Shame on Micheal Steele - says he knows absolutrly nothing about this

Exclusive: RNC document mocks donors, plays on 'fear'
By: Ben Smith
March 3, 2010 04:23 PM EST

The Republican National Committee plans to raise money this election cycle through an aggressive campaign capitalizing on “fear” of President Barack Obama and a promise to "save the country from trending toward socialism."

The strategy was detailed in a confidential party fundraising presentation, obtained by POLITICO, which also outlines how “ego-driven” wealthy donors can be tapped with offers of access and “tchochkes.”

The presentation was delivered by RNC Finance Director Rob Bickhart to top donors and fundraisers at a party retreat in Boca Grande, Florida on February 18, a source at the gathering said.

In neat PowerPoint pages, it lifts the curtain on the often-cynical terms of political marketing, displaying an air of disdain for the party’s donors that is usually confined to the barroom conversations of political operatives.

The presentation explains the Republican fundraising in simple terms.

"What can you sell when you do not have the White House, the House, or the Senate...?" it asks.

The answer: "Save the country from trending toward Socialism!”

Manipulating donors with crude caricatures and playing on their fears is hardly unique to Republicans or to the RNC – Democrats raised millions off George W. Bush in similar terms – but rarely is it practiced in such cartoonish terms.

One page, headed “The Evil Empire,” pictures Obama as the Joker from Batman, while House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leaders Harry Reid are depicted as Cruella DeVille and Scooby Doo, respectively.

The document, which two Republican sources said was prepared by the party’s finance staff, comes as Chairman Michael Steele struggles to retain the trust and allegiance of major donors, who can give as much as $30,400 a year to the party.

Under Steele, the RNC has shifted toward a reliance on small donors, but the document reveals extensive, confidential details of the strategy for luring wealthy checkwriters, which range from luxury retreats in California wine country to tickets to a professional fight in Las Vegas.

The 72-page document was provided to POLITICO by a Democrat, who said a hard copy had been left in the hotel hosting the $2,500-a-head retreat, the Gasparilla Inn & Club. Sources at the event said the presentation was delivered by Bickhart and by the RNC Finance Chairman, Peter Terpeluk, a former ambassador to Luxembourg under President George W. Bush.

The RNC reacted with alarm to a question about it Wednesday, emailing major donors to warn them of a reporter’s question, and distancing Steele from its contents.
“The document was used for a fundraising presentation Chairman Steele did not attend, nor had he seen the document,” RNC Communications Director Doug Heye said in an email. “Fundraising documents are often controversial.

“Obviously, the Chairman disagrees with the language and finds the use of such imagery to be unacceptable. It will not be used by the Republican National Committee – in any capacity – in the future,” Heye said.

The most unusual section of the presentation is a set of six slides headed “RNC Marketing 101.” The presentation divides fundraising into two traditional categories, direct marketing and major donors, and lays out the details of how to approach each group.

The small donors who are the targets of direct marketing are described under the heading “Visceral Giving.” Their motivations are listed as “fear;” “Extreme negative feelings toward existing Administration;” and “Reactionary.”

Major donors, by contrast, are treated in a column headed “Calculated Giving.”
Their motivations include: “Peer to Peer Pressure”; “access”; and “Ego-Driven.”

The slide also allows that donors may have more honorable motives, including “Patriotic Duty.”

A major Republican donor described the state of the RNC’s relationship with major donors as “disastrous,” with veteran givers beginning to abandon the committee, which is becoming increasingly reliant on small donors.

The party’s average contribution in 2009, according to the document, was just $40, and the shift toward a financial reliance on the grassroots may help explain Steele’s increasingly strident tone toward the Obama Administration.

While the crude portrayal of Obama may be - as Steele ‘s spokesman put it - “unacceptable,” other elements of the presentation may be of equal interest to close political observers.

The RNC plans to raise $8.6 million from major donors alone in 2010, less than 10% of its total 2009 fundraising take, which was primarily from small donors."

The center of that plan is an extensive, and colorful, schedule of events. Along with traditional fundraisers with conservative luminaries including Weekly Standard Editor Bill Kristol and former presidential candidate Steve Forbes, the party plans to raise $80,000 for a trip to London to meet David Cameron, the British Conservative Party leader, on September 17.

The RNC’s “Young Eagles” – younger major donors and the only group, according to a major donor, continuing to pull its weight financially – are invited to a “professional bull riding event” in October, expected to raise $50,000, and to a no-holds-barred Ultimate Fighting Championship fight in Las Vegas the same month, expected to raise $60,000.

The RNC’s aim, according to one section of the document: “Putting the Fun Back in FUNdraising.”
CORRECTION: The RNC raised a total of $81 million in 2009. An earlier version of this story understated that figure.

McConnell criticizes RNC fundraising pitch

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky today distanced himself from the Republican National Committee's fundraising pitch at a recent party retreat that portrayed President Obama as "The Joker" and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi as Cruella De Vil.
Politico, which first reported about the fundraising presentation, said the RNC "plans to raise money this election cycle through an aggressive campaign capitalizing on 'fear' of President Barack Obama and a promise to 'save the country from trending toward socialism.' "
"I don't like it and I don't know anybody who does," McConnell said on ABC's This Week.
Asked by host Matthew Dowd whether anyone should be disciplined for the document, McConnell said that decision should be made by the RNC.
Of course, the GOP fundraising presentation is now being used by the Democrats to raise money for its candidates. The DNC blog in an entry headlined Fear, socialism and Blackwater recounted the controversy and then asked for money.

We're ready to go toe-to-toe with the GOP. We'll prove that this kind of politics is no match for real grassroots strength and a commitment to making America better -- but we need your help. Please donate $5 or more today to help us fight back.

The DNC also created this ad:
 
Updated at 1:32 p.m. ET. Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, also disavowed the Republican fundraising pitch.

"There's no excuse for that type of stuff. I just don't agree with that type of thing," he said on NBC's Meet the Press. "It shouldn't have happened. . . . I'm ashamed of that."

However, he defended Republican national chairman Michael Steele as "a very fine guy."
(Posted by Eugene Kiely and Susan Page)

The amount of money spent on these could have gone elsewhere

Obama Billboards

Muslim, bigotry, jihad, birthers, death panels, communist, boy do ya think those out there could be more inventive.  I pity the people who think they know better, who think they have the pulse of the PEOPLE in the US of America.  If they think they are so smart how about becoming involved in Politics and making changes....HMMMMMMMMMMM

Obama warns staff: Ignore palace intrigue

 By: Mike Allen
March 8, 2010 04:43 AM EST

 Senior adviser David Axelrod (left) says he can see reporters and pundits trying to detect tension between himself and chief of staff Rahm Emanuel.

 The spate of news stories delving into West Wing palace intrigue has become so relentless that President Barack Obama warned his team against fueling the blaze.

“Don’t get absorbed in the Washington finger-pointing and intrigue,” the president told his senior advisers during a recent meeting, according to one top aide.

He “certainly let us know that we should keep our eye on the ball here and not get distracted by the games of Washington,” the aide said.

The season of turmoil, which has erupted just as Obama is pushing for final health care votes that could determine his domestic legacy, is the most vivid example of how the discipline of the campaign — which prided itself on a tight-knit culture and aides who stayed aloof from the who’s-up, who’s-down obsessions of the press and the Washington political class — has frayed under stress.

“This is what Washington does — it gets itself into a tizzy,” White House senior adviser David Axelrod said, adding that the president’s team is determined to “stay tight.” “We dismiss it for what it is. There aren’t 10 people outside of Washington who give a rat’s ass about any of this. They’ve got bigger stuff to worry about, and we’re trying to worry about that. The same people who are all in a tizzy right now are the same people who called us idiots for the better part of two years.”

Yet for all their brio, Obama’s team has been proven just as susceptible to Washington’s favorite parlor games as anyone, in a way that’s caused more tension and drama inside the White House than any particular policy or political differences.

The reason these questions have exerted such a powerful effect on the Obama story line is that much of the outside critique is grounded at least partly in reality.

Chief of staff Rahm Emanuel gets criticized for biting off more than he can chew. And in fact, he manages political, policy and congressional portfolios that compete for his attention.  Axelrod gets criticized for being so close to Obama for so long that he sometimes fails to appreciate and anticipate when the president's approach isn't resonating. And in fact, the message, which Axelrod often crafts, has been badly muddled at key points, primarily on health reform.
After the president’s historic win in 2008, his close aides might have been forgiven for thinking that the usual rules of politics didn’t apply to them — that they could rise above the Washington ways merely by saying they would. But upon taking office, they, too, quickly lapsed into old Washington habits, with several senior staffers sitting for flattering profiles and photo shoots that made them star players in Obama’s world.

And as the waters have grown choppy, some of the key players have taken to defending their actions in the press — which also contributes to a sense that Obama’s White House is getting pulled into the minute-by-minute tit-for-tat it swore to avoid.

Axelrod, a Chicago Tribune reporter for 10 years, said he can see reporters and pundits trying to detect tension between himself and Emanuel, which he maintains is nonexistent.

“Everybody’s on the same page,” Axelrod said in a telephone interview. “We’re determined not to allow ourselves to be distracted, but, rather, to do what we’re there to do. I probably spend three or four hours a day talking to Rahm. I talked to him this afternoon. There’s no back-channeling — we discuss openly our cut on things. And the truth is that 80 percent of the time, it’s the same. The best thing to do in any organization is to be open with each other.”
Yet even as he said he wouldn’t be distracted by the chatter, there was Axelrod, defending his performance in a front-page New York Times profile Sunday. Press Secretary Robert Gibbs defended the message man, telling POLITICO, “He’s not weary or defeated; he works hard to make sure that we are true to Obama and the commitments he made to the American people.”

Emanuel is philosophical about the coverage, according to a person familiar with his thinking, taking comfort in the strafing that James A. Baker III endured after a year as chief of staff to President Ronald Reagan, only to serve three more years and go on to run State and Treasury.

Emanuel has been singled out for praise in the press, but that led to criticism elsewhere that his allies were burnishing his image at the expense of his boss’s.

Emanuel also came up in Sunday’s Times’ profile of Axelrod, which gave Axelrod a chance to defend his relationship with the chief of staff.

“I love the people I work with, including Rahm,” Axelrod said in the phone interview. “I come to work every day, and I’m happy to see the people I work with. There’s a sense of collegiality, a sense of common purpose and a sense of commitment that I appreciate.”

Axelrod said Mark Leibovich’s article could leave the impression he was tired and had soured on Washington.

“You talk to anybody in the White House, [and] they would tell you I’m a pretty calm, consistent influence,” Axelrod said. “I’m not down. I’m the guy who’s always kind of making jokes and keeping people loose. I don’t loathe Washington, but I do loathe the pathology of Washington. There are a lot of good people in Washington. And a lot of them are my colleagues in the White House, who I’m proud of.”

And it’s not over: The New York Times magazine has an Emanuel profile by Peter Baker scheduled for publication soon. Emanuel and his brother Zeke, a health-care expert with the White House Office of Management and Budget, sat for an interview by CBS’s Katie Couric that’s scheduled to air on “60 Minutes” on March 21.

A West Wing colleague says Emanuel is “unhappy” about the coverage but “understands the town” and takes the scrutiny as unavoidable when you’re chief of staff and the White House is going through a rocky period.

“Rahm’s resilient,” the colleague said. “He’s tough. He shared the point of view that these are unnecessary distractions, and they’re disruptive. The way we deal with these things is we talk them through. Rahm told us in January [after the Massachusetts Senate election] that there were going to be efforts to divide us and that we needed to hang together.”

Another friend said Emanuel realizes he is “overexposed” and is keeping a lower profile.
A top administration official said the positive stories were not encouraged by Emanuel’s office but instead were fed by allies on Capitol Hill and throughout the government.

“Those people are really loyal, and they stick up for him,” the official said. “But I think they’re doing too good a job. They should tone it down a little bit.”
One reason the coverage has provoked so much angst in the White House is that aides know a shake-up will come eventually, and some think the Massachusetts debacle may have hastened it — or should have.

“Until Massachusetts, they thought the insularity was OK, because they could run as, ‘We’re not Washington,” said one Democratic official who works daily with the West Wing.

Friends fret that Emanuel, like the White House he runs, is overextended. He takes a very hands-on approach to legislative and political strategy, while also working the press, the Hill and K Street and appearing regularly at social events and restaurants around town. He works out at the House gym twice a week to keep up his contacts.

“Rahm was born for this job, but he’s spread too thin,” said a longtime colleague. “He possesses it all, but no one person can do what he’s trying to do.”

The articles are correct that Emanuel has been counseling a more modest course on health reform for many months. Friends say he continues to believe a much smaller bill could get broad bipartisan support if the last-ditch effort at a comprehensive package collapses.

But Emanuel bears partial responsibility for the administration’s overgrown agenda. He was an architect of the “big bang” theory of using Year One to pursue ambitious legislation on health care, energy and climate, and financial-regulatory reform.

A Democratic official recalls that when Emanuel was pushing for the text of a financial reregulation proposal during Obama’s first month in office, a harried underling objected that the draft bill could run 1,000 pages.

“Start typing,” Emanuel replied.

A Capitol Hill official who frequently receives the trademark staccato calls from Emanuel’s cell phone said that nobody in Washington “knows how to move information better than he does.”

“He offers up one nugget, and he gets two or three bits back,” the official said. “So basically you’re playing a high-stakes poker game. How many times do you pick up the phone at 7 in the morning, and it’s him? It’s everybody: operatives, reporters, members, friends around the country.”

The official said Emanuel has subtly cultivated a mythology that has made him even more effective.

“He likes people to believe that going up against him results in severe consequences,” the official said. “It’s why he spends so much time cultivating reporters — and the same with members, and K Street: If he’s valuable to you, it makes it harder for you to say something contrary.”

Health Reform by the Numbers: 1,115

• $1,115 – that’s the average premium for employer-sponsored family coverage per month in 2009.  Annually, that amounts to $13,375 – or roughly the yearly income of someone working a minimum wage job. (Source)
• And if nothing is done to reform our broken health care system, a recent survey found that over the next ten years, out-of-pocket expenses for Americans with health insurance could increase 35 percent in every state in the country. (Source)

This week -- in an effort to put the past year’s debate over health insurance reform into perspective -- we’re launching, “Health Reform by the Numbers,” an online campaign using key figures, like $1,115, to raise awareness about why we just can’t wait for reform.  We’ll announce a new number each day and promote them here on Whitehouse.gov and on social networks, like Facebook and Twitter.


 
Yesterday, Leslie Banks, one of the many Americans burdened by skyrocketing health insurance costs, introduced President Obama at a reform event in Philadelphia.  Here’s her story:

On February 11th Leslie wrote the President  an e-mail expressing her frustration with the cost of health insurance. Leslie is a self-employed, single mother with type 2 diabetes, whose daughter is a sophomore in college at Temple University.  In January 2010, Leslie received a notice from her health insurance provider that her plan was being dropped. To keep the same benefits, the premiums for her and her daughter would more than double.  Leslie was told by the insurance company that there was an across the board premium hike and there was nothing she could do.  If she paid the same monthly premium amount as before, the deductible would increase from $500 to $5,000, and they would no longer have preventive care or prescription coverage.  Leslie is not eligible for the insurance company’s HMO due to her pre-existing condition.  Under health reform, Leslie and her daughter will have access to affordable health insurance in the new health insurance exchange, including guaranteed benefits such as preventive care and prescription drugs as well as important consumer protections.  In addition, insurance companies will no longer be able to deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions, and they will be held accountable to prevent insurance industry abuses.

For those like Leslie who are buckling under the weight of crippling health insurance costs – they can’t wait any longer for reform.  As the President said yesterday, "We can’t have a system that works better for the insurance companies than it does for the American people.  We need to give families and businesses more control over their own health insurance. And that’s why we need to pass health care reform -- not next year, not five years from now, not 10 years from now, but now."
With all of us working together, we’ll send the message loud and clear -- the time is now for health insurance reform. Check out what we’re doing to raise awareness on Facebook, Twitter, and help spread the word by sharing this post.

What's up with Massa?

 I watched Glenn Beck and guess what as hard as Beck tried to get Massa to say something that would anger his audience, Massa said absolutely nothing of any importance. Except for Finance Reform..... Beck said it was a waste of his listeners time.   hehehehehehehe


Eric Massa Radio Show

By Jonathan Capehart  |  March 8, 2010; 6:48 PM ET
Once upon a time, I used to advise clients in all manner of trouble on how to minimize the damage to their reputations or how to get in front of bad news by wresting control of the narrative away from their would-be persecutors. Rep. Eric Massa (D-N.Y.) is pursuing the latter path to odd effect. The more he talks, the more implausible his conspiracy theory sounds. The more he talks, the more I wonder, what's up with Massa and men?
On Friday, Massa announced he would not seek reelection due to health. All the while, there were rumors that he was giving up his seat because of a sexual harassment allegation leveled by a male staffer. By Sunday, he was on WKPQ radio explaining the (I was just joshin') incident and declaring the implications a smear. But he also said that he was resigning altogether, effective 5:00 p.m. on Monday.
You can listen to the entire radio show here. And when you do, be prepared for some real palace intrigue. Not the back-stabby kind President Obama wants to put the kibosh on in the West Wing. Massa argues forcefully that the reason the ethics committee is investigating him is because of the Democratic leadership's push to pass health-care reform. With Massa out of the way, the bill is sailing to the president's desk. Who knew Massa wielded so much power?
"There's a reason that this has all happened, frankly one that I had not realized," he said on the radio on Sunday. "Mine is now the deciding vote on the health-care bill, and this administration and this House leadership have said, quote unquote, they will stop at nothing to pass this health-care bill. And now they've gotten rid of me and it'll pass. You connect the dots." There are some dots I'm connecting, but they have nothing to do with health care. They have to do with Massa's sexually charged stories about men.
In that Sunday radio show, he told the story that led to the allegation by the male staffer. The one where he said, "I grabbed the staff member sitting next to me and I said, 'What I really ought to be doing is frakking you,' and then tossled the guy's hair and left, went to my room, because I knew the party was getting to a point where I shouldn't be there." Massa also had choice things to say about White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, including an incident in the congressional gym. "I'm sitting there showering, naked as a jaybird and here comes Rahm Emanuel not even with a towel wrapped around his tush, poking his finger in my chest, yelling at me because I wasn't going to vote for the president's budget," Massa said. "Do you know how awkward it is to have a political argument with a naked man?”
And then in answer to a critic who dredged up misconduct allegations from the 1980s, Massa shared this story about watch duty on a ship in the Persian Gulf during the first Iraq War. (skip up to 13:47 for this one.) The quarters were tight. "You literally can't move two people in that room without getting into each other's knickers," he said. One night he came back early only to find "[T]he other gentleman was busy remembering his spouse," he said euphemistically. "Instead of embarrassing him, I smacked him on the leg and said, 'If you need any help with that let me know.' and I went to bed." That proved a bit much for the roommate. "He was so hideously embarrassed he moved out of the stateroom because he couldn't take it. Ladies and gentlemen, we were at sea for four months."
Massa will go on Glenn Beck's show tomorrow night for the full hour. This might be asking too much, but I would love it if the Fox News weeper would pull the one-term congressman off the grassy knoll of conspiracy theories and ask him for proof of his allegations that his travails are the result of being targeted by the leadership. I would also like Beck to ask him point-blank about his conduct. Massa told a local reporter on Friday, “It’s not that I can fight or beat these allegations, I’m guilty.” If that's the case then why not go quietly? All this conspiracy talk strikes me as a distraction -- and not a very good one.

Rahm is... "the devil's spawn"

Posted by Glenn Thrush 09:51 AM

Whatever he has done or not done, I will miss Eric Massa, for no other reason than his gift with a phrase.
In an amazing, far-ranging interview/monologue with a Rochester-area radio station, Massa admits making an off-color, sexual comment to a young staffer -- but still claims Democratic leadership ratted him out to kill a health care "no" vote.
That brought him to the subject of Rahm Emanuel and arm-twisting:
 



“Rahm Emanuel is son of the devil’s spawn,” Massa said, according to City Hall. “He is an individual who would sell his mother to get a vote. He would strap his children to the front end of a steam locomotive.”
Later in the interview, Massa -- who sits down with Glenn Beck for a one-hour interview on Tuesday -- tells a bizarre story about Emanuel accosting him in the House gym -- in the buff:
"Let me tell you a story about Rahm Emanuel," Massa started. "I was a congressman in my first eight weeks, and I was in the congressional gym, and I went down and I worked out and I went into the showers...I'm sitting there showering, naked as a jaybird and here comes Rahm Emanuel not even with a towel wrapped around his tush, poking his finger in my chest, yelling at me because I wasn't going to vote for the president's budget. Do you know how awkward it is to have a political argument with a naked man?”
Massa has never enjoyed a particularly close relationship with Emanuel, who was chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee when Massa first ran for unsuccessfully, without much DCCC support, in 2006.
Massa's near defeat of incumbent Randy Kuhl that year -- he lost by 6,033 votes -- attracted the attention of Emanuel's successor Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), who helped Massa defeat Kuhl in a nail-biting rematch in '08.
Massa relationship with House leadership has been in the dumps for months, and only got worse after he bucked Democrats on the health reform vote last fall -- earning him the enmity of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her ally Emanuel who personally lobbied fence-sitters. It's not clear if Massa, who was regarded by Pelosi and the White House as a lost cause, was part of his effort.
But he says he was the subject of Rahm tirade over his decision to oppose leadership on cap-and-trade: "[W]hen I voted against the cap and trade bill, the phone rang and it was the Chief of Staff to the President of the United States of America, Rahm Emanuel, and he started swearing at me in terms and words that I hadn’t heard since that crossing the line ceremony on the USS New Jersey in 1983. And I gave it right back to him, in terms and words that I know are physically impossible. I told him to do things I know the human anatomy cannot do.”
Few tears have been shed over Massa's departure on the Hill. Other members describe him as volatile, argumentative, the antithesis of the a team player -- even though he supported leadership on many other issues, including the repeal of the military's Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy.

Have We Had Enough of the Cheney's.............

What I do not like is that every time the "Cheney's" do something radical, the media exploits them which, gives them, pardon this expression, balls to go out and say more. Learn to ignore them and they will eventually die out. I love that President Obama does not answer the call to engage them. He ignores them in media and print, sometimes I think it infuriates the "Cheney's".  Of course we have not heard from Mr Cheney because he is recovering from a small heart attack, I just didn't think he had one to begin with.
They make it sound like they are the only patriotic couple left in the USA. 
Our system of justice is the best in the land, we afford citizens, and non citizens the right to a trial by their peers. If they can not afford or get a lawyer, we make sure they have one. Our justice system is fair and unbiased to everyone. 
We have jurors who are picked right from the heart of the People. Fair and just. Calling lawyers who are doing their jobs by the oaths that they take, and laws they must abide by "the al Qaeda 7", is personally distasteful.  Ms Cheney is being un-American and maybe she should be pointing she finger at her father, who helped start this whole mess...
That's what I have to say about that!

Keep America Safe -- from Liz Cheney's tactics

In this hyper-partisan age, the bipartisan outrage being expressed over the reprehensible television ad from the fearmongers at Keep America Safe is encouraging. The organization run by Liz Cheney, a state department official under President Bush and the daughter of the former vice president, is attempting to sow seeds of distrust by raising doubts about the loyalties of attorneys who once volunteered to handle the cases of suspected terrorists and are now working in the Justice Department. Wanting to know the identities of the lawyers is one thing. Smearing them as the "the al Qaeda 7" is over the line by a mile.
As The Post editorialized on Saturday, the ad gives the impression the attorneys "had committed a crime or needed to be exposed for subverting national security." And, sadly, it sought to remind folks that part of this nation's grand legal tradition is volunteers taking on cases of suspects who aren't popular or necessarily innocent but who need representation. Despite the Supreme Court ruling that detainees at Guantanemo Bay can challenge their detentions, groups like Keep America Safe is determined to ignore that fact.
Former Solicitor General Walter Dellinger penned a defense for one of the lawyers, Karl Thompson. His work was "not only part of a lawyer's professional obligation but a small act of patriotism as well," Dellinger wrote. He added that all the lawyers targeted by Keep America Safe "deserve our respect and gratitude for fulfilling the professional obligations of lawyers." And Dellinger got some serious back-up today from a group of conservative lawyers and former Bush administration officials, including former independent counsel Kenneth Starr and deputy attorney general Larry Thompson. "To suggest that the Justice Department should not employ talented lawyers who have advocated on behalf of detainees maligns the patriotism of people who have taken honorable positions on contested questions and demands a uniformity of background and view in government service from which no administration would benefit," the signatories noted. I have nothing to add to their persuasive argument. Unfortunately, I'm not too hopeful that it will stop Keep America Safe and its acolytes from trying it again.
By Jonathan Capehart  |  March 8, 2010; 12:53 PM ET