It is well-known that, shortly after elements of President Bush’s illegal warrantless wiretapping program was divulged by the New York Times in December 2005, Rep. Jane Harman wasn’t happy.  She went on Meet The Press shortly thereafter and blasted the paper for leaking the details.  But we did not know that she actively sought to cover up contents of the program PRIOR to the Pulitzer Prize-winning story.

Eric Lichtblau, who along with James Risen broke the story, has a new book coming out which details the wrangling between the NYT and the Administration which caused a one-year delay in the revelation of the warrantless wiretapping program in the press.  During that time, Lichtblau ran into Jane Harman in the Capitol.

In his book, Lichtblau tells how a few months after the story was held, he happened to be covering a House hearing where he heard Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA) argue passionately for stronger civil liberties safeguards in the reauthorization of the Patriot Act.

Lichtblau saw this as an opportunity to question Harman about the warrantless wiretapping program, since Harman, as a member of the “gang of eight,” was one of the four Democrats who’d been briefed on it. He writes:

I approached Harman with notepad in hand and told her that I’d been involved in our reporting the year before on the NSA eavesdropping program. “I’m trying to square what I heard in there,” I said, “with what we know about that program.” Harman’s golden California tan turned a brighter shade of red. She knew exactly what I was talking about. Shooing away her aides, she grabbed me by the arm and drew me a few feet away to a more remote section of the Capitol corridor.

“You should not be talking about that here,” she scolded me in a whisper. “They don’t even know about that,” she said, gesturing to her aides, who were now looking on at the conversation with obvious befuddlement. “The Times did the right thing by not publishing that story,” she continued. I wanted to understand her position. What intelligence capabilities would be lost by informing the public about something the terrorists already knew – namely, that the government was listening to them? I asked her. Harman wouldn’t bite. “This is a valuable program, and it would be compromised,” she said. I tried to get into some of the details of the program and get a better understanding of why the administration asserted that it couldn’t be operated within the confines of the courts. Harman wouldn’t go there either. “This is a valuable program,” she repeated. This was clearly as far as she was willing to take the conversation, and we didn’t speak again until months later, after the NSA story had already run. By then, Harman’s position had undergone a dramatic transformation. When the story broke publicly, she was among the first in line on Capitol Hill to denounce the administration’s handling of the wiretapping program, declaring that what the NSA was doing could have been done under the existing FISA law.

What comes through in this exchange is that the elites in Washington have far more fealty to each other than the public.  Harman has come around; she argued strongly against the program and was one of the leaders in the House fight to amend FISA responsibly last week.  Now we’re seeing a likely stalemate on that issue, and George Bush is almost certain not to get what he desperately wants, amnesty for the telecom companies and a rejection of the lawsuits against them which could reveal even more about the program.

Still, we have this portrait of Harman, eager to cover up, convinced that what she is told must stay secret has to stay secret, untrained in the Constitution enough to see that warrantless wiretapping is unnecessary under FISA and in defiance of the Fourth Amendment.  It’s relieving a bit that the past few years, with the help of the blogosphere, have given many in the Congress an education on the document they swear to uphold and defend.  It’s also completely sad.

So you expect a couple of conservative bitter-enders like KFI shock jocks John and Ken to depict Italian-American Don Perata as a Mafia boss.  Slightly less expected was that the same graphic would make its way onto local news in Sacramento.  

A televised graphic depicting Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata as an apparent Mafia leader, pointing a gun skyward, has angered Italian-Americans.

Bill Cerruti, who is chairman of a state Italian-American task force and leader of the Italian-American Cultural Society, blasted the characterization today and demanded an apology.

The graphic, depicting Perata in a purple suit and white tie, was broadcast by Sacramento’s KOVR 13 – with anchor Chris Burrous – and on the website of talk-show hosts “John and Ken” of KFI radio in Los Angeles, Cerruti said.

Burrous goes on to blast Perata for suggesting the state raise taxes to help balance the state budget.

Yes, anyone who doesn’t want to see thousands of teachers fired and elderly people denied health care is most certainly a gangster.

I’m not wired for outrage, so you tell me if this slur is beyond the pale or not.  What I do know and expect is that the Denham recall will provide plenty more opportunities for the “Don” Perata slur to manifest itself, and the dead-ender anti-tax forces running his recall opposition campaign are not likely to disappoint.  Hopefully they have Perata shoot bullets from a Tommy gun into their “No on the Recall” logo!  Hey guys, pay me for that idea before you use it!

UPDATE: I’ve got a transcript:

Chris: Got a new outrage alert for you this morning, and I think you’ll enjoy this graphic, Stephanie.

Don Perata. [laughter] You know, he’s termed out. He’s going to lose his job here in a couple months and now he is calling for a major tax increase. He’s trying to make you worry that the school…

Stephanie: That’s hilarious.

Chris: Isn’t that a great one. [laughter] I can’t stand him.

Stephanie: Nice purple suit.

Chris: He’s trying to scare you in saying the schools are going to go bankrupt, and your kids are going to be in classrooms with 50 students each, if we do not increase taxes.

Chris: Watch for him to do this major tax push. He’s already got Governor Schwarzenegger considering raising money by closing tax loopholes. So watch out. If you benefit from some of those loopholes. Don “The Don” Perata and his Ram Charger already have Governor Schwarzenegger…

Stephanie: Is that what that was?

Chris: Isn’t it the Ram Charger? Or the Viper?

Stephanie: I guess. I don’t…

Chris: He’s the one. Remember, Don Perata’s the one who got carjacked over in the Bay Area…

Stephanie: Sure.

Chris: …with the 22 inch dubs or something like that on his car.

Stephanie: Mmm hmm.

Chris: I don’t know what they call it, but I thought that was a great graphic. That’s from radio station KFI. That is Don Perata.

Stephanie: Very nice.

Chris: That’s his reputation. The valour suit is a nice touch.

Stephanie: Yes, and a shade of purple or violet, whatever you call it. It is a nice touch as well.

Chris: Nice. Gotta watch out. This guy wants to raise your taxes. That’s the thing. He’s out of office in a couple more months. Why don’t you just lay low? Take a couple lunches? Write a book like Willie Brown or something? But instead, he’s going to try and stick it to us one last time before he gets out of a job.

I didn’t know the CBS morning news was drive-time community college talk radio.

Right now there’s a competition at VoteVets.org to  award $5,000 to a veteran running for congress.

Two of their endorsed candidates are Californians: Lt. Col. Charlie Brown (CA-04) and Navy SEAL Mike Lumpkin (CA-52).  I’m biased*, but I think Charlie deserves this honor.

Not only is he a fantastic Democratic candidate who came within a hair of defeating John Doolittle in ’06 – in a challenging district – but also because Charlie’s campaign has been donating 5% of every campaign dollar he raises to veterans charities… and that’s added up to a sizable sum that’s going to three worthy groups very shortly.  His devotion to veterans issues has been exemplary.

So if you have a spare moment to go over to VoteVets and cast a vote for Charlie, you’d be helping out a good man; Charlie Brown.

* Disclaimer: I do technical work on behalf of Charlie’s campaign.  I believe in the man.

The turnout numbers for the presidential primary were absolutely insane.  The official numbers from Secretary Bowen state that 74.26% of registered Democrats in California cast ballots.  Now that isn’t totally accurate because that includes the DTS voters who pulled Democratic ballots.  The real number is expected to be closer to 65%.  But even that number is striking.  Tim Herdt has a great column today on how this is part of a shift to Democrats larger than just this one election.

Those numbers suggest that Republicans can no longer count on a voter-turnout advantage that in the past has helped GOP candidates overcome the party’s minority status in voter registration.

“Republicans have almost always done better because they have the people who always vote,” said Republican analyst Tony Quinn. “But this year you had the reverse.”

To some degree, the numbers reflect the unusual excitement arising from the contentious nomination battle between Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, an unsettled battle that may linger until the Democratic convention in August. That historic contest helps explain – but does not fully account for – the enormous disparity between the 5.1 million votes cast for Democratic candidates in the state Feb. 5 and 2.8 million cast for Republicans.

Quinn, co-publisher of a data book that breaks down every political district in the state, says the Democrats’ February surge in turnout is the continuation of a trend.

It has been conventional wisdom in California that since Republicans outperform their voter registration, compared to Democrats that the voter registration gap is not as significant as it appears.  That appears to be changing.

Herdt points to the Lt. Gov. race in 2006 as being further evidence of a trend.  The last-minute polls had McClintock leading Garamendi.  But Garamendi won on election day by 4%.  The turnout model the pollsters were using was off.  Democrats turned out in greater numbers than expected.

Quinn, who’s been analyzing partisan races in California for decades, said it was once a truism of state politics that because of the partisan turnout advantage a Republican could win any district in which GOP registration reached 40 percent.

He doesn’t believe that applies any longer.

Although both parties have declined as a share of the electorate in recent years as the number of independents has soared, Quinn said the remaining Democrats are more loyal and more reliable than Democratic voters of the past.

“You’ve got a more pure Democratic electorate,” he said. “You no longer have the Reagan Democrats.”

(emphasis mine)

That means that there are a lot more seats in play than were earlier.  Dave is the man with the numbers, but as we look to challenge Republicans for their seats. the calculation of viability for Democrats in an individual district is changing.  That is a damn good thing considering our voter registration numbers are slipping, though admittedly the Republicans are dropping faster.

Naturally this has an impact on the presidential election.  Sen. McCain has been making noise about making a run here in California for our electoral votes.  The numbers last month should give him pause.  California is a blue state.  If anything we are trending more blue, not purple.

The latest set of numbers, Quinn believes, will make it more unlikely that Republicans will seriously compete in California in the fall presidential election.

“It makes it very hard for Sen. John McCain’s people to argue they will be able to put the state in play,” he said. “Those turnout figures are bad because, in order for this state to be in play, Republicans have to come out the way they did with Reagan.”

Ben Tulchin, a pollster at Greenland Quinland Rosner notes that there is currently a 21%  gap between Republican turnout numbers and Democrats.  That is nearly double what Al Gore and John Kerry carried California with.