago. This subject is bit too broad for me, so I will focus here on a more specialized subset – Applied Relative Demonology as it pertains to the Speaker of the House in 2006, 2010 and 2014 mid-term elections. There may be a PHD thesis in there somewhere.

A great deal of electrons and ink are being spilled over the role Nancy Pelosi played in the 2010 election outcome and the political wisdom of her continuing to lead the Democrats in the House of Representatives as minority leader. She was demonized by Republicans as a San Francisco liberal steamrolling a progressive agenda over the objections of our center-right country. Indeed, as it turns out, being a reliable vote in the House of Representatives for Nancy Pelosi was a career limiting move for many Democratic Representatives. Pundits on the right and left inform conventional wisdom that she is a political poison of such devastating toxicity that her leadership of the minority Democrats would virtually guarantee Republican victories in 2012 and 2014. Color me unconvinced.

It is not like Nancy Pelosi has changed her politics since 2006. She was hardly an unknown quantity after serving 19 years in the House as representative and minority leader, and was not perceived politically any differently in 2006 by the electorate than she is today. She was demonized by Republicans in 2006 as a San Francisco liberal, yet that did not stop voters from sweeping Republicans from the majority and installing her as the first woman Speaker of the House, complete with her “San Francisco Values” baggage:

There were some differences between then and now. There was a Republican President, and the Democrats had a much bigger target to demonize in 2006. A Liberal Speaker of the House steeped in San Francisco Values does not sound so bad when the alternative is a corrupt political hack that “would not meet the moral standards of one of the most corrupt 1906 political participants of the most corrupt political organization in the history of the United States.” Hence “Relative Demonology”. After serving as Speaker of the House for two years, voters increased the Democratic majority in the House in 2008, dealing Pelosi an even stronger hand as Speaker. She didn’t change, but in 2006 and 2008, the Republican demons were worse.

For many Americans, John Boehner is more of an unknown today than Nancy Pelosi was in 2006. They know he is politically conservative, cries on camera, and is orange. That’s about it. What we will learn about him in his role as Speaker, how he will be perceived by the electorate in 2012 and 2014, and who is elected President in 2012 will be bigger factors in those elections than whether or not Nancy Pelosi continues to lead the Democrats in the House. Today, Boehner gets the benefit of the doubt from the electorate. Under the more intense and extended media scrutiny in his new role, the weeping everyman shtick could wear thin and even raise doubts about his fitness to lead.

Pelosi was widely credited with Democrats winning the House in 2006. She was an effective Speaker in 2007-8 when acting to restore some balance with a Republican administration. She was an even more effective speaker in driving the Democratic agenda set by the Obama administration through the House of Representatives in 2008-10.

If Democrats want effective, competent leadership in Congress, they should stick with Pelosi. We won’t see her crying on the floor of the House, and by 2014, an orange hued basket case weeping over tax cuts may very well be perceived as the relatively greater demon.

Cross posted from “Divided We Stand United We Fall”

House Dems are bound and determined to make a public option their first priority, and I can understand why. This has been a long time coming and they’re convinced that only the federal government can compete with private industry.

But what she’s missing is the idea that Kent Conrad brought up…which is the public option may not have the votes. So if she pushes through a bill that can’t pass the Senate, could this spell the end of her tenure as the Speaker?

From CNN:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi Thursday dismissed the idea of health-insurance cooperatives as an alternative to a government-sponsored health-care plan.

Asked at her weekly news conference whether she could support non-profit co-ops, Pelosi said, “No, not instead of a public option.” [...]

Despite the Senate talks, Pelosi said House Democrats were moving forward with a bill focused on creating a government insurance plan. “In our House, there is strong support for a public option,” she said.

The speaker described the model, saying, “It should be actuarially sound. It should be administratively self-sufficient. It should be a real competitor with the private sector and not have an unfair advantage. When you say the words public option — if that is the term we will be using — you have to say right next to it, level playing field.”

Still, House Republicans are signaling that they won’t accept any type of health care reform that involves the government…

“I’m opposed to a government option, period,” said Boehner. “Listen, if you like going to the DMV and you think they do a great job, or you like going to the post office and think it’s the most efficient thing you’ve run into, then you’ll love the government-run health-care system that they’re proposing, ’cause that’s basically what you’re gonna have.”

Ahh, the sweet sounds of demagoguery.

This is gonna get ugly.

Has the controversy surrounding Nancy Pelosi’s statements on torture made the Speaker vulnerable to a coup? John Feehery of Politico thinks so.

Feehery compares Pelosi to Newt Gingrich and Trent Lott, two former leaders in congress whose declining popularity intersected with controversial statements and resulted in political ouster. Pelosi is already a toxic name for Blue Dog Democrats who don’t want to be associated with the liberal Speaker. Worse for Pelosi, the support from her own liberal base is not as strong as it once was, primarily because she’s failed to deliver on such pledges as bringing the Iraq War to an end.

In my mind, the Democrats would be better off without Pelosi in charge. She’s proven unwilling to lead the House in the more inclusive direction President Obama promised and she’s become adept at playing politics as usual, standing behind corrupt representatives like John Murtha and allowing members to bloat any and every bill with excessive earmarks and questionable spending measures. A new Speaker might give Obama the chance to lead more pragmatically and stop having to kowtow to Congress’ lesser instincts just to get bills passed.

The question is, would the White House support a Pelosi ouster? In a way, her presence gives the administration an easy excuse as to why our government has been more politics-as-usual and less new-way-forward since Obama took office. It’s easy for Obama to shrug and claim he can only do as much as Congress will let him, and be content to let the ire of the public fall on Pelosi and her crew. A less divisive, more constructive Speaker might force the White House to take more responsibility for the details of the bills coming out of Congress. Would a moderate like Steny Hoyer be a more forward-looking Speaker or would he just end up removing a valuable buffer for Obama?

This is all conjecture, of course. No one is openly calling for Pelosi’s ouster as of yet. But she is vulnerable. We’ll see what the Democrats end up doing.

When it comes to waterboarding, the question now surrounding House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is what did she know and when did she know it. Today, Pelosi claimed what she knew, at least at first, was a lie.

[T]he House’s top Democrat, speaking at a news conference in the Capitol, was unequivocal about a CIA briefing she received in the fall of 2002.

“We were told that waterboarding was not being used,” the speaker said. “That’s the only mention, that they were not using it. And we now know that earlier they were.” She suggested the CIA release the briefing material.

The CIA denies the agency ever deceived lawmakers.

So we now have a “he said/she said” situation and most of the official records are classified. What the CIA has released is a chart listing discussions with congressional members:

The chart specifically notes a discussion of waterboarding in 13 briefings between February 2003 and March 2009, most attended by Democrats as well as Republicans. Two Democrats, Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia and former Sen. Bob Graham of Florida, have challenged the accuracy of some of the CIA’s chart.

However, the whole “what she knew and when she knew it” question really misses the point. The right question is: could Pelosi and the Democrats have done more the stop the technique many consider torture? Or was winning control of Congress and the Presidency the only way to effectively halt the use of waterboarding?

Just because Pelosi knew about harsh integration techniques doesn’t mean she approved. Then again, if waterboarding is as morally unacceptable as Pelosi has claimed it is, shouldn’t she have been a lot more vocal a lot earlier?