Paying for tickets would've been illegal for Reid

The blogs have been all over the flaws in the story of Harry Reid attending three boxing matches without paying. While conservative outlets like Fox immediately pounced on the opportunity to portray the Senate Minority Leader as corrupt, what's really news is the omissions in the original story.

The crux of Solomon's story was that Reid acted wrongly by accepting free boxing tickets from the Nevada Athletic Commission. In particular, Solomon focused on a title bout in September 2004 that Reid and McCain both attended. "Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., insisted on paying $1,400 for the tickets he shared with Reid for a 2004 championship fight," Solomon wrote.

But it turns out that it would have been illegal for Reid to reimburse the commission for the seats. That's because these weren't actually tickets - they were credentials with no face value given to V.I.P.'s. And according to the boxing promoter who awarded those credentials to Reid, it is illegal for the commission to accept payment for them. Despite that, McCain insisted on paying, and so the commission simply gave his check (written for a seemingly arbitrary amount) to a charity since it couldn't accept it.

What's more, that same promoter says that in other cases where Reid and McCain received tickets that could be reimbursed, Reid paid. That's a key fact which, if true, was left out of Solomon's article.

John Solomon's piece for AP is worse than a non-story. It's terrible journalism that some AP editor made worse by further winnowing exculpatory information from the story.

US Healtchare: subsidizing, outsourcing, profiting

Two articles on this issue. First is a brief piece from Time magazine on Americans having operations abroad because they're too expensive at home.

Why bankrupt yourself to pay $90,000 for a surgery you can get for $10,000 in Bangkok? The availability of high-quality medical care in India, Thailand, Singapore and Malaysia have led to a steady stream of uninsured and underinsured Americans boarding planes for care. We're not talking just tummy tucks...this is the real deal - hip replacement, heart surgery, etc.

Next, a piece by OhioDem1 on the soaring cost of medications. With their prescription drug law, the GOP has effectively ensured high prices and undermined free market capitalism by denying Medicare the right to bargain with industry. They name the price and we pay it, end of story. But OD1's analysis highlights the disturbing fact that this means we're not only paying more for our own healthcare than any other industrialized nation, but subsidizing foreign consumption of American pharamceuticals-- foreign governments negotiate drug costs (I'm sure you remember busloads of seniors going to Canada to fill prescriptions, and Republican attempts to stop them), and their savings become our costs. Fortunately, he has a solution. Good stuff, although the complexity makes choosing an excerpt difficult.

AP alters story to decrease objectivity

Yesterday's AP story on Harry Reid's free boxing tickets was an odd one. It hinted at corruption even as it acknowledged that Reid had done nothing against the rules, but failed to include facts that demonstrated there was no quid pro quo. The worst that can be said is that Reid did something might've exercised bad judgment in attending three boxing matches (himself a former boxer and big fan of the sweet science). The story was by John Solomon, who has a history of writing accusatory and misleading articles that paint Democrats in a bad light.

But if yesterday's Ed Schultz show is any indication, it had quite an impact. Breathless callers were outraged, disgusted, horrified. It was even suggested that he resign immediately, being just another member of the 'culture of corruption.'

The thing is, AP edited the story after publication to remove a passage from the second paragraph that is as close to exculpatory information as the article gets.

The original story: Reid, D-Nev., took the free seats for Las Vegas fights between 2003 and 2005 as he was pressing legislation to increase government oversight of the sport, including the creation of a federal boxing commission that Nevada's agency feared might usurp its authority.

The 'updated' story: Reid, D-Nev., took the free seats for Las Vegas fights between 2003 and 2005 from the Nevada Athletic Commission as he pressed legislation to increase federal oversight of boxing, including the creation of a government commission.

The crux of the matter is that, tickets or no tickets, Reid was opposed to the agency's position from start to finish. And that's what the article omits.

Bizarroworld Dispatch: Iranian war edition

People are justifiably nervous about the administration's dealings with Iran over the next few years, and Iraq is the reason. The release of the 'Downing Street Memos' was the moment when the long-suspected became documented reality-- the Bushies wanted war, and they were only interested in information that fit their agenda. The result was a war based on bogus 'evidence' that has cost us thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars.

Well, as Bush said during the 200 campaign, you may not agree with him but at least you know where he stands. And he has both feet planted firmly in Bizarroworld.

Two weeks ago, Amir Taheri published an op-ed in Canada's National Post about an Iranian law that forced Jews to wear a yellow stripe. The story, reminiscent of Nazi Germany, quickly provoked outrage, but was just as quickly revealed to be a total fabrication. It also ran in the New York Post.

Apparently this is just the sort of reliable advice that President Bush needs. Yesterday, Taheri had a face-to-face with the President as one of a small group of "experts" on Iraq that visited the White House.

According to Press Secretary Tony Snow, the experts were invited to the White House for their "honest opinions" on Iraq.

Taheri was ostensibly there to discuss Iraq, but the guy only became news-- and garnered an invitation-- after spreading a phony story about Iran that fits perfectly into the BushCo doctrine of spreading democracy and freedom through war.

Iraq violence at 2-year high

May 30, 2005: "I think we may well have some kind of presence there over a period of time. The level of activity that we see today from a military standpoint, I think, will clearly decline. I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency."


May 31, 2006: The Pentagon reported yesterday that the frequency of insurgent attacks against troops and civilians is at its highest level since American commanders began tracking such figures two years ago, an ominous sign that, despite three years of combat, the US-led coalition forces haven't significantly weakened the Iraq insurgency.

Cook: Number of GOP House seats in play has doubled

Charlie Cook is always interesting to read, and an astute observer of political trends. He's also very cautious in his predictions, and has suggested a modest gain for Democrats in November of perhaps four or five seats.

His analysis made depressing sense. Redistricting by state GOP officials, the power of incumbency, and a public that didn't seem any happier with Democrats than their counterparts in power are all impediments to an electoral "wave." But Cook now writes that the Democrats chances have increased rather dramatically in the last few months:

By the first of this year, the number of vulnerable GOP seats was still 18 -- but half were in the more dangerous "toss-up" category.

Now the situation has worsened considerably for the GOP: 36 of its seats are in play, and 11 of them are toss-ups. Democrats need to win just 42 percent of the Republican seats in play to reach the magic number of 218. An additional 18 Republican seats are rated "likely Republican," meaning they are potentially competitive. The consensus among veteran Republican campaign consultants, particularly pollsters, is that if the election were held today, their party would lose the House.

This suggests that Howard Dean's break with the party gurus in pursuing a fifty-state strategy could pay big dividends.

The 'bridge to nowhere' was just a warmup

Alaskan Rep. Ted Stevens gained some unwanted noteriety (and plenty of ridicule) for putting a $223 million earmark into the 2005 Transportation Equity Bill that would fund a bridge to an island that 50 Alaskans called home.

Now Mississippi's senators have upped the ante in a big way by "adding $700 million for the 'railroad to nowhere' to the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2006 (H.R. 4929)."

The railroad controversy arose after Hurricane Katrina destroyed a portion of the CSX rail line in Mississippi. CSX spent $300 million to fix the line and a company spokesperson said, “There’s absolutely nothing wrong with it.” The $700 million would be spent to divert the tracks a few miles to the north, making way for U.S. 90 to be rebuilt along the rail bed. Sens. Cochran and Lott say the switch is necessary for safety reasons and to protect the track from future hurricanes. However, The Washington Post reported that “much of the rail line along the Gulf Coast would remain in hurricane danger, and the proposed rerouting would affect only a small part.” The Post noted that “Mississippi’s rail-accident rate from 2001 to 2005 reached a 30-year low.”

The real reason behind this move appears to be economic. The stretch of land along the railroad is prime real estate for tourism development. As reported in the Post, the highway would be turned into a “beach boulevard” running through cities such as Biloxi. The Governor’s Commission on Recovery, Rebuilding and Renewal in Mississippi said the plan would encourage tourists to “spend more time strolling among the casinos and taking in the views.”

Project: Bad Apples

Uh-oh. It looks like the investigation into the killing of civilians in Haditha (including several women and children) is going to be conducted along the lines of Abu Ghraib.

Pentagon investigations into the shooting deaths of Iraqi civilians are focused on about a dozen enlisted Marines and do not target their commanding officers, the lawyer for one of the officers said Tuesday.

The investigations of up to two dozen killings and whether Marines covered them up are focused on the troops who were in a four-vehicle convoy hit by a roadside bomb last Nov. 19 in the western Iraqi city of Haditha, attorney Paul Hackett said.

The highest-ranking Marine targeted by the investigations is a staff sergeant who led the convoy, said Hackett, a Marine reservist and Iraqi war veteran who last year narrowly lost a special election for a U.S. House seat in Ohio.

Unfortunately, this is totally in keeping with the prosecution of the war-- BushCo will do it their way. Period. When confronted with the ugly realities of torture and murder, they just throw a few peons to the wolves and keep at it.

Something that occurred to me while reading the piece was how trials were held after WWII. On one hand, the tribunals asserted that "I was just following orders" was not a valid defense. At the same time, they rejected pleas of "I didn't know what my troops were doing." The new committment to shielding anyone in authority from any sort of accountability is just the sort of thing that undermines our credibility in the rest of the world as a model of democracy. Just one more thing we definitely don't need three more years of.

Also, hooray for Paul Hackett. He seems to have become pretty disillusioned with party politics, but it's good to see that he's out there trying to make a difference.

AP reporter floats second bogus attack on Harry Reid

Unbelievable. After several posts last week that highlighted the media's endless and phony assault on the Clintons, Al Gore and John Kerry, I came across a story that picks on Harry Reid for doing nothing wrong and not having a conflict of interests.

Back in February, the AP's John Solomon ran a lengthy piece detailing alleged contacts between Jack Abramoff's team at Greenberg Traurig and Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV). As Josh pointed out, although the article concentrated on the fact that Team Abramoff was lobbying Reid on behalf of sweatshop owners in the Northern Marianas, Solomon failed to note that Reid actually voted against the legislation Abramoff was pushing.

Well, Solomon has written a new piece purporting to illustrate still more of Reid's ethical improprieties. He's managed to actually make a weaker case than in his last story.

Here's the central allegation:

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid accepted free ringside tickets from the Nevada Athletic Commission to three professional boxing matches while that state agency was trying to influence him on federal regulation of boxing.

That sounds pretty bad.

Only, there is an exception for gifts from governmental agencies (like the Nevada Athletic Commission) in the Senate ethics rules. So there is nothing untoward about Reid having accepted the free tickets.

But it would still seem pretty bad if Reid had accepted the tickets and then stumped shamelessly for the commission.

Only, he didn't. As was the case with Abramoff and the Marianas, Reid voted against the peddler's interest. As Solomon admits in the piece, Reid was advocating "the creation of a federal boxing commission that Nevada's agency feared might usurp its authority." Reid never changed his position. And this was a dramatically uncontroversial piece of legislation largely preoccupied with ensuring the safety of boxers by creating the United States Boxing Administration. It passed the Senate unanimously.

Now, Solomon puts all these facts in his piece. So he's not covering up a key piece of information like he did last time. He seems to realize that he doesn't have any real story. So Solomon argues that Reid, out of an abundance of caution, should have paid for the tickets to avoid the appearance of impropriety.

That guy from TV with the dollar sign suit wasn't available

It's long been rumored that John Snow wanted to ditch his post as Treasury Secretary-- but no one was willing to become his replacement. Does that mean Paulson is the fifteenth or sixteenth best man for the job? Or maybe the administration just has a draft agreement with Goldman Sachs.

Mr Snow, the former chief executive officer of CSX became Treasury Secretary in February 2003 following the forced exit of Paul O'Neill. Mr Snow, 66, traveled the country to promote Bush's efforts to cut taxes, win re-election and convince the public the economy was doing well.

Republicans said Mr Snow, whose future has been the subject of speculation since President Bush won re- election in 2004, wanted to leave the administration by the end of June.

Mr Paulson is the latest Goldmans executive to go to Washington. White House chief of staff Joshua Bolten worked at the firm in Europe and Robert Rubin, President Bill Clinton's longest-serving Treasury chief, was a former co-chairman of the bank.

What confidence-inspiring words did Bush have about his nominee?

He will work closely with the Congress to restrain the spending appetite of the federal government and keep us on track to meet our goal of cutting the deficit in half by 2009.

No, I didn't make that up. But I'm sure no reporters will point out that this comes from a man who has never vetoed a spending bill, and given us the largest debt in world history.

On the plus side, Paulson actually sounds much less hacky than the usual Bush appointees, and he's a staunch conservationist (link here, scroll down).

Goldman Sachs Chairman Henry M. Paulson Jr., not only endorses the Kyoto Protocol to limit greenhouse emissions, but argues that America's failure to enact Kyoto undermines the competitiveness of U.S. companies. Paulson serves as chairman of the board of directors for the Nature Conservancy, which has issued statements endorsing Kyoto...

How will that square with the president's claim that Kyoto would "wreck" the US economy?

New video game promotes killing New Yorkers... for Jesus

A video game that involves walking city streets and killing citizens? It must be more of that dangerous "liberal depravity" being foisted on America's youth by a cabal of leftists. Well, not exactly:

Imagine: you are a foot soldier in a paramilitary group whose purpose is to remake America as a Christian theocracy, and establish its worldly vision of the dominion of Christ over all aspects of life. You are issued high-tech military weaponry, and instructed to engage the infidel on the streets of New York City. You are on a mission - both a religious mission and a military mission -- to convert or kill Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, gays, and anyone who advocates the separation of church and state - especially moderate, mainstream Christians. Your mission is "to conduct physical and spiritual warfare"; all who resist must be taken out with extreme prejudice. You have never felt so powerful, so driven by a purpose: you are 13 years old. You are playing a real-time strategy video game whose creators are linked to the empire of mega-church pastor Rick Warren, best selling author of The Purpose Driven Life. (. . .)

Is this paramilitary mission simulator for children anything other than prejudice and bigotry using religion as an organizing tool to get people in a violent frame of mind? The dialogue includes people saying, "Praise the Lord," as they blow infidels away.

Not quite the words that came to my mind while reading this article.

Hearts & Minds Update

'Haditha investigation' substantially complete

Pentagon sources said the killings began after a roadside bomb killed 20-year-old Lance Cpl. Miguel Terrazas at 7:15 a.m. on November 19 in Haditha, a city along the Euphrates River in western Iraq.

The Marines originally reported that 15 civilians also died in that blast.

But according to the Pentagon sources' account, the Marines immediately suspected four Iraqi teenagers in a taxi and fatally shot them, along with the driver, when the Marines said they failed to lie on the ground as ordered.

The hunt for the bombers then moved to a nearby house, where seven people -- including two women and children -- were killed. Then eight people, including six women, were shot and killed next door, while women in a third house were not harmed, the sources said. In a fourth house, four men were killed.

Kabul riot suggests unstable Afghanistan

An early morning traffic accident in Kabul involving a US military vehicle rapidly degenerated yesterday into the worst upheaval in the Afghan capital since the fall of the Taliban, as angry protesters burned vehicles and buildings, ransacked shops and aid agencies and hurled rocks and invective at American soldiers.

By the time the authorities imposed a rare night-time curfew in the normally peaceable capital, eight people had been killed and more than 100 injured. The upheaval was a shock to a city long considered an oasis of security, and a serious blow to the authority of the president, Hamid Karzai, who is struggling to contain an escalating insurgency in the south.

It was also an alarming day for an American military, already battling large-scale violence in Iraq and squaring up to an emboldened and nuclear-minded Iran. Now the future of Afghanistan, often trumpeted as a triumph for US foreign policy, is coming under increasing scrutiny.

'Fake TV news' investigation widens

We're all familiar with the stories of government payouts to conservative columnists in return for writing favorably about their pet projects, and also with a handful of administration-produced "news stories" that lauded programs like No Child Left Behind (with its fake reporter concluding this is a program that 'gets an A+'). But according to this article, no fewer than twenty federal departments have been doing this, as well as a number of corporations-- and it isn't even a payola scheme. News just picked them up and aired them.

The report, by the non-profit group Centre for Media and Democracy, found that over a 10-month period at least 77 television stations were making use of the faux news broadcasts, known as Video News Releases (VNRs). Not one told viewers who had produced the items.

The range of VNR is wide. Among items provided by the Bush administration to news stations was one in which an Iraqi-American in Kansas City was seen saying "Thank you Bush. Thank you USA" in response to the 2003 fall of Baghdad. The footage was actually produced by the State Department, one of 20 federal agencies that have produced and distributed such items.

Many of the corporate reports, produced by drugs manufacturers such as Pfizer, focus on health issues and promote the manufacturer's product. One example cited by the report was a Hallowe'en segment produced by the confectionery giant Mars, which featured Snickers, M&Ms and other company brands. While the original VNR disclosed that it was produced by Mars, such information was removed when it was broadcast by the television channel - in this case a Fox-owned station in St Louis, Missouri.

Anatomy of a signing statement

Mil Apodos called my attention to this piece in yesterday's Boston Globe. They've been about the only major press outlet covering the story of Bush's 750 signing statements-- shocking, considering the broad implications of a president who routinely declares himself above the law. This lengthy story looks at the genesis of the Bush signing statements, and you probably won't be surprised to learn that Bush himself comes off as being almost an afterthought in his own White House. The real people reworking two centuries of Constitutional law aren't elected officials, but ambitious political operatives who don't seem to answer to anyone.

The office of Vice President Dick Cheney routinely reviews pieces of legislation before they reach the president's desk, searching for provisions that Cheney believes would infringe on presidential power, according to former White House and Justice Department officials.

The officials said Cheney's legal adviser and chief of staff, David Addington , is the Bush administration's leading architect of the ``signing statements" the president has appended to more than 750 laws. The statements assert the president's right to ignore the laws because they conflict with his interpretation of the Constitution. (. . .)

Previous vice presidents have had neither the authority nor the interest in reviewing legislation. But Cheney has used his power over the administration's legal team to promote an expansive theory of presidential authority. Using signing statements, the administration has challenged more laws than all previous administrations combined.

Highly recommended reading.

DLC: Let's split the Democratic vote in 2008

My complaints about the Democratic Leadership Council are many. Their members in Congress (like Joe Lieberman and William Jefferson) don't seem to be any real asset to the party, and their spokespeople are most notable for criticizing fellow Democrats and urging them to move ever more rightward on policy.

Now we have prominent DLCers, including the founder, pushing New York mayor Michael Bloomberg as an alternative to Republicans and Democrats.

Marshall Wittmann, a senior fellow at the Progressive Policy Institute, which is affiliated with the Democratic Leadership Council, said that in many ways Mr. Bloomberg had been building on the political legacy of moderate New York Republicans like Nelson A. Rockefeller and Jacob K. Javits. "It's hard-headed, but liberal on social issues and fiscally responsible," said Mr. Wittmann, who has worked for SenatorJohn McCain. "He very much fits that mold that's been dormant, even in the Democratic Party."

I can't even imagine how Wittman came to this conclusion about the Dems, because socially liberal and fiscally responsible is exactly what we're about these days, and it's exactly why we haven't been able to do anything to stop the Republicans in control of government-- the GOP opposes both of those things and uses their power to stop either from becoming national policy.

Add to that the rather obvious fact that Bloomberg would split the left and centrist vote while alienating the righties with his New York talk of gun control and science education-- putting them solidly behind the GOP candidate. It's a recipe for four more years of regressive social policy and fiscal irresponsibility, and one that would be served up on a platter by the goofballs of the DLC.

'Pimp My Holiday' with the GOP

I was going to take the day off today, because I like Memorial Day, and didn't want it to be another occasion for political issues. Of course, that really isn't in my control when it comes to the desperation of the Republican party. There were plenty of words spilled this week on the continuing cakewalk in Iraq: from Bush, speaking at a Pennsylvania fundraiser, from George Will via Peter Beinart on why only Republicans should wage war, etc. All tasteless and dishonest stuff.

But the winner is Bill Frist, who went on Fox News to explain why a flag burning amendment to the Constitution is a matter of national security-- and tied it into Memorial Day, all while highlighting his own patriotism and proving that he is definitely not a pandering political whore.

Let me tell you, right now there’s no prioritization there. Securing America’s values. I hope tomorrow and today as people see that American flag, and I’m going to Arlington cemetery tomorrow and I’m going to see that flag waving on every grave over there. When you look at that flag and you tell me that right now people in this country are saying it’s okay to desecrate that flag and to burn it and to not pay respect to it, is that important to our values as a people when we’ve got 130,000 people fighting for our freedom and liberty today? That is important. It may not be important here in Washington where people say, well, it’s political posturing and all, but it’s important to the heart and soul of the American people.

Something I hadn't heard that the author points out is that China, Iran and Cuba are the only countries with such laws. Way to aspire to the best, GOP. But the real issue here is how unbelievably scuzzy Bill Frist is. Maybe a law banning opportunistic whores like him from turning national days of remembrance into demagogic hackfests would be something to consider.

Corruption: a growth industry

It's nice to see an article that points out just how widespread government corruption is today. You know what I mean. Good that the public is getting word of how bad the situation is.

The investigations are casting a long shadow. The FBI said that more than 600 agents were assigned to public corruption investigations and more than 2,000 investigations were underway at the federal, state and local levels.

Some observers said prosecutors and investigators viewed corruption as a growth industry at a time when the number of new cases of terrorism and corporate fraud was starting to slow.

Media absurdity from Whitewater to 'Whiz with.'

Media Matters has a lengthy piece by Jamison Foser up, and it's well worth reading. It looks at some of the issues I've been writing about (along with many, many other bloggers) this week on the heels of the Hillary Clinton piece and the renewed attacks on Al Gore.

Looking back over the last decade, Foser takes note of the continuing habit of news outlets to focus on non-stories that make progressives look bad while glossing over the deadly serious issues of, say, being lied into a war.

It's disturbing, frustrating, and occasionally pretty funny. I patricularly enjoyed the Slate writer who concluded that Hillary Clinton's answer to the ubiquitous "what's on your iPod" demonstrates her insincerity, while Bush's answer shows what a genuine feller he is. It was written this week. Foser then revisits the 2004 campaign's cheesesteak incident. Kerry's unfamiliarity with cheesesteak protocol showed that he was an out-of-touch elitist, while Bush's "Whiz with" in-the-knowism showed that he was a genuine man of the people. Only it was later learned that Bush had lied to the press about the whole thing, and also preferred his sandwiches in a decidedly non-Philly manner. As Foser asks, "Why on earth would a man who doesn't care what other people think of him lie about the cheese he eats?" Too late. The media has accepted the genuine-Republican/phony-Democrat meme as gospel.

Also telling is veteran journalist David Broder's defense of the Times piece on the Clinton marriage-- although Media Matters has no less than six examples of Broder talking about the dangers of turning people's personal lives into "news."

There's much, much more. And it's all good stuff, although it points to the disturbing conclusion that the next Democratic presidential nominee is in for more of the same treatment.

Get Carter

I recently took note of some attack ads being run by a right-wing group that-- incredibly-- call for the censure of Jimmy Carter. As laughable as it is to think of a straight-faced attempt to label Carter as an America-hating commie, there you have it. And it's expanding.

Carter certainly won't go down in history as one of America's greatest leaders, but for Chrissakes, the guy has spent his post-presidential years fighting disease and poverty in developing nations, brokering peace deals, and working in hostile environments to ensure fair elections and the spread of democracy (albeit with a slightly different strategy than the Iraq debacle). He's also a publicly religious man, who makes no secret of the fact that he sees it as his Christian obligation to devote himself to doing good in the world-- and one of the few openly religious public figures in America who doesn't give Christianity a bad name.

Why would America's right-wing launch a suddent attack on the Nobel Peace Prize winner? Aside from the obvious, they're desperate to villainize Democrats in the run-up to the November elections. And the elections could turn into a referendum on Fearless Leader, who people are already referring to as the worst president in the nation's history. It's reprehensible, it's dishonest, and it's everything the current Republican party stands for.

Here's the latest attack on Carter-- an ostensible attack against his 2005 book (how timely!) that gives the author a chance to take every criticism of our current president and project it onto a man of principle and good deeds. The author is a founder of the American Spectator with his own history of chiseling self-enrichment-- the Spectator being the conservative magazine that engineered the campaign against Anita Hill and (in what might have been their proudest moment) came under fire from fellow righties for refusing to publish a story about Bill Clinton fathering a black child. Their loss. After all, the Bushies accused John McCain of the same 'crime' in 2000, and look how far they've come.

The problem is, so vain is this insufferable huckster and so desperate has he become for notice that, as his presidency attracts ever more flies in history's dustbin, he is increasingly likely to show up at our Coogler Awards ceremony -- whether invited or not. There he would stand, clutching his Coogler to his bosom and sermonizing until the janitors turned out the lights. Worse, he might bring Rosalynn, an author in her own right.

Jimmy was the worst president in American history and, in personal terms, the most repellent. That last statement would have been implausible a year or so after he vacated the White House. Today, however, after a quarter century of caddish behavior towards his successors, it is perfectly acceptable. His public criticisms of sitting presidents have been insulting and usually dishonest. He has oozed vitriol against America even while he was strutting on foreign soil. Before him no president criticized his government from foreign soil. Jimmy has repeatedly broken that rule.

I considered removing references to Carter himself and just quoting the invective, to see if anyone could've guessed the target of such derision. I've said for at least a month now that we're likely to have the most vicious, dishonest, and brutal campaign season in memory, and this stupefying bit of neo-fascist nonsense does nothing to alter that view. No longer able to defend the corruption and stupidity of the GOP, right-wing hacks are going to put all their effort into pushing Cold War stereotypes of Democrats. Commies, traitors, etc. It's going to be a long, sad year.

Let's do the Time Warp again

First there was the unnecessary and unenlightening piece on Bill and Hillary's marriage in the NY Times this week. Now, as Gore promotes his global warming film An Inconvenient Truth and finds himself under attack from right-wing shills and oil industry-funded hacks, the press is taking another collective trip down memory lane.

I think I'd be hard-pressed to find someone, Democrat or Republican, who would claim that Gore was treated with complete fairness by the press during his presidential run. But I don't need to go over every ridiculous episode, from the bogus Internet invention story to the countless sarcastic comments on his woodenness-- the press is already rehashing it for us, and it's as dishonest as ever.

. . . one Gore put-down in particular this week caught my eye. The passage appeared in a Slate article about the "New" Al Gore, and amidst a laundry list of CW-sanctioned jabs regarding Gore's past failures, Slate's John Dickerson reminisced about how Gore "struggled to beat a weak Bill Bradley in the 2000 Democratic primaries." Really? (. . .)

In the end, Gore won every primary contest against Bradley in 2000, and did it by an average of +47. Gore threw a shut-out in what was one of the most lopsided routs in recent primary history as Bradley, despite spending $40 million, was only competitive in a handful of New England states.

Six years later, and we're still being handed this rubbish. Heaven help Gore if he decides to run in 2008. As it is, he isn't even a candidate and the press is making up negative stories.

UPDATE: Joe Conason's new piece for the New York Observer takes a look at the long history of abuse directed at Gore for his pro-environment stance. "Bizarre." "Nutty." "Crazy." It's all there in full 1990s glory.

Rumsfeld lies about own WMD statement. Again!

There was some press reaction when a CIA veteran confronted Rummy with his past statements that he knew just where WMDs could be found in Iraq, but for the most part it was just one more example of the administration getting an undeserved pass.

Now, Rumsfeld is rewriting his own statement in a very convenient manner. Appearing last night on Larry King, he said the following:

I said because they’ve just gotten in the southern part of the country and we know, I said something to that effect, that the suspect sites or sites were — meaning suspect sites were up in the area of Baghdad and north. That’s where the intelligence community said them. And we weren’t there yet. We hadn’t covered that piece of real estate.

When originally confronted with his own words, Rumsfeld denied that he had said, uhhh, what he said. But here it is again, from the show This Week:

If you think — let me take that, both pieces — the area in the south and the west and the north that coalition forces control is substantial. It happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.

Why is it so impossible for members of the press corps to call them on these things? For all the right's talk about the importance of respecting our leaders, or Lieberman's warning that we undermine the president's credibility at our own peril, why should they be allowed to lie to the public about a war, of all things?

One Small Step for Net Neutrality

It's always nice to blog about some good news, and this certainly counts. The House Judiciary Committee voted 20-13 to approve the Net Neutrality Bill, with all Democrats present voting in favor as well as six Republicans.

The bill is a genuinely bipartisan effort, and as I wrote recently, the Telecoms are showing some real signs of nervousness at the prospect of losing a massive federal giveaway to their industry.

I'd like to thank Jesus for making me CEO

"But despite what happened today, I am still a very blessed man. I have on my left this beautiful lady that's my wife, I have a very warm and loving and Christian family that supports me, a lot of loving friends-- some out there in the audience right now-- and most of all we believe that God, in fact, is in control, and that He indeed does work all things for good for those who love the Lord. And we love our Lord, and ultimately all of these things will work for good."

Those were the words of Ken Lay after being found guilty of six charges today, and I'm pretty sure he managed to outdo Randy Cunningham on the Christian martyr front.

Here's the thing. We've all heard countless quips about thespians and athletes praising God for that Golden Globe or that last minute catch, but we never seem to hear any wisecracks about pricks like Cunningham or Lay insisting that they're devotees of Jesus.

I'll even get the ball rolling by writing a classic Leno-style gag, pro bono. "So did you catch the news today? I see that Ken Lay was found guilty for his role in driving hundreds of Enron employees into bankruptcy. Then he claims that God is on his side. What's up with that?"

By the way-- audience? I have friends in the audience today? Just what sort of reality deficit disorder does Kenny Boy have? I think that statement is more of an insight into Lay's "piety" than his multiple appeals to divine justice. After all, the guy was in charge of a company where employees openly joked about emptying the bank accounts of elderly Californians. In fact, if you'd like a refresher course on just how corrupt and vile (not to mention un-Christian) the corporate culture of Enron was while these crimes were taking place, just have a look at this article from Salon.

The Decider vs. The Suicider

Need more evidence that Bush is-- in addition to being a Grade-A nimrod-- hopelessly incapable of doing his job? Well, too bad. You're going to get it anyway.

President Bush's exclusive focus on suicide bombers -- "suiciders," in his parlance -- when asked about violence in Iraq yesterday once again suggests that he lacks a realistic sense of the current state of chaos in that country.

"That's the -- but that's one of the main -- that's the main weapon of the enemy, the capacity to destroy innocent life with a suicider," Bush said yesterday in a brief public appearance with visiting Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.

Suicide bombings in Iraq do sometimes result in dramatic death tolls. And their aftereffects tend to show up more often in television footage than, say, the carnage wrought by secretive death squads.

But they're hardly the main weapon afflicting either U.S. soldiers or civilians in Iraq today.

As anyone who monitors the situation in Iraq knows, a vastly greater threat to the 133,000 U.S. troops currently stationed there is posed by improvised explosive devices left along roadsides and elsewhere -- and, to a lesser degree, by gunfire and mortar fire from armed insurgents trying very much to stay alive.

And as far as Iraqi civilians are concerned, the primary security threat these days comes from paramilitary forces committing widespread sectarian murder, unimpeded by anyone in authority.

Recommended reading from Dan Froomkin. He also discusses why this flagrant show of ignorance from the cheerleader in chief has garnered no attention from the media. And worse, the evidence that reporters are so inured to his stupidity that they retool statements for him so that they aren't as... retarded. Then there's the increasingly grim reports from the ground in Iraq, the recent focus on the sheer number of times Fearless Leader has spoken of 'new chapters' and 'turned corners' there, and so on. Solid but disturbing material from the always interesting Froomkin.

A disturbing hypothesis on the Enron case

I just caught this on the Ed Schultz show, from the "senior legal analyst."

We all know that Ken Lay has long been a Bush family friend, earning the G-Dub nickname "Kenny Boy," and contributing more than $600,000 to Republican candidates.

The attorney in questions suggests this "what if...?" scenario. There will surely be an appeal in the case, and that could easily take two years. It remains to be seen whether or not Lay and Skilling will be incarcerated or remain free during the appeals process. Why shouldn't Bush grant them pardons in the final days of his presidency?

Lay and Skilling, after bilking countless investors and employees out of their money and their livelihoods, could conceivably walk away without serving a single day in prison.

What's the deal with McCain and the Wylys?

On May 18, I linked to a piece from The New Republic that pointed out McCain's apparent reconciliation with Texas' Wyly brothers, who mounted an attack on McCain's environmental stance back in 2000. As of the time of writing, they were scheduled to co-host a fundraiser for McCain, and had given him some $20,000 in campaign donations.

But McCain apparently gave back all their donations and asked them not to attend the fundraiser out of ethics concerns-- the Wylys have been under investigation from the SEC for tax evasion for more than a year.

Makes sense so far, right? In the latest TNR post on the story, it starts to get a little puzzling. A full week after McCain's campaign returned the donations and asked that the Wylys stay away from the fundraiser, the brothers were talking as though they were all still best pals. And the McCain campaign hadn't gone public about returning the cash.

Strange, but I'm thinking it might be as simple as McCain keeping quiet until after the fundraiser to maximize donations. Whatever the explanation, it certainly doesn't involve any 'straight talk.'

Congressional Black Caucus stands by Jefferson

Some slight missteps in handling the politics of Jefferson's pending indictment might have caused an unwelcome problem for House Dems. Nancy Pelosi wrote a brief note asking for Jefferson to resign his Ways & Means Committee post this week, and Jefferson refused. Now the CBC is circling the wagons around Jefferson and, regrettably, making race a central focus (no, he hasn't been convicted in court yet, but things really couldn't look worse for him). They would've been better off leaving that to Republicans.

Outraged that one of its members was being picked on even though he has not been charged with a crime, the Congressional Black Caucus had intended to issue a defiant statement against their leader but agreed after the meeting to pause, at least briefly, for reflection.

Earlier this week, Pelosi approached Jefferson and told him that she thought he should resign, according to a Democratic aide. Later, at the Democratic caucus meeting yesterday morning, she took him into a side room and told him that she had prepared a letter calling on him to resign the committee seat and that she would allow him one hour to withdraw gracefully before she sent it, according to the aide. In both instances, Jefferson remained defiant.

Pelosi’s one-sentence missive to Jefferson called on him to vacate his committee seat “in the interest of upholding the high ethical standard of the House Democratic Caucus.”

Jefferson promptly refused, calling her request “discriminatory” and “unprecedented,” and suggested that she was employing a double standard by failing to ask other lawmakers facing ethics questions to relinquish their committee assignments. Rep. Alan Mollohan (D-W.Va.) has come under fire for earmarks he secured through his seat on the Appropriations Committee.

Pelosi's quick response might not have been the brightest solution, but it was a natural political response. Jefferson is everywhere in the news, and the GOP is eager to capitalize on a corrupt Dem by using his name as a blanket defense for Republican corruption. Pelosi might've been remiss with Alan "Who?" Mollohan, but his name isn't the one making national headlines. And earmarks just aren't as damning these days.

Instead of this turning into a big fight, why didn't someone simply suggest that Jefferson temporarily step down pending the outcome of the investigation? Less harsh, fewer bruised feelings, Jefferson looks like less of a weasel, and the Dems get to look like they're committed to ethics reform.

Lieberman puruses victory over personal values

After earning the right to be on the primary ballots last weekend by earning a third of the votes-- double what he needed, and more than anyone expected-- Lieberman has continued his churlish attacks on Lamont.

"Ned Lamont can not only try to buy a seat from Connecticut in the U.S. Senate, he can probably buy a seat in a couple of other states if he wanted."

Coming from a booster of the draconian bankruptcy bill, it's tough to take Lieberman's populist attack very seriously. But what of this passage from his book In Praise of Public Life? Someone in Ned Lamont's campaign came across this gem:

Opposition research [on candidate's personal lives] does nothing but demean our politics and defame the people who are its targets. There is nothing wrong with going after your opponent's voting record or any other evidence of negligence in his public life, but digging into his bank account, his phone records, his sexual life, and literally his garbage when these things have nothing to do with the performance of his public duties-past, present, or future-is wrong.

(Emphasis theirs.)

Skilling, Lay guilty in Enron case

Skilling was found guilty on 20 counts of conspiracy, fraud, false statements and insider trading. He was found not guilty on eight counts of insider trading.

Lay was found guilty on all six counts of conspiracy and fraud.

In a separate bench trial, Judge Sim Lake ruled Lay was guilty of four counts of fraud and false statements.

Both Lay and Skilling could face 20 to 30 years in prison, legal experts say.

FBI to grill Congressmen on wiretap leaks

I was a little torn on the issue of whether searching a Representative's office was a violation of the separation of powers. On the one hand, it was unprecedented and just happened to come at a time when the executive branch is infamously attempting to expand its powers beyond constitutional limits. On the other hand, Congressmen are citizens just like the rest of us, and it certainly looks as though they had Jefferson dead to rights.

But this brief piece from Roll Call suggests that there's more reason to be concerned with executive overreach and the threat to free speech and a free press. And the timing of this announcement seems more than coincidental-- as though the search of Jefferson's office was something of a test run. In its entirety:

The FBI is seeking interviews with top House Members from both parties to determine whether they leaked details of the National Security Agency’s domestic surveillance program to The New York Times, further fanning the flames of an already tense relationship between Capitol Hill and the Bush administration.

House Speaker Hastert under FBI scrutiny?

It has long been suggested that Tom DeLay never made Speaker of the House because it was much more safe and effective to have 'The Hammer' work behind the scenes. But it didn't protect him from indictment. The man who did get the post, Illinois' Dennis Hastert, is set to have some problems of his own.

ABC News noted today that he is apparently the top Congressional recipient of Jack Abramoff's largesse: According to the Center for Responsive Politics, House Speaker Dennis Hastert is the No.1 individual recipient of money from Abramoff and his clients, with a total of $68,300 contributed to his campaign committee and leadership PAC from 1998 to 2004.

And you know what that means:

Federal officials say the Congressional bribery investigation now includes Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, based on information from convicted lobbyists who are now cooperating with the government.

Part of the investigation involves a letter Hastert wrote three years ago, urging the Secretary of the Interior to block a casino on an Indian reservation that would have competed with other tribes.

The other tribes were represented by convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff who reportedly has provided details of his dealings with Hastert as part of his plea agreement with the government.

The letter was written shortly after a fund-raiser for Hastert at a restaurant owned by Abramoff. Abramoff and his clients contributed more than $26,000 at the time.

UPDATE (5/25): The Department of Justice (including the Deputy Attorney General), and Hastert's staff are denying these allegations, although the DOJ "acknowledged that it normally refuses to confirm or deny news stories about its investigations." ABC has so far refused to retract the story, claiming that "law enforcement sources" had assured them Hastert was part of the investigation.

DeLay team turns to Stephen Colbert for support

Wow. Althought I guess there's a chance I could be fooled into thinking Colbert was a conservative if I knew nothing of The Daily Show, or wasn't aware that I was watching Comedy Central. But surely hearing him ask an interviewee "George W. Bush-- great president or best president?" to gales of audience laughter would be a big hint. But then again, I don't get to Bizarroworld much and I'm not a booster of Tom DeLay. Think Progress has the lowdown:

The email features a “one-pager on the truth behind Liberal Hollywood’s the Big Buy,” and the lead item is Colbert’s interview with Greenwald on Comedy Central (where Colbert plays a faux-conservative, O’Reilly-esque character). The headline of the “fact sheet”:

DeLay thinks Colbert is so persuasive, he’s now featuring the full video of the interview at the top of the legal fund’s website. And why not? According to the email, Greenwald “crashed and burned” under the pressure of Colbert’s hard-hitting questions, like “Who hates America more, you or Michael Moore?”

The video won't be there for long, I suspect, so go get a Colbert fix while it lasts, courtesy of Tom DeLay's biggest fans.

Net Neutrality opponents starting to sound nervous

I consider this to be a pretty good sign. First is a short piece from the Huffington Post MoveOn's Eli Pariser describes some recent efforts of the telecoms to discredit those opposing their plan to charge for content-- which includes groups from acrosss the political spectrum.

Internet freedom opponents told one right-wing tabloid that "Google has become the single largest private corporate underwriter of MoveOn." That's news to us since MoveOn has never received a cent from Google - or any other big business. We're funded by the small dollar contributions of 3.3 million members.

Equally absurd, "sources" told the tabloid that "Some of that money has gone to an online petition drive and a letter-writing campaign." That may be AT&T's fantasy world - but right now, online activities that allow regular citizens to be participants in their democracy cost advocacy groups almost nothing. And that's a good thing.

Rounding out a trifecta of errors, the tabloid says MoveOn is funneling Google "Net Neutrality money" into a Senate race in Pennsylvania. That rumor isn't just paranoid - it doesn't even point at the right organization. MoveOn.org Civic Action, which is pushing Net Neutrality, is a separate organization from MoveOn.org Political Action, which does more political work

Second is this piece from The New Republic, which describes how former Clinton presss secretary and chosen shill for the telecoms Mike McCurry has been largely shut down by the blogs. If you've been following the story, you will have noticed that the telecoms made a concerted effort to squelch Net opposition before it startedby painting their opponents as an uniformed rabble. But in Mike McCurry's case, his jovial attempts to garner support got him exactly nowhere:

There was one notable response, though: Two days later, McCurry showed up in MyDD's comment section. Posting as "HandsOff CoChair1," he tried out some of his famous friendly spin. He noted that an unregulated Internet was "absolutely consistent with the Clinton Administration's policies." He promised Stoller that "writing Internet regulations is not the best way to promote online diversity." And he ended on a lighthearted note--"Look," he admitted, "I have to make a buck sure." ("Candor apparently doesn't get you very many points on the Internet," McCurry later told me.) Stoller, slightly less charmed by McCurry than, say, Andrea Mitchell, retaliated with another, more piquant post. "He's not principled," Stoller wrote. "He's just a paid shill in this fight."

That slap was enough to keep McCurry away from MyDD, but he couldn't let the insult drop. A week later, he resurfaced on The Huffington Post, the celebrity blogging site run by Arianna Huffington, in a decidedly less jovial mood. "You can see in blog commentary lots of great huffing and puffing," McCurry grumbled in a post partly devoted to the debased discourse of blogs. But even this didn't get it out of his system. Two days later, he reappeared, shooting off a misspelled, raging post: Bloggers are ruining journalism because they make reporters "feel intimindated [sic] and [that] they lack public support."

Good stuff.

Barney Frank nails Tony Snow on 'real wage' issue

I'm sorry I missed this when it was new, but here it is in its entirety from the Wall Street Journal:

Treasury Secretary John Snow, testifying before a House committee today, boasted in prepared remarks, “Average hourly earnings are picking up. We learned from this month’s jobs report that average hourly earnings have risen 3.8% over the past 12 months — their largest increase in nearly five years.”

But Snow’s briefers apparently didn’t prepare him for questioning by Rep. Barney Frank, the sharp-tongued Massachusetts Democrat who delights at cross examination of administration witnesses.

“Mr. Secretary,” Frank said, “I agree with much of your statement, but I confess to some trouble with your citation of the rise in hourly wages. What’s the CPI increase over the past 12 months? Do you know?” Replied Snow: “Well, about 5, I think, 5.1.”

To which Frank said: “OK, because you’ve got hourly earnings going up 3.8%, and I believe…that’s not adjusted for inflation. So my understanding is that even in the past 12 months, which are your best 12 months, hourly wages have barely kept up with inflation….. But you would acknowledge that 3.8% increase in wages you’re talking about is nominal, not adjusted for inflation, correct?

Snow, who has a Ph.D. in economics, was a bit flummoxed at first. “I’ll have to go back, Congressman, and check these numbers,” he said.

“That’s not a trick question,” Frank insisted.

“I know it’s not,” replied the Treasury secretary. He then confirmed that the 3.8% was nominal, that is unadjusted for inflation.

The concession didn’t satisfy Frank. “I think it’s misleading to talk about the 3.8% over 12 months when that doesn’t take into account inflation, which was very close to that. I’d ask you to submit to us, what’s it been over 24 months, 36 months and 48 months, because, in fact, during this recovery…wages have dropped… compared to inflation.” Mr. Snow promised to deliver more numbers, and Frank turned to another subject.

TheEconomic Policy Institute, meanwhile, noted today that the latest Bureau of Labor Statistics data, released today, show that hourly and weekly earnings of production and non-supervisory workers in April finally returned to levels where they were, adjusted for inflation, in November 2001 when the current economic recovery began.

It's always rewarding to see a Bushie have to confront an opponent armed with facts.

What if Hillary announced her candidacy and nobody came?

Of course, as the article only obliquely points out, Hillary Clinton has no ties to the group and wasn't present. So my title isn't exactly a fair characterization. On the other hand, twenty participants isn't a very promising number. Especially when there's free food.

A Hillary Clinton rally drew critics of President Bush, nonpartisan voters looking for a strong leader, and people who want to elect a female president.

About 20 people attended the Tuesday event, the national kickoff for Hillarynow.com, a grass-roots group pushing to draft the New York senator and former first lady to run for president in 2008. (. . .)

Organizers hoped to have 200 people at the event in Nashville, a city selected to show that Democrats can win in Southern states.

They were disappointed but said they are not focused on numbers.

"We can build something from this," said E. Gayle O'Hanlon, president of Enchanted Gingerbread, who cooked for and helped organize the fundraiser. (. . .)

Under large shade trees on a vacant lot in the Germantown neighborhood, the mostly female crowd picnicked. Two anti-Clinton protesters picketed on the sidewalk nearby.

The good news: plenty of leftover gingerbread. What I still want to know is just who does back a Hillary candidacy? She's raked in a huge amount of cash, and is widely referred to as the "presumptive nominee," but where's the support?

Lou Dobbs' news source is white supremacist group

One meme that the kooky right is pushing during the immigration debate is that Mexicans are streaming across the borders and participating in rallies with one purpose-- to reclaim about a third of the United States for Mexico. The most notable figure concerned about this cabal is probably anti-pigmentarian Michelle Malkin, but now CNN host Lou Dobbs is getting in on the act.

Today on "Lou Dobbs Tonight," CNN ran a graphic sourced to theCouncil of Conservative Citizens, a group deemed to have a "white supremacy" ideology according to the Anti-Defamation League.

During a piece about illegal immigrants in Utah, reporter Casey Wian said, "Utah is also part of the territory some militant Latino activists refer to as Aztlan, the portion of the southwest United States they claim rightfully belongs to Mexico."

Suggesting that the group is "deemed" to have a white supremacy ideology is something of an understatement. They have a lengthy history of causing headaches for southern politicians (Bob Barr, Trent Lott, Haley Barbour, and even David Duke (remember him?)) who speak before the group, then plead naivete.

ABC presents: The Smug

That's small-s smug. No offense to Smug. The Note is usually described as a "Beltway insider's blog" that provides an irreverent yet informed look at what the Washington press corps is gabbing about. The last time I mentioned the page here was when they ran something idiotic, then reacted to blogger criticism by saying something along the lines of 'Ha! We were running something idiotic just to see if you'd criticize us for it! You walked right into our brilliant trap!'

But the site continues to demonstrate that what the DC press is talking about is whatever Karl Rove wants them to:

As is always the case with the out-of-power party, Democrats have to root root root for bad news. And no bad news source is better for the Democrats' election prospects than the bad news from Iraq.

The assertion that anyone is hoping for more death, corruption and incompetence in Iraq is offensive, sure, but more pitiful than anything else. As hip, irreverent comedy, it ranks up there with "Nope, no WMDs under the Barcalounger."

And it certainly does nothing to change my opinion that the DC press corps includes a disturbingly large number of arrogant and lazy hacks who think that their job title makes their commentary worthy, rather than the other way around.

Pat Robertson to join Fantastic Four

Mr. Fantastic, Invisible Woman, Human Torch, allow me to introduce.... the Incredible Horse's Ass! Not only does he possibly possess alleged superhuman strength maybe, but he can empty a senior citizen's pocketbook in a split second! As a testament to my sanity, allow me to point out that I thought this was a joke when I first saw it.

From Robertson's site:

Pat Robertson's Age-Defying Shake

Did you know that Pat Robertson can leg-press 2000 pounds! How does he do it?

Where does Pat find the time and energy to host a daily, national TV show, head a world-wide ministry, develop visionary scholars, while traveling the globe as a statesman?

One of Pat's secrets to keeping his energy high and his vitality soaring is his age-defying protein shake. Pat developed a delicious, refreshing shake, filled with energy-producing nutrients.

(Did you know the EMPHASIS and PUNCTUATION is THEIRS!)

As a helpful sports writer points out:

That would mean a 76-year-old man broke the all-time Florida State University leg press record by 665 pounds over Dan Kendra. 665 pounds. Further, when he set the record, they had to modify the leg press machine to fit 1,335 pounds of weight. Plus, Kendra's capillaries in his eyes burst. Burst. Where in the world did Robertson even find a machine that could hold 2,000 pounds at one time?

Oh, and you can order the Age-Defying Shake (!!!) on Pat's site, naturally. Hey, you don't get to call for the assassination of international rulers on your own cable show without raising a little scratch first. Be sure to get yours now before John McCain snaps them all up and becomes.... Super McHurricain!

Al Gore: Communist or Nazi?

No, it definitely isn't a big day for news. But it's always a big day for right-wing nonsense-- and Fox News is there!

[Fox host David] ASMAN: Al Gore’s new documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, it hits the theaters this week. If people buy into his global warming hysteria, will it put him in the White House and our economy on the skids? Steve, first off, is it gonna get him in the White House?

[Flat tax advocate Steve] FORBES: No, if he believes that’s gonna get him in the White House, he needs to rub on something stronger than this sunscreen.

ASMAN: Alright, but if his global warming agenda somehow gets mixed up into our agenda, the national agenda, what’ll it do to the economy?

FORBES: It will ice the economy. And after all, some people do believe the DiVinci Code, so some will believe the DiGore Code. [Laughter] But the fact of the matter is, the policies that result from it would hurt the economy, would create unemployment. It’s a real recipe for more socialist regulation.

Thank you Steve Forbes, for the cutting and timely pop culture reference! I remember a campaign in Missouri a few years ago to limit the number of billboards on the state's highways (think endless succession of adverts for Branson musicians)-- the proposal was defeated when opponents claimed it would cost Missouri jobs and wreck the state economy.

How an initiative for producing America's energy within our own borders would cost jobs and devastate our economy is beyond me. We'd have a new high-tech industry, new techonolgy to export, and more incentives for people to invest in American businesses. Why, it's the very definition of socialism!

UPDATE: Fox News strikes again, prompting me to change the title of my post. After decrying Al Gore's "hysteria" as the diabolical plan of a socialist, they've put an industry shill on the air to compare him to Joseph Goebbels.

This time Gore's assailant was a recipient of donations from big oil who recently penned an editorial defending the Exxon CEO's $400 million retirement package.

That’s the problem. If I thought Al Gore’s movie was as you like to say, fair and balanced, I’d say, everyone should go see it. But why go see propaganda? You don’t go see Joseph Goebbels’ films to see the truth about Nazi Germany. You don’t go see Al Gore’s films to see the truth about global warming.

Stop tyrant Jimmy Carter now!

Between the sizzling expose on how many weekend Bill and Hillary spend together and the latest right-wing attack plan, it's gearing up to be a very slow (and totally worthless) news day.

The ad is brought to you by 'Move America Forward,' who began life accusing Nancy Pelosi of being a "domestic enemy," then hit the bigtime pressuring theaters to boycott Michael Moore's 'Fahrenheit 9/11'-- before the film had opened.

The ad, which you can see at Crooks & Liars, claims that Congress should censure Carter for empowering Fidel Castro and Hamas. You see, because anyone with a 'D' after his name is a commie sympathizer who hates America.

Here we go again

It's hard to imagine why the New York Times thinks a story about Bill and Hillary's personal lives is front page news at this particular moment in time. Because she might run for the presidency in two years, and they just want to get a head start? Nostalgia for the days when conservatives applauded the 'hard news' being dished out by the press?

Beats me, but the 'some say...' sourcing and prognostications about their private behavior is neither news nor fact. Maybe it just still sells papers, five years into another admnistration.

And now, what some say is the shortest excerpt I've ever used in a post:

Some friends say that they do not notice any tension now, though they are not sure when, or how, it lifted.

How's that for serious journalism?

Drudge's 'gotcha' that wasn't; talking schmience with the prez

Think Progress caught both of these stories today, and shows just how goofy the right's version of a war on global warming has gotten.

Drudge's lede: Gore & entourage took 5 cars to travel the 500 yards from hotel to screening of global warming pick in Cannes.

Think Progress' 30-second investigation: ThinkProgress contacted Gore’s representatives, who unequivocally confirmed that Al Gore and his associates walked from the Majestic Hotel to the screening at Cannes. Further, Paramount has committed to making the entire tour promoting the film carbon neutral.

Drudge's story vanished within an hour of TP's post.

The president talks global warming: He went on to argue that we need to “set aside whether or not greenhouse gases have been caused by mankind or because of natural effects.”

This is goofy even for someone in denial. The fact that burning fossil fuels creates greenhouse gases isn't disputed by either side (even those recent industry ads on C02 argue that the extra greenhouse gases are a good thing, not a fabrication). And it really doesn't jibe with Bush's own campaign promise to limit carbon dioxide emissions-- not to mention former EPA chief Christine Todd Whitman's assessment that global warming is"one of the greatest environmental challenges we face, if noth te greatest."

One thing seems certain: Bush might've just been confused (the ol' "lying or incompetent" standard again), but the administration is clearly committed to doing nothing about the issue.

Coast Guard gives some corporations advance notice of surprise inspections

I don't think I can adequately express my frustration that the GOP not only regularly compromises national security, but does so in the name of manipulating 'the free market' to benefit the already-successful.

Under intense pressure from shipping companies concerned about costly delays, the Coast Guard is tipping off some large commercial ships about security searches that had been a surprise, according to high-ranking Coast Guard officials.

The searches began after the Sept. 11 attacks as part of a major revamping of the Coast Guard and its new antiterrorism mission. But shipping companies say the surprise boardings at sea cause unnecessary delays, costing up to $40,000 an hour.

"We're trying to facilitate commerce and keep the port secure — and sometimes the two conflict," said Capt. Paul E. Wiedenhoeft, who is in charge of the port complex here at Los Angeles and Long Beach. "When possible, we're trying to give shippers as much notice as we can."

The practice has caused considerable confusion and debate within the Coast Guard. Commanders in some ports acknowledged in interviews that they provided up to 24-hour notice. Others said the practice undermined the inspections.

Even within the command at some ports, there was disagreement about the best approach. The port captain in San Francisco, Capt. William J. Uberti, said shippers and carriers were "not supposed to have a clue" about possible random boardings. Yet his security chief said the command gave companies notice.

A typical search involves checking the crew and cargo manifests against those filed with the ports. Sea marshals check identification cards against the faces of crew members. They sometimes arrive with bomb-sniffing dogs and inspect with hand-held radiation detectors. Depending on the circumstances, a review can last a half-hour or a half day, officials said.

Fiscal conservatism. National security. Moral values. Free markets. Can the GOP turn any other planks in their platform into a punchline?

Gonzales: Prosecuting journalists an option

In a genuine Big Brother moment, the White House has decided to have Alberto Gonzales deliver a none too subtle threat to America's press.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said Sunday he believes journalists can be prosecuted for publishing classified information, citing an obligation to national security.

The nation's top law enforcer also said the government will not hesitate to track telephone calls made by reporters as part of a criminal leak investigation, but officials would not do so routinely and randomly.

"There are some statutes on the book which, if you read the language carefully, would seem to indicate that that is a possibility," Gonzales said, referring to prosecutions. "We have an obligation to enforce those laws. We have an obligation to ensure that our national security is protected."

It'll be interesting to see how the public reacts to this at a time when speculation is rife that Karl Rove will be the next White House staffer indicted for leaking classified national security information to the press in order to squelch a critic.

Corrupt Democrat hints at 'DeLay strategy'

William Jefferson has been under scrutiny for a while. The Center for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) has had their eye on him for quite some time, with Jefferson one of two Democrats making their "13 most ethically challenged Congressmen" list.

But now he's been caught-- and caught in a big way.

As for the $100,000, the government says Jefferson got the money in a leather briefcase last July 30 at the Ritz-Carlton hotel in Arlington. The plan was for the lawmaker to use the cash to bribe a high-ranking Nigerian official — the name is blacked out in the court document — to ensure the success of a business deal in that country, the affidavit said.

All but $10,000 was recovered on Aug. 3 when the FBI searched Jefferson's home in Washington. The money was stuffed in his freezer, wrapped in $10,000 packs and concealed in food containers and aluminum foil.

Two of Jefferson's associates have pleaded guilty to bribery-related charges in federal court in Alexandria. One, businessman Vernon Jackson of Louisville, Ky., admitted paying more than $400,000 in bribes to the lawmaker in exchange for his help securing business deals for Jackson's telecommunications company in Nigeria and other African countries.

It probably took you about 0.2 seconds to realize that Republicans will be repeating Jefferson's name as much as possible prior to the elections, and it's a sure bet that the MSM will run with the meme that both parties are suffering from corruption, no matter how lopsided the tally. (As recently as May 7, NPR's Mara Liasson was repeating the untrue claim that Jack Abramoff gave money to both parties.)

So what is Jefferson's response to the charges and apparently damning evidence? He won't step down, and he'll run again a la Tom DeLay. Here's hoping that Democratic pressure is enough to convince him to step down should the charges prove true.

Bush: A "new chapter" in Iraq

The administration's perverse insistence on confronting reality with propaganda went from frustrating to frightening quite a while ago, but a piece from the AP today further demonstrates the administration's solid committment to the approach. Perhaps switching the lingo from 'turning a corner' to 'a new chapter' is the biggest change we can hope for.

"The formation of a unity government in Iraq is a new day for the millions of Iraqis who want to live in peace," Bush said. "And the formation of the unity government in Iraq begins a new chapter in our relationship with Iraq."

Bush briefly spoke to reporters from the White House with his wife, Laura, at his side, to highlight the political development without mentioning the violence that still rages in Iraq.

The president did not speak of the spree of bombing, mortar rounds and a drive-by shooting that killed at least 18 Iraqis and wounded dozens - most of them hit by a suicide bomber who targeted a Baghdad restaurant during Sunday's lunch hour.

At least it isn't just being dutifully dictated here. But the reporter might also have pointed out that several rather important posts have yet to be filled in the 'unity government':

Politicians involved in negotiations over the new government said Wednesday that filling the top jobs at the Ministry of Interior, which oversees the police, and the Ministry of Defense, which oversees the army, had become the primary stumbling block to picking a government. Prime Minister-designate Nouri al-Maliki has until May 22 to name his Cabinet ministers.

The latest report I've heard is that al-Maliki and one of his colleagues will be serving as the de facto heads of these departments until permanently filled. And it's only taken five months, so what's the big deal?

Banner week for TNR

Somebody must've spiked the Ovaltine at The New Republic's offices, because they've suddenly got some fired-up writing appearing. I could criticize their recent shift toward useless pop culture criticism, but if their political writing continues to read like this book review and editorial (not to mention catching McCain taking dough from political operatives who've trashed him in the past), I could forgive a lot.

How the GOP ruined the House

"Objectivity," Michael Kinsley recentlywrote, "is less an ideal than a conceit." And indeed, many professional reporters' fetishization of the concept too often elevates a morass of on-the-one-hand-on-the-other-hand-ism above the truth. Fight Club Politics by former Washington Post congressional correspondent Juliet Eilperin illustrates this problem well. She closely examines an important topic: How extreme polarization is destroying the House of Representatives. But in her unwavering commitment to political neutrality, Eilperin ultimately offers a book that obfuscates more than it illuminates. She is unwilling to state what is obvious to even a casual student of Congress: The House as it currently exists--a place where the leadership operates as a virtual arm of the executive branch and where traditional rules of debate and amendment have been suspended--is a product of Republican control. Evenly distributing the blame for this state of affairs between Democrats and Republicans is to value "objectivity" above reality.

Gentlemen, start your subpoenas!

GOP control of Congress deserves to end this year, not least because Republicans have abused--and then abandoned--government oversight. Six years of chasing every wild accusation leveled against the Clinton administration have been followed by almost six years of near-total deference to the executive branch. In the Clinton years, a single House committee, Government Reform, issued over 1,000 subpoenas and spent millions of dollars investigating the White House and the Democratic Party. More than two million pages of documents were handed over. In one inquiry alone--the grave matter of the politicization of the White House Christmas list--Republicans took 140 hours of testimony.

Both of these stories address concerns that have been primary issues with many progressive blogs since before the last election cycle. Better late than never.

Fox global warming special brought to you by big oil

Media Matters has a rundown of the "experts" that will appear on a special about global warming. Or rather, a special about global warming denial.

Patrick J. Michaels, a University of Virginia professor and senior fellow at the Cato Institute, is a vocal critic of global warming theory with strong ties to the energy industry. Michaels is chief editor of the World Climate Report, a biweekly newsletter on climate studies funded in large part by energy interests. According to an October 11, 2005, Seattle Times article, "Michaels has received more than $165,000 in fuel-industry funding, including money from the coal industry to publish his own climate journal."

Bjørn Lomborg is the associate professor of statistics in the Department of Political Science at the University of Aarhus in Denmark. In his book, The Skeptical Environmentalist (Cambridge University Press, 2001), Lomborg purported to conduct a "non-partisan analysis" of environmental data in the hope of offering the public and policymakers a guide for "clear-headed prioritization of resources to tackle real, not imagined, problems." . . . But in January 2002, Scientific American ran a series of articles from four well-known environmental specialists that lambasted Lomborg's book for "egregious distortions," "elementary blunders of quantitative manipulation and presentation that no self-respecting statistician ought to commit," and sections "poorly researched and ... rife with careless mistakes."

John Christy is the director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama-Huntsville. Christy and fellow University of Alabama professor Roy Spencer co-authored a 2003 global warming study based on extensive data from weather satellites. Their report, which concluded that the troposphere had not warmed in recent decades, was ultimately found to have significant errors. As The New York Times reported, when their miscalculations were taken into account, the data used in their study actually showed warming in the troposphere. . . . Beyond his criticism of global warming theory, Spencer has also taken up another cause that places him well outside the scientific mainstream -- his view that "intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism."

I think it was Al Franken who coined the term 'biostitutes' to describe scientists who sell their credentials to the highest corporate bidder. If the shoe fits...

McCain jeered at commencement-- and still moving rightward

McCain' received broad praise for his speech at Liberty University-- strangely, it was for not addressing divisive religious issues. But McCain wasn't so well-received for delivering virtually the same speech at New York's New School. Particularly when he used the occasion to tout his support for the war.

The school's tradition of dissent carried on today. Scores of New School students held orange signs, and a few banners, reading "McCain Does Not Speak For Me," and "Our Commencement Is Not Your Platform." What began as mild rumblings of disapproval before McCain's speech soon exploded into boos, catcalls and turned backs.

The spark was provided by undergraduate keynote speaker Jean Sara Rohe, a composed, seemingly innocuous jazz musician and singer. After beginning with a short folk song (true to classic graduation speech form) Rohe quickly tossed aside her prepared remarks to directly address McCain.

"This ceremony has become something other than the celebratory gathering it should be," Rohe said. "The Senator does not reflect the ideals on which this school was founded. This was a top-down decision in which the students played no part." The crowd erupted.

"I consider this a time of crisis and I feel compelled to speak," Rohe continued, referencing McCain's speech at Falwell's Liberty University last Saturday.

She paraphrased McCain's words on the folly of youthful stubbornness and ignorance.

"I am young, but I do know that pre-emptive war is dangerous and wrong," she said. "Osama bin Laden has not been found, nor those weapons of mass destruction." The vast majority of the crowd gave her a standing ovation.

I'll be on the lookout for video-- and for hilarious comments by outraged conservatives talking on the ill-mannered rudeness of these youngsters. Although I wouldn't have been too keen on my graduation ceremony turned into a campaign speech, either.

The New Republic also notes that McCain is making nice with yet another political enemy from 2000. He's a Bush defender after being torpedoed by BushCo's dirty tricks, a Falwell fan after being the fundies most hated Republican, and now this. It could be a clean sweep, with McCain embracing everything that's wrong with his own party.

It's not exactly news that John McCain is perfectly happy cozying up to his old adversaries if that's what it takes for him to get to the White House, but all the hubbub over McCain's rapprochement with Jerry Falwell seems to have overshadowed some of the other, uh, fence-mending he's been doing of late. Earlier this week, McCain let the Texas businessmen and brothers Charles and Sam Wyly host a fundraiser for him in Dallas.

The Wyly brothers, as you may remember, funded a front-group called Republicans for Clean Air that spent $2.5 million during the 2000 Republican presidential primary savaging McCain's environmental record; given the Wylys' long friendship with the Bush family--plus the $200,000 they'd given to George W. Bush's campaigns--it didn't take a rocket scientist to figure out whom Republicans for Clean Air was really working for. McCain certainly had no doubt. At the time he referred to the Wyly brothers as Bush's "sleazy Texas buddies."

Apparently McCain has decided it's only worth being a "maverick" when it doesn't involve corporate cash or a right-wing voting bloc.

UPDATE: As you can see from the comments, an observer noted that I've repeatedly conflated Bob Jones University with Falwell's Liberty University. Corrections made, and my apologies for the mistake.

'National language' efforts highlight GOPs immigration dilemma

The nationalist element of the Republican party is hoppin' mad over what they see as an administration unwilling to take the action necessary to stop the flow of illegal immigrants into the country-- sensible proposals like militarizing the border or at least spending a few billion on a really, really big fence.

But they're right, in a sense. The administration continues to be caught between the xenophobia of the nationalists and the corporatists, who really like the cheap, non-union labor. And toothless initiatives like 'unifying language' resolutions aren't making anyone happy.

President George W. Bush has long opposed making English the country's national language, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said on Friday, the day after the Senate voted to do so.

The vote came in an amendment to proposed legislation overhauling U.S. immigration law and directed the government to "preserve and enhance" the role of English. Opponents said it could affect the status of some multilingual services offered by government organizations.

Adding to the confusion, the Senate also adopted a softer amendment calling English the "unifying language" of the United States. Senators take both versions into negotiations over a final bill with the U.S. House of Representatives.

Meanwhile, Tony Snow is getting right into his role as White House spokesmonkey by making a contradictory statement:

As you know, there were actually a couple of amendments that came up yesterday, an Inhofe amendment and also a Salazar amendment. And what has come out of that is a description of English as the national language. And I think — and we have supported both of these. … And I think both of these amendments are consistent with that stated presidential desire.

I'm not sure how the Democrats can capitalize on the fecklessness of the GOP, except to point out that they're paralyzed with fear at losing either the racist vote or the corporate donors, but with the president actually talking sense on the issue while right-wing congressmen scream themselves hoarse about the threat to white America, the net effect isn't going to be positive for the Republicans. While anti-gay rights proposals and flag-burning hysteria might be reliable get out the vote tactics, their decision to turn immigration into the big issue of the summer is still looking like a grave miscalculation.

Bizarroworld Dispatch: Hastert on taxes

Last night on the House floor, Speaker Dennis Hastert said the following: Well, folks, if you earn $40,000 a year and have a family of two children, you don’t pay any taxes. So you probably, if you don’t pay any taxes, you are not going to get a very big tax cut.

This takes me back to the GOP push for capital gains tax cuts, particularly on dividends. The argument was that the system was inherently unfair, because it was "double taxation." 75% of stocks might be held by some 5-10% of the country, but dagnabit-- it's the principle of the thing!

Sadly, regressive taxation like payroll and sales tax not only don't count, but aren't even taxes.

Blackwater is the new Halliburton

Blackwater has been coming under public scrutiny lately for overcharging the government in Iraq (Congress still hasn't expressed any interest in cracking down on profiteers) and putting their employees in danger in violation of their own contractual agreements. But just in case they are called to account in Iraq, the firm run by Republican operatives and fundamentalists will still be making obscene amounts of money in New Orleans.

Tens of thousands of Hurricane Katrina victims remain without homes. The environment is devastated. People are disenfranchised. Financial resources, desperate residents are told, are scarce. But at least New Orleans has a Wal-Mart parking lot serving as a FEMA Disaster Recovery Center with perhaps the tightest security of any parking lot in the world. That's thanks to the more than $30 million Washington has shelled out to the Blackwater USA security firm since its men deployed after Katrina hit. Under contract with the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) Federal Protective Service, Blackwater's men are ostensibly protecting federal reconstruction projects for FEMA. Documents show that the government paid Blackwater $950 a day for each of its guards in the area. Interviewed by The Nation last September, several of the company's guards stationed in New Orleans said they were being paid $350 a day. That would have left Blackwater with $600 per man, per day to cover lodging, ammo, other overhead--and profits.

You've got to admit that playing police state in New Orleans would be a lot more exciting than icky cleanup detail.