Issa Issa, Baby

We've been trying to make the case-- so far without any success-- that the DCCC make an effort, even if it's one that takes more than one cycle, to defeat Darrell Issa in a purple district Obama won in 2008. Last cycle Issa beat grassroots candidate Jerry Tetalman 59-41-- primarily because of Issa's huge margin in the smaller part of the district, the Orange County part. The biggest part of the district, San Diego County, saw a closer result, Issa 56% and Tetalman 44%. Issa, who always acts in the interests of corporate behemoths raised $2,478,710 last cycle. Jerry Tetalman raised $131,168. Did the DCCC come in and even the playing field a bit? No, Steve Israel has put Darrell Issa off the table and not one cent was spent-- even though Obama had won the district 4 years previous!

We'll figure out which side Steve Israel is really playing for in another post on another day. This one is about Issa-- or at least about Joe Conason's awesome idea about investigating Issa himself-- and applying his own dubious methods and standards to the effort. He starts with the premise that Congress is held in such historically low esteem by Americans because of misconduct by Republicans, especially committee chairs and no one more than Issa, chairman of the committee charged with investigations. "Without any evident embarrassment," he asserts, "these mighty politicians deny science, defy mathematics, and dismiss every fact that contradicts their prejudices. But bad as these chairs tend to be, none is quite as flamboyantly awful as Rep. Darrell Issa, chairman of the Government Oversight Committee, a special investigative panel whose latest effort to conjure scandal from nothingness at the Internal Revenue Service would provoke his removal by a responsible leadership." John Boehner and Eric Cantor are not exactly "responsible leadership."

[T]here was no political motive in the agency’s treatment of the Tea Party and associated groups seeking tax exemption (in many cases illegitimately).

It is now equally obvious that the behavior of Issa himself, with his attempts to skew his committee’s investigation and conceal testimony that exonerated the agency, represents the most serious wrongdoing in the supposed “IRS scandal.” But this isn’t the first time that the California Republican, who happens to be the wealthiest man in Congress, has misused the broad powers of his chairmanship. Actually, that is all he does-- as he demonstrated in equally opportunistic and amateurish examinations of both the Benghazi tragedy and the “Fast and Furious” affair.

Issa’s stewardship of the House Government Reform Committee has failed even by the standards of the Republican congressional leadership, which must have hoped that he would have collected some Obama administration scalps by now. He delayed the Fast and Furious probe solely to extend it into the election year, blustered against Attorney General Eric Holder, and accomplished… nothing.

There is little hope that Speaker John Boehner, who has enough problems maintaining a semblance of authority and dignity, will question Issa’s fitness to chair this important committee. But still we are left wondering: What would become of Issa if he were subjected to the Republican style of investigation? What if the presumption of guilt, the preference for insinuation over evidence, the omission of exculpatory facts, and the promulgation of conspiratorial speculations that feature in all of Issa’s theatrical probes were applied to him?

As the richest member of Congress, Issa seems to enjoy the same veneer of respectability that great wealth has provided to many dubious figures. But his past includes several troubling encounters with law enforcement, from alleged car thefts to weapons offenses. So what would the public learn from an Issa-style investigation of Darrell Issa?

First, the committee chair would reveal the troubling findings about Issa, namely that he was arrested not once but twice for illegal weapons offenses. Worse yet, he would explain, Issa had been convicted the second time. Then he would release slightly redacted copies of court records on file in Cleveland Heights, Ohio, where Issa grew up, showing an arrest, charges of auto theft and carrying a concealed weapon only one month after his discharge from the Army in the winter of 1972. Those same records would also reveal that Issa and an older brother were both suspects in the theft of a “new red Maserati sports car” from an auto dealership, and that Issa was eventually indicted for larceny.

And then the committee might leak a second, even more damaging set of records showing that Issa had been picked up several months later on another weapons charge in Michigan, where he attended college. Police arrested him for possession of an unregistered handgun, leading ultimately to his conviction.

What we might not learn-- at least not until the facts were excavated by less partisan probers-- is that Issa was only 19 years old at the time; that the first set of charges in Ohio was eventually dropped by prosecutors; and that the Michigan charge was a misdemeanor, punishable by a $100 fine. Which young Issa paid.

Yet whatever Issa did as a foolish kid could be made to look quite sinister by a congressional committee chair like him, dedicated to trumping up minor irritations into major scandals. How fortunate he is that nobody in authority has ever misused the investigative power to smear him-- and that those currently in authority over him have no appetite for reining in his abuses of that power.

Why is Conason covering up the fact that Issa became rich as an arsonist and that he's a terrorist sympathizer? The investigation needs to be thorough. And why is Steve Israel protecting him?

Read More

Does Steve Israel Understand How To Make GOP Racism Work Against Them-- Or Is That Not Reptilian Enough For Him?

Like we saw Thursday, now that the Senate has passed comprehensive immigration reform, what's next? The Senate Democrats have already given away every conceivable bargaining chip available before the bill becomes worthless and insupportable. Nothing will ever change the minds of the racists in control in the House. There are two camps of Republicans in the House on this issue-- the majority camp of racists and bigots and then a more mainstream camp that knows it should be done for various reasons but is afraid of the racists and bigots. Until Boehner has a majority of Republicans willing to break away from the racists and bigots, there will be no signing ceremony in the White House. So where do we go from here? Fawn Johnson sketched out a few ideas Friday for Roll Call.

Some proponents have floated the idea that the House could pass an immigration package that includes provisions unpalatable to President Obama and Democrats and excludes pieces they consider essential, such as a path to citizenship. They would settle for this outcome for the sole purpose of the House passing something-- anything-- that would get them to a conference committee with the Senate. In theory, the deal-breaker provisions could be erased in the conference negotiations.

That strategy isn't flying with Democrats. Here's just one example: House Republicans say that allowing local law enforcement to apprehend and detain unauthorized immigrants is critical to enhancing border security. Democrats reject that idea without blinking. "No," said Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., a lead sponsor of the Senate bill, when asked if Democrats could accept that provision as part of a comprehensive package. "Look, I have opposed that forever, because even the toughest law enforcement will tell you that you undermine the confidence of communities to talk to local police."

Democrats have other demands. Anything short of eventual, full citizenship for undocumented immigrants would trigger protest marches from liberal activists. And House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has made it clear that immigration negotiators are not to touch Obama's health care law, which means Republicans who want to ban health care subsidies for green-card holders are out of luck.

The situation becomes a stalemate: Deal-killer provisions for Democrats are essential components for Republicans.

There may be another way to get to Point B, but it is based on the questionable proposition that the House GOP would work its will at first and then be willing to compromise later. The House Judiciary Committee has readied a series of smaller immigration bills-- on local law enforcement, agricultural workers, electronic verification, and high-skilled visas-- that could see floor votes in July. Assuming they pass, Republicans say they could package them as an opening bid for conference negotiations with the Senate.

Thus far, however, the list of House bills doesn't include anything that legalizes the undocumented population, ignoring the top demand from both Democrats and Obama. What's more, the bills have not passed the committee with Democratic votes. It's hard to convince bipartisan reformers that they should back a strategy in which House GOP leaders have to rely solely on Republican votes. The farm bill's downfall last week erased what little faith they might have had in such a plan.

So what's next? Members "have to get beat up a little bit at home" before a vote on a major immigration bill is even possible, said one GOP aide close to House leaders. So far, that's not happening. "My constituents all like what we're doing," said Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., who chairs the Judiciary Committee's Immigration Subcommittee. "They like the fact that you're giving scrutiny to each component, as opposed to saying, 'We hope that you like this enough to overlook the fact that you don't like this at all.'"

The Senate's comprehensive immigration bill is exactly the kind of grand compromise that rank-and-file House Republicans are assiduously avoiding. They see Republican senators giving away a path to citizenship, desperately sought by Democrats, in exchange for promises of tougher enforcement-- a bad deal, in their eyes. "Oh, they hate it, my constituents," said Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah.

It's hard for reform advocates to fathom that the GOP rejects what they see as an obvious truth-- either immigration reform passes or Hispanics ditch the Republican Party forever. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid calls House Republican opponents "the crazies."  Congressional aides supportive of reform efforts shake their heads in disbelief, urging reporters to ask Republicans what they propose to do about 11 million undocumented immigrants.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., a supporter of a path to citizenship, says opponents of immigration reform hurt the GOP's image with Hispanics. "It's hard to sell your economic agenda if they think you're going to deport [their] grandmother," he said.

But such arguments don't seem to have much traction in the House. To wit, ultraconservative hard-liner Steve King, R-Iowa, is feeling pretty good. "I was a lonely guy two months ago," the congressman said of his protests against bipartisan groups in the House and the Senate crafting big immigration bills. "Lots of people said, 'You can't stop that... Now I'm juiced. I'm going to go try out for the Redskins."

The ultimate arbiter is liable to be voters at the ballot box. Nate Silver put together a list of the Republican congressmembers with the largest Hispanic populations. This chart is just the Members with 25% or more. No one wants to lose a quarter of the voters even before the campaign begins, right? Well, no one sane does. But who would argue that these far right Republicans from Texas and California-- and that's 22 of the 26 districts!

Mitt Romney’s dismal performance with Hispanic voters in November gave Republican legislators “a new appreciation” for change, as Senator John McCain, a Republican from Arizona who is one of the eight senators in the bipartisan group, has said.

That may be true for many politicians seeking to win national and statewide elections in places where the Hispanic share of the electorate has increased significantly. But the main hurdle is expected to be in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, where a different set of political incentives apply.

Most Republicans in the House come not only from very conservative districts but also from overwhelmingly white districts.

In the 232 Congressional districts represented by Republicans, the average Hispanic share of each district is 11 percent (the 200 Congressional districts held by Democrats are, on average, 23 percent Hispanic). Just 40 of the 232 Republicans in the House come from districts that are more than 20 percent Hispanic, and just 16 from districts that are at least one-third Hispanic. At the other end of the spectrum, 142 districts represented by Republicans are less than 10 percent Hispanic.

In all, 84 percent of House Republicans represent districts that are 20 percent or less Hispanic.

...[T]here is no guarantee that Republicans with a greater share of Hispanic constituents will necessarily favor reform. But three of the four Republicans in the House already negotiating an immigration bill with Democrats-- Representatives John Carter and Sam Johnson, both of Texas, and Mario Diaz-Balart, of Florida-- come from districts that are more Hispanic than the average Republican-held Congressional district.

The fourth Republican negotiator in the House, Raúl R. Labrador, represents Idaho’s First Congressional District, which-- at 10 percent Hispanic-- is just below the average for Republicans. Mr. Diaz-Balart represents Florida’s 25th Congressional District, which is 70 percent Hispanic. Mr. Carter represents Texas’s 31st District, which is roughly a quarter Hispanic. And Mr. Johnson represents Texas’s Third District, which is 15 percent Hispanic.

Of the 26 districts in the chart above, the DCCC is only targeting 6, even though some are Blue districts. The only Republicans worried about electoral defeat are

• David Valadao (R-CA)
• Stevan Pearce (R-NM)
• Blake Farenthold (R-TX)
• Gary Miller (R-CA)
• Jeff Denham (R-CA)
• Buck McKeon (R-CA)

Ileana's seat would be in the bag if Debbie wasn't protecting her

All these other seats... 100% ignored by the DCCC. Some of them have free reelection passes from Israel and Debbie Wasserman Schultz, like Ileana Ros Lehtinen. Others are just out of reach because of DCCC incompetence. In 2008 Obama beat McCain in Darrell Issa's district. Regardless of how badly Issa has been behaving, Steve Israel refuses to get serious about recruiting a candidate to run against him in a district with a 26% Hispanic population. Ed Royce may be quieter, but he's as much a villain as Issa-- and has a district that's over a third Hispanic and with lots and lots of Asian-Americans too, who Royce has given plenty of reasons to want a new congressman. Last year the Democrats had a sterling candidate running, Jay Chen, and the DCCC studiously ignored him. Royce-- who spent $4,515,190 to Chen's $714,594-- beat him 59-41%. The DCCC spent exactly-- to the penny-- zero. The Democrats will never-- and I mean NEVER-- win back Congress as long as Steve Israel is chairman of the DCCC. It's as though he were working for the Republicans. Reappointing him after his disastrous performance in 2012 was Nancy Pelosi's biggest career-long mistake. Sí, se puede!

Read More

Issa's Job

When Boehner appointed a congenital liar and crook like Darrell Issa, a common street thug who robbed, cheated and burned his way into the ranks of multimillionaires, to head the House Oversight Committee, he knew exactly what he was doing. Issa's job was to drum up witch hunts and help discredit government and discredit Obama. He's been busy. Although today he was a different kind of busy-- screeching his outrage up and down the corridors of Twitter:

Issa's job is to blow up everything that's ptoblematic inside "the government," magnify it, make it look malevolent and then tie it to President Obama. His IRS mess is starting to unravel... and that's the one the Republicans have been counting on.

A “conservative Republican” manager of Cincinnati-based IRS screeners told congressional investigators there was no evidence the White House was involved in the agency’s targeting of conservative groups, according to the Democratic leader of a committee probing the scandal.

This refutes claims by some Republicans that the groups were targeted at the direction of political operatives working to get President Barack Obama re-elected, said Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Maryland, on CNN's State of the Union on Sunday.

“He is a conservative Republican working for the IRS. I think this interview and these statements go a long way to showing that the White House was not involved in this,” he said.

Further, Cummings said the interviews conducted by the House Oversight Committee were conclusive enough for the investigation to be considered complete.

“Based upon everything I’ve seen, the case is solved,” he said. “If it were me, I would wrap this case up and move on.”

Rep. Darrell Issa, the Republican chairman of the House Oversight Committee, told CNN’s State of the Union last Sunday that interviews with workers in the Cincinnati IRS office indicated the targeting of conservative groups was "a problem that was coordinated in all likelihood right out of Washington headquarters-- and we're getting to proving it."

“My gut tells me that too many people knew this wrongdoing was going on before the election, and at least by some sort of convenient, benign neglect, allowed it to go on through the election,” Issa said. “I’m not making any allegations as to motive, that they set out to do it, but certainly people knew it was happening.”

But in the interview excerpts released by Cummings, the charge of political motivation is refuted by the Cincinnati manager, who described himself to investigators as a “conservative Republican.”

“I do not believe that the screening of these cases had anything to do other than consistency and identifying issues that needed to have further development,” the manager said, according to the document released by the Democratic staff of the Oversight Committee.

The excerpts indicate the manager was later asked whether he had “any reason to believe that anyone in the White House was involved in the decision to screen Tea Party cases.”

The manager replied “I have no reason to believe that.”

Like Issa, Cummings released only portions of the investigators’ interview with the manager, despite CNN’s request for the full transcript. On State of the Union, Cummings said he has repeatedly called for Issa to release the full interview transcripts, and if Issa chooses not to by the end of the week, he would release the full interviews himself.

In the excerpts Cummings did release, the manager tells interviewers that it was his decision to send one particular application in 2010 to the Washington tax-exempt office-- not for political reasons, but rather so a precedent could be set for later cases where screeners suspected a group of conducting political activity.

“In his interview he said over and over again, ‘I want it to be consistent.’ So that's how all of this got started. Period,” Cummings said.

Read More

What Does Your Gut Tell You About Darrell Issa?

I'm not as offended as others are that Darrell Issa called the White House Press Secretary a "paid liar." Let's be honest. I'm more offended that someone of Issa's character could have a role in my country's government. The DCCC ignored him last year, even though Obama had won his district in 2008. It wasn't about Issa; it was Steve Israel's policy to not challenge senior Republican policy-makers-- solidarity among thieves or something. Is Steve Israel recruiting someone to run against Issa in 2014? Not that anyone has heard about in San Diego. Today Israel snivels that he performed so miserably as DCCC chairman in 2012 because he was undergoing a wrenching divorce and a short sale of his house (for which his pals at JPMorgan forgave a $93,000 debt). I wonder what his excuse will be in 2014, when the Democrats again fail to win back the House.

Any Democrat thinking about taking on Issa needs to remember how Republican Matt Fong beat him in the 1997 California Senate primary, even as Issa outspent him by nine million dollars. Issa's expensive campaign "fell apart after a burst of investigative reporting raised serious questions about his honesty and his past. Many politicians have committed indiscretions in earlier years: maybe they had an affair or hired an illegal immigrant as a nanny. Issa, it turned out, had, among other things, been indicted for stealing a car, arrested for carrying a concealed weapon, and accused by former associates of burning down a building." It was revealed during the campaign that Issa's public image was something Issa made up and that he is an inveterate and compulsive liar who invented a life story-- and a heroic one at that.

In May of 1998, Lance Williams, of the San Francisco Examiner, reported that Issa had not always received the “highest possible” ratings in the Army. In fact, at one point he “received unsatisfactory conduct and efficiency ratings and was transferred to a supply depot.” Williams also discovered that Issa didn’t provide security for Nixon at the 1971 World Series, because Nixon didn’t attend any of the games.

A member of Issa’s Army unit, Jay Bergey, told Williams that his most vivid recollection of the young Issa was that in December, 1971, Issa stole his car, a yellow Dodge Charger. “I confronted Issa,” Bergey said in 1998. “I got in his face and threatened to kill him, and magically my car reappeared the next day, abandoned on the turnpike.”

Bergey died of lung cancer in 2002, but his widow, Joyce, recently said to me that she remembered her husband telling the story of the stolen Dodge Charger. She laughed when she heard that Issa is now a prominent member of Congress. “Well, he probably figured he was borrowing it from a friend,” she said. “But now we’re discussing politicians, so we all know how honest they are. When I meet a good one, I’ll let you know.”

On March 15, 1972, three months after Issa allegedly stole Jay Bergey’s car and one month after he left the Army for the first time, Ohio police arrested Issa and his older brother, William, and charged them with stealing a red Maserati from a Cleveland showroom. The judge eventually dismissed the case.

...According to court records, on December 28, 1979, William Issa arrived at Smythe European Motors, in San Jose, and offered to sell Darrell’s car, a red 1976 Mercedes sedan. William was carrying an Ohio driver’s license with his brother’s name on it and the dealer gave William a check for sixteen thousand dollars, which he immediately cashed. Soon afterward, Darrell reported the car stolen from the Monterey airport. He later told the police that he had left the title in the trunk.

The brothers had been together in Cleveland for Christmas, and, after Darrell gave a series of conflicting statements about his brother and whether he himself had recently obtained a second driver’s license, the investigator in the case became suspicious that the two men had conspired to fraudulently sell Darrell’s car and then collect the insurance money.

The brothers were indicted for grand theft. Darrell argued that he had no knowledge of William’s activities; William claimed that his brother had authorized him to sell the car, and he produced a document dated a few weeks before the robbery that gave him power of attorney over his brother’s affairs. On February 15th, with the investigation ongoing, Darrell returned to the San Jose dealership and repurchased his car, for seventeen thousand dollars. In August, 1980, the prosecution dropped the case. Darrell insisted that he was a victim, not a criminal. William had produced evidence that he had the legal authority to sell the car, and the injured party was reimbursed.

...Issa’s early business career was equally tumultuous. He started his car-alarm empire by acquiring the Steal Stopper brand in what was essentially a hostile takeover. A man named Joey B. Adkins owned the company, and Issa loaned him sixty thousand dollars. When Adkins was late on a payment, Issa went to court and foreclosed on the loan. Two days later, Adkins told me, Issa called and said that he wanted Adkins to come visit him at his new office. He gave Adkins the address of Steal Stopper. “I just took your company,” Adkins recalled him saying.

Once in control, Issa allegedly used an unusual method to fire Jack Frantz, an employee. Frantz told the Los Angeles Times that Issa came into his office, placed a box on the table, and opened it to reveal a gun. Issa told the paper, “Shots were never fired. If I asked Jack to leave, then I think I had every right to ask Jack to leave. . . . I don’t recall [having a gun]. I really don’t. I don’t think I ever pulled a gun on anyone in my life.”

Issa was soon suspected of doing something worse: burning down the factory. The initial notion that an electrical socket had caused the fire was challenged. The science of determining whether a fire was caused by arson can be flawed. But a fire-analysis report commissioned by the St. Paul insurance company, and dated October 19, 1982, a month after the incident, concluded that the fire was “incendiary.” The report cited “suspicious burn patterns,” such as “two separate major areas of origin,” and it said, “No accidental source of heating power was located at either of these two major areas of origin.” The manner in which stacks of cardboard boxes burned was inconsistent with an accidental fire. A flammable liquid appeared to have been poured over the boxes. The blue flames seen emanating from the roof were evidence, according to the investigators, of burning carbon monoxide that is produced when an accelerant like gasoline ignites. The black smoke was also a clue. “Such black smoke normally occurs in a fire only when a hydrocarbon is burning,” the report said. When investigators tested burn damage from inside the factory, they found “the same identical mixture of flammable hydrocarbons” in four samples taken from diverse locations.

St. Paul sought out background information on Issa and his companies. Investigators interviewed family members, bank officials, and former employees. They looked into Issa’s court and credit records, mortgage documents, and other personal information.

Joey Adkins, the former owner of Steal Stopper, provided the main evidence against Issa. On the afternoon of September 20, 1982, in a lengthy recorded interview with an insurance investigator, he described a series of suspicious actions by Issa before the fire. Adkins, who still worked for Steal Stopper, said that Issa removed the company’s Apple II computer from the building, including “all hardware, all software, all the instruction books,” and also “the discs for accounts payable, accounts receivable, customer list, everything.” According to Adkins, Issa also transferred a copy of every design used by Steal Stopper from a filing cabinet to a fireproof box. He also said that Issa put in the box some important silk screens used in the production of circuit boards. Insurance officials noted that, less than three weeks before the fire, Issa had increased his insurance from a hundred thousand dollars to four hundred and sixty-two thousand dollars. “Quite frankly,” Adkins told the investigator, “I feel the man set the fire.”

There is still the unanswered questions about how Issa, basically a worthless bum, acquired the original capital to finance his business ventures. St. Paul hired investogators to get to the bottom of it but Issa had hidden his tracks well, and to this day no one knows if the money came from selling stolen cars, from providing arson services for profit or for something as mundane as robbing banks. One thing is known for certain-- he didn't get the initial capital honestly.

Read More

If Darrell Issa Is So Rich, Why Doesn't He Get His Teeth Whitened?

On Saturday I asserted that Darrell Issa should be a top priority target for the DCCC, rather than just another vile Republican committee chairman who gets a free reelection pass from Steve Israel, like he did last year. Issa's San Diego/Orange County district has a PVI of R+4, a district that can be won and a district worth fighting for-- at least in terms of building an infrastructure to win in 2016.

But the DCCC isn't doing anything about recruiting a viable candidate against Issa. Steve Israel prefers spending his time and resources against backbenchers no one has ever heard about or cares about. Issa is all over the media and every time he makes an appearance the Democratic base is filled with loathing. I don't expect Steve Israel has ever met anyone from the Democratic base though.

Maybe after Issa's fumbled appearance on CNN yesterday, Israel will sense an opportunity... although that isn't likely. Issa made a blanket statement about political officials in the Obama administration orchestrating the IRS probe into teabaggers groups who were, after all, trying to claim they should get classified as non-profits because they're not political-- even though they are political. But Issa is vowing his witch-hunt will continue until he finds evidence to prove what he believes-- no matter how off base that is.

"You don’t have that direct link," Crowley continued. "You have the frontline agents going, yeah, we figured it was from Washington or I believe it was, but as of yet you don’t have that definitive, yeah, this guy called me and said, people, go look for tea party and patriot applications." Issa claimed his investigation would eventually turn up direct evidence of his charges and described White House Press Secretary Jay Carney as a "paid liar" for claiming that Washington officials did not direct IRS agents.

The Inspector General's report into the matter concluded that the IRS relied on "inappropriate criteria” while vetting groups applying for nonprofit status by using a BOLO-- "Be On the Look Out"-- list and blamed IRS officials in Washington, DC, for "insufficient oversight" of lower-level staffers. However, it specifically concluded that "All of these officials stated that the criteria were not influenced by any individual or organization outside the IRS."

Read More

Why Darrell Issa Should Be A DCCC Top Priority... Instead Of Another Chairman Steve Israel Gives A Free Pass To Reelection

Last year, Darrel Issa skated to reelection, winning back his seat (CA-49) 139-127 (59%) to 97,454 (41%). There are parts of two counties in the district: Orange County, where he won 66% and, San Diego, where he won 56%. There's more than twice as much San Diego in CA-49 as Orange County. Does that seem too hopeless to tackle? Let's look a little closer.

In 2008, Obama and McCain basically tied, although Obama officially won the district by a few votes. Last year Romney did better than McCain, besting Obama 52-46%. The PVI is R+4. Half a dozen Democrats won in districts that had PVIs of R+4 or worse.

Issa, who began his professional career as a car thief and commercial arsonist, is the richest man in Congress. He spent $1,115,222 on his campaign last year. His opponent, Jerry Tetalman, spent $127,720. The DCCC spent exactly nothing in the race-- zero. The only outside help Jerry Tetalman got was from the San Diego and Imperial Counties Labor Council: $111.

I live up the road from Issa's district, way up the road in Los Angeles. But his district reminds me of a district abutting my own back in the 90s-- CA-27. Republican Carlos Moorhead represented the Pasadena-centered district for over two decades. It had started turning bluer and Moorhead retired in 1997. A right-wing extremist, James Rogan, won the seat-- but with just 50.1%. He was reelected once-- and then made a fatal error. He became a high-profile manager of Bill Clinton's impeachment, Democrats were furious and the DCCC weighed in on behalf of the Democratic candidate, Adam Schiff. And Schiff won-- 53-44%. The district (CA-28) is solidly Democratic now and Schiff, a mediocre congressman, at best, was reelected 154,348 (76%) to 49,501 (24%). It's only a matter of time before Issa's district goes the same way.

A couple of weeks ago, I suggested that the DCCC establish a special category for Republican targets-- a category based on how hated the incumbent is-- the way Rogan was hated in 2000. Probably the most hated incumbents in Congress are John Boehner, Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan, Bachmann (who's retiring, so we'll leave her out of this discussion), Darrell Issa. Boehner and Cantor have very difficult districts for Democrats, respectively R+15 and R+10. Issa and Ryan are much more vulnerable, respectively R+4 and R+3.

I think Rachel makes the case in the video above why the DCCC should stop protecting evildoers like Issa-- particularly Issa, as a matter of fact. Are they recruiting a candidate who could make some headway in 2014 and then, if he or she comes up short, win in 2016? That's how it's done. Too bad Pelosi picked a congenital loser to run the DCCC.

Read More

Ooh, that Hillary makes the doody-brainers so-o-o mad!!!

-- Christopher Weyant's New Yorker Daily Cartoon today

by Ken

"Whistleblower's yarn fails to tie Benghazi lapses to politics" is the head on the column the Washington Post's Dana Milbank offered regarding the much-ballyhooed "oversight" hearing promoted by House Republican master criminal Darrell Issa, starring Gregory Hicks, then our no. 2 diplomat in Libya, who who was going to blow the lid off the Obama White House's politicization of the awful night in Benghazi when Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed.

But despite Issa's incautious promise that the hearing's revelations would be "damaging" to Hillary Rodham Clinton, Hicks didn't lay a glove on the former secretary of state Wednesday. Rather, he held lawmakers from both parties rapt as he recounted the events of that terrifying night -- revealing a made-for-Hollywood plot with a slow, theatrical delivery and genuine emotion.

In Dana's retelling, Hicks's emerges as storytelling prowess was exceeded only by his apparently uncontrollable self-promotion.

Hicks, bald and with a white chin beard, said his "jaw dropped" when he heard U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice falsely claim on TV that there had been a protest at the Benghazi consulate, but he declined an invitation to challenge the veracity of the director of national intelligence, who said the statement reflected "our collective best judgment at the time."

Hicks said he thought a flyover by U.S. jets could have deterred the second of the two attacks that night, but he declined to question the judgment of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who has said there was no way to get the fighters there in time.

Hicks was of little use to Republicans in their efforts to connect the lapses in the Benghazi response to Clinton or to the Obama White House. He said that he spoke to Clinton by phone at 2 a.m. that night and that she supported his actions. He undermined one of Issa's claims -- that Clinton had rejected an increase in security for the Libya facilities -- when he agreed that the secretary of state's name appears on all cables, even if she doesn't write them.

Hicks did have some damning things to say about the State Department trying to block him from cooperating with Issa's committee. But that wasn't quite the evidence Issa had promised: that politics drove the administration's response to Benghazi.

Never mind that there probably isn't a Republican in the House who could find Libya on a map, or who has any idea who in the country believed in what or whom or what effect any of it had on U.S. interests. And never mind that the Republican chumps intent on proving the Obama administration's dastardly "politicizing" of events in Libya spent eight years as silent as rocks while the Chimpy Bush regime devoted every second of every day to doing precisely this. Never mind anything. Let's just jump ugly on the effing Hillary. Didn't Hillary-hating used to be a crowd-pleasing political platform?

This is what happens when you have a political movement built on ideological hysteria without any actual ideology or real beliefs, just blinding hate informed by Tales Blown Out of Rush Limbaugh's Rectum of Darkness.

Republicans Hold Hearings About Hillary Clinton's Poll Numbers

Posted by Andy Borowitz


WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report) -- Republican lawmakers asked increasingly tough questions today as they held another day of hearings to investigate, in the words of Rep. Darrell Issa (R-California), "Hillary Clinton's suspiciously high poll numbers and what can be done to make them lower."

"With the help of Fox News, we have brutally attacked Hillary Clinton for months, and yet she remains more popular than ever," Rep. Issa said. "This committee needs to know how that happened, and how we can keep it from happening in the future."

Rep. Issa pointed to recent polls showing the former Secretary of State trouncing every potential G.O.P. Presidential candidate, "even a skinnier version of Chris Christie."

"We demand an answer to one simple question," he said. "What does Secretary Clinton know that none of us knows?"

In his boldest allegation of the day, Rep. Issa accused Secretary Clinton of "cynically using her post as Secretary of State to become wildly popular with the American people."

"I invite her to these hearings to answer those charges," he said.

Wrapping up for the day, Rep. Issa warned the former Secretary of State that he was just getting started: "Once we Republicans decide to investigate someone, we don't stop. If Secretary Clinton doesn't believe me, she should ask her husband."

#

Read More