MSM, False Equivalencies, and Liz Cheney

From Media Matters Washington Post reporter Michael Fletcher, in an online Q and A:

non-election question: Given Liz Cheney's sudden prominence (man, nepotism in DC never ceases to amaze me), I'm curious as to why none of you reporters are asking her questions re: her recent comments about Obama's trip to Dover. She said that Bush routinely made the same trip and didn't "stage photo ops." A) she flat out lied - Bush never went to Dover, B) he couldn't have had photos taken because of the Pentagon policy at the time and C) Mission Accomplished, anybody? Ultimate photo op. What gives? Or is being related to Dick sufficient to protect her from questioned?


Michael A. Fletcher:If we begin questioning Liz Cheney that way, then we would have to do the same with conservative (and liberal) commentators who make all kinds of charges every day. It is their way of making a (great) living. Some comments, I like to think, sink under their own weight.

This illustrates one of my ongoing pet peeves which I have discussed before. The supposed "liberal" mainstream media uses false equivalencies, softball questions, and careful timing to ensure that the "news" we are fed is slanted to make the current administration look foolish and inept and the Republican Party (despite its massive almost 20% of the population identifying itself as such) as the arbiters of reason.

David Gregory in particular is guilty of perpetuating the MSM move to stenography rather than actual reporting with his statement regarding the role of the press corps in the run up to the Iraq war:

I think there are a lot of critics who think that . . . . if we did not stand up and say this is bogus, and you're a liar, and why are you doing this, that we didn't do our job. "I respectfully disagree. It's not our role."

This is an example of something that happened years ago, but any sampling of the Sunday morning talks or the evening national news will show the same kind of "journalism." Panels sit around and discuss the issues of the day, carefully selected by the hosts. If the guest currently in the hot seat responds with something more controversial than the host is able or willing to handle, then it's time to move on. This past Sunday's Meet the Press with David Gregory kept the most controversial guest, Jon Krakauer, till the very end. He was then asked only a couple of questions about General McChrystal's role in the Pat Tillman case and the initial cover-up - discussed now because of McChrystal's current position in the news - and when Krakauer provided fairly damning answers, Gregory immediately wrapped it up. Great journalism. Tough interviewing. Oh wait. It's not his role.

Back to Liz and the Washington Post. The biggest question? Why are we seeing Liz Cheney on our tv machines at all? Her claim to fame? She is the daughter of the ex vice-president. Period. She did have a job at the State Department, but so does my cousin. And so do thousands and thousands of other people. Liz's job wasn't even particularly high up or particularly important. She oversaw a unit within a bureau that was one of eight managed by one of the Under Secretaries. I used to work at one of the PAC-10 universities (meaning it's huge). I managed the administrative functions of a unit within a division under one of the Vice Presidents, so I had one less layer between me and the top. Was I important? Absolutely not. Could I speak for the University? Absolutely not.

The next question? Why this false equivalency? A reporter hears an answer that is demonstrably false and shrugs because it will "sink under its own weight?" If they have to question every commentator, then why not? If their way of making a living is to lie, shouldn't they be called on it? Asked to back up their claims? Do slander and libel laws mean nothing anymore? Is journalism now simply reporting he said she said? It used to be gathering facts and examining what people said for truth and shining a light on what was going on behind the scenes so that the viewers and readers that did not have the kind of access that reporters have could know what was going on. That is the whole point behind the 1st Amendment and why the Founders put it first in the Constitution. 

What Liz talks about when she speaks about terrorism and the Bush Administration and foreign policy (and the return of fallen soldiers at Dover Airforce Base) is hearsay or conjecture at best. More likely, her comments are disinjenuous statements made to enhance her father's image, promote her own agenda, and belittle the Obama Administration.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Kos Writes About Tuesday Night's Big Lesson

Markos Moulitsos (Kos) wrote last night on his blog, Daily Kos

There will be much number-crunching tomorrow, but preliminary numbers (at least in Virginia) show that GOP turnout remained the same as last year, but Democratic turnout collapsed. This is a base problem, and this is what Democrats better take from tonight:

1. If you abandon Democratic principles in a bid for unnecessary "bipartisanship", you will lose votes.

2. If you water down reform in favor of Blue Dogs and their corporate benefactors, you will lose votes.

3. If you forget why you were elected -- health care, financial services, energy policy and immigration reform -- you will lose votes.

Tonight proved conclusively that we're not going to turn out just because you have a (D) next to your name, or because Obama tells us to. We'll turn out if we feel it's worth our time and effort to vote, and we'll work hard to make sure others turn out if you inspire us with bold and decisive action.
The choice is yours. Give us a reason to vote for you, or we sit home. And you aren't going to make up the margins with conservative voters. They already know exactly who they're voting for, and it ain't you.

I rarely post anything in its entirety, but this was short and concise and makes a good point.

I've spent several hours this morning reading aggregate sites, blogs, newspapers, the MSM pundits from both the right and the left and the analysis is all over the board. I've written some of my own. What I find fascinating, is how many left-wing bloggers are (and have been) saying that we must stop criticising Obama. My own family tells me I must stop and give the man a chance - that it has only been a (month, few months, year). My son, the politics and government major whose thesis was on Clinton and the MSM, reminds me that Obama is the President of the whole country, not just the progressives (to which I remind him that it was the progressives who gave him a majority Congress).

I agree that Obama has accomplished a great deal in one year, relatively speaking, and that he was handed a bigger mess than any president ever has with more restrictions coming in (the stimulus was Bush's, the status of forces agreement was Bush's, TARP was Bush's ...). But, does that mean that we are not to hold him accountable for the promises made in his campaign?

• Don't ask, don't tell
• Guantanamo
• Torture investigations
• Transparency
• Regulations on Wall Street
• Iraq & Afghanistan
• Health care

In every case, Obama has either changed his mind, begun discussions so close to the bottom that any legislation would be close to worthless (health care), or put people in charge that were part of the problem and allowed them to craft the solutions. Instead of taking a strong stand, he holds back. Yes, we did vote for a President who would take a measured, informed approach to problem solving. But we did not vote for a President who is going to straddle the center line at the expense of the ideals of his party.

Obama has said over and over and over again that he is committed to bipartisanship, that we want bipartisanship. No we don't. Sure, we would like Congress to get things done, but I don't think at the end of the day that anyone cares who votes for what. The American people gave him an overwhelming majority in the House and the Senate because we want change and we told him that we wanted the change that he said he would bring. I understand that it will take time. He said it would. But change doesn't happen if he doesn't at least begin. I don't understand why he allowed Congress to begin negotiating healthcare at the bottom, why it had to be a 50/50 committee that crafted the Senate plan, why he is going back on his word on the wars, on torture, on transparency, and so many other issues.

This election yesterday was not a referendum on Obama, but if he doesn't get it together quickly, the historic election of 2008 will be wasted and he'll lose Congress. He said that he would be happy to be a one term president if he could accomplish what he set out to do. I'm beginning to wonder if that's true.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

So Now NY-23 Doesn't Matter? Sarah Palin's Balancing Act Ahead

We certainly live in interesting times. Off-year elections typically generate as much interest as a limp teabag, and that is apparently what we've got in upstate New York. However, the day after excitement is almost as high as that leading up to the election. At least for us political junkie types.

Interesting side note (h/t Media Matters) that updates a comment in my last post. It seems that Adam Nagourney of the New York Times reported on Monday that a loss in NY-23 would be disastrous for the Republican Party (despite the fact that Doug Hoffman, the challenger ran on the Conservative Party ticket) and will highlight the deep divisions in the party. Today, NY-23 is not even on the radar as he exclaims that the Republican wins will energize the party and set the stage for fund-raising, attracting candidates, and whipping up the base.The significance of a loss in 23, now? Not so much.

The greater implications, in my opinion, are to Sarah Palin. Her behavior is clearly that of someone who is planning to make a run for president in 2012, although someone who either has very poor advisors, or more likely, someone who knows it all and refuses to listen to those advisors (you just cannot ask people to pay to hear you speak in Iowa, a state you must win if you want to win the primaries).

Palin's decision to support Hoffman in NY-23 and her victory in running Scozzafava out of the race energized the Tea Bagger fringe of an already weakened party. Not quite 20% of Americans identify themselves as Republicans at this time, and Sarah Palin has clearly decided to chart her own course. By refusing to attend Republican events over the past year, and now supporting Hoffman, it is clear that Palin believes that she can either re-form the Republican Party or form her own.

Interestingly, in demanding purity - as defined by Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh - Republican leaders who had been supporting Scozzafava immediately threw their support behind Hoffman as soon as Palin and Fox News did rather than suffer the media backlash that would most certainly have occurred. Republicans planning to run in 2012, particularly Pawlenty, who was the most surprising because of his previous moderation, almost shoved each other out of the way to jump on that bandwagon.

Rather than widen the umbrella and try to appeal to a wider base, the Republican Party is following the wacky GOPhers on Fox News and the blogger from Alaska. This may win them local elections, but no one can win the presidency without independents, and regardless of how Obama does or does not do on the major issues, it is unlikely that independents are going to vote for the Tea Bag candidate.

It will be interesting to watch Sarah Palin balance on that fine line as she tries to hang on to her Republican supporters as she moves further and further into the wacko extremist right.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Upset in NY-23 is a Referendum on Sarah Palin

Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Sarah Palin should be so proud. A small upstate New York district, the 23rd, which has gone Republican for the past 120 years tonight voted overwhelmingly for the Democratic candidate, Bill Owens. The Republican candidate, Dede Scozzafava, who had dropped out over the weekend, had thrown her support behind Mr. Owens, but still received 5% of the vote. Doug Hoffman, the Conservative Candidate endorsed by Sarah Palin, et al, was the odds on favorite until late in the evening and ultimately conceded defeat. All the big time names Hoffman had behind him couldn't get him elected.

It seems that the residents of NY-23 don't appreciate out of towners coming in and telling them who to vote for, especially as the person they are being told to vote for 1) does not live in their district, and 2) knows little about the local issues of concern to them (and has said that he is more concerned with the larger, values issues in any case, to paraphrase).When he appeared for an interview at the local paper, Hoffman whined that he should have been given the questions in advance. Huh? Since when? Regardless, they had been in the editorial in that morning's paper if he had bothered to read it. How many politicians running for office do you know who don't read the opinion page of the papers in the districts they're running in? Well, one, now.

Republicans may have won big in Virginia and New Jersey, but a sweep? A referendum on Obama? I don't think so. Do I think the Democrats and in particular Obama need to do some serious thinking about the implications for 2010? Absolutely.

But if this is a referendum, it is a referendum on Sarah Palin and the Republican Party, not the Obama Administration.

All we've heard was how NY-23 was a microcosm of the Tea Party movement, the change that the country wanted. Sarah Palin said jump, and the Republican Party said "How high?" I watched the Twitter streams this afternoon and evening, and when it became clear that Hoffman was trailing, I started to see that "Oh, 23 is incidental." Or, "It's just a small, unimportant district." Right.

As I liked to say about W, you can say it as often as you'd like, it still doesn't make it true.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon,.
k

Anita Malachowski - The Racism Spreads

This is obscene. Last time, it was a GOP staffer sending out emails with racist Obama messages. This time, it is a police dispatcher from Canton, Ohio, by the name of Anita Malachowski.




She says in her email that she's "sorry...but this is too funny" so has to pass it on.

According to The Ohio Daily,

"This type of message is offensive coming from anyone, but coming from someone in the position of dispatching police and prioritizing calls, it's downright horrifying."

Going on to say,

"The North Canton police have a hard enough job as it is without rogue dispatchers trying to incite a race riot or stirring tensions during the hot months of summer."

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Sean Hannity Fakes the News, Again

Why do progressives call it Faux News? Sean Hannity has a remarkable facility for creative editing, showing passionate outrage over something President Obama has said, getting his viewers worked up by something that was said, but neglecting to include what pre- or succeeded what Sean shows us.



Has he done this once or twice? No. This is business as usual for Faux News, and for Mr. Hannity. Media Matters, a media watchdog group that follows Fox and other media outlets and posts discrepancies whenever found, has put together the following clip to demonstrate a few examples of what happens when you selectively edit a video clip, add a dollop of outrage, a smidge of passion, and end up with an audience believing that they have a President who has done something he hasn't, is someone he isn't, and wants things he doesn't.

What does Hannity and Faux News want? Whatever their boss Rupert Murdoch wants. What does Rupert want? Power. How do you get power? Money. How do you get money? By owning most of the media in a market. How do you own most of the media? By owning the politicians. How do you own most of the politicians? By owning the media. How do you own the media? By owning the politicians. How do you own the politicians? Money. How do you make money? By owning the politicians. By owning the media. By controlling the message. By manipulating the markets.

Does anyone honestly believe that Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, et. al., really believe everything they say? Rush Limbaugh? Or do they believe in their multi-million dollar paychecks. Eeny-meeny-miny-mo. Hmmm. Decisions, decisions.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Douthat Apologist Piece on Palin

Evidence that Palin has supporters still. Her apologists are reaching, but reach they do. In his New York Times piece of July 5, 2009, Ross Douthat claims that it's all about class.

Discussing her reasons for leaving her governorship with less than 2 years left to her term, Ross says that:

"...In a recent Pew Poll, 44 percent of Americans regarded Palin unfavorably. But slightly more had a favorable impression of her. That number included 46 percent of independents, and 48 percent of Americans without a college education."

"That last statistic is a crucial one. Palin’s popularity has as much to do with class as it does with ideology. In this sense, she really is the perfect foil for Barack Obama. Our president represents the meritocratic ideal — that anyone, from any background, can grow up to attend Columbia and Harvard Law School and become a great American success story. But Sarah Palin represents the democratic ideal — that anyone can grow up to be a great success story without graduating from Columbia and Harvard..."

Here's that subtle racism again. It isn't about class. Or even gender. Sarah Palin likes to present herself as a 'hockey mom' and her family as blue collar. She's created photo-ops in the past couple of days of herself in waders in a skif at the family set net site 'picking fish' as she perpetuates the image of a hard-working American woman. She even asked Andrea Mitchell of MSNBC how she could be seen as a Diva if she had dirt under her fingernails? But success is about real hard work done daily, weekly, and without quitting.

She expounds on the millions spent by the state of Alaska on fighting the 15 ethics charges that "she won" and the $500,000 she and Todd owe in legal bills fighting those charges. She neglects to mention that the states actual dollar costs are approximately $300,000 as reported today in the Alaska Daily News and the 80% of her and her staff's time she says is spent responding to the ethics charges and media attacks are personal choices she has made in how she apportions her time.

Sarah Palin does not mention that most of the actual dollars spent are for the charges made in the "Troopergate" case which found that she did abuse her office (it was the Personnel Board, appointed by her, who later found in her favor after she filed a request for another [costly] investigation), and the legal bills are mostly also a result of that investigation and the ethics charges and lawsuits still pending. Not mentioned either is the fact that while a settlement is not technically a finding of fault, she did agree to repay the state almost $10,000 in travel expenses for costs incurred by her children accompanying her on state business. The result of an ethics complaint.

Sarah Palin still does not understand that the people of Alaska elected her governor, not her entire family and that she governs by law, not fiat. Just because she says it's so, does not make it so - regardless of how many times we saw George W do it on the tv machine.

Sorry for the tangent, but it was all in aid of saying that she may act low class, but her finances are certainly not. Her home is valued at over $1 million. She just signed a book deal worth between $7 and $11 million. When she is no longer governor, she has no brakes on how much she can earn or what she can do to earn it. No ethics watchdogs looking over shoulder (not that they do so now).

What Douthat is trying to accomplish in his editorial, is to claim that Palin's appeal is to the 'real' American; those without a college education, the blue-collar, hockey mom average American.

Douthat says:

"...Here are lessons of the Sarah Palin experience, for any aspiring politician who shares her background and her sex. Your children will go through the tabloid wringer. Your religion will be mocked and misrepresented. Your political record will be distorted, to better parody your family and your faith..."

But only if you parade them on the national stage, engage your daughter's ex-fiance in the tabloid press, and misunderstand satire and try to use the late-night comedy hour to get your name back on the front page. Most people understand that if someone says something bad about you or yours, the best way to make it worse, is to respond in kind or with something worse. Your religion is mocked only if there is video out there of you having an exorcism performed on yourself to remove the witches. Most of America thinks that's a little odd. When you slam your opponent's pastor, you can't cry foul then if they question some of your faith's odder practices.

"...All of this had something to do with ordinary partisan politics. But it had everything to do with Palin’s gender and her social class..."

No, none of this had to do with ordinary partisan politics. It had everything to do with a woman who knew virtually nothing about history, politics, world affairs, or public opinion. It had everything to do with partisan politics that are so distorted that the minority party to which this woman aligns herself has no connection with the people they claim to serve, their sole reason for being is to win seats. Never mind what they do with them, their sole goal is to gain power for the sake of power. This had everything to do with a woman who is incapable of self-reflection and surrounded herself with people too afraid of losing their seat on the gravy train and a possible shot at a White House office to say anything but Yes.

The difference isn't class or gender. Yes, anyone may still grow up to be president, although it grows harder and harder every cycle. Our government becomes more and more a club of millionaires holding office as legacy candidates just as their places at Ivy League colleges were legacy admits. This makes Obama's win more remarkable, but although on the face of it he and Palin have a similar resume, he worked hard. He released his record (including his full medical record). He prepared himself. He not only answered questions completely, he understood the question. Obama understood history, he understood politics, he understood foreign affairs, he understood public opinion, and when he stumbled, he took responsibility and held himself accountable.

Responsibility and accountability. Radical concepts that are unfamiliar to Sarah Palin. She has cast herself as victim, has insulted every sitting governor not running for another term, and cannot understand that quitting to move to something is quite different than quitting to move away from something (her stated reasons).

No, Mr. Douthat, it's not about class at all. E for effort, but try again.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Why the Main Stream Media is Dying

I recently got into a discussion with a close family member about the media. We were chatting about this and that, catching up on various family matters and he mentioned that he had recently watched Meet the Press. When I asked how he could stand to watch it, he replied that although David Gregory was no Tim Russert, he still enjoyed watching. When I then said, blehh, Russert. We got into a discussion of the merits of Russert, with him saying that Russert was a good reporter and interviewer, and me saying the he was merely a mouthpiece for the Republicans and in particular, for the Bush White House. I went into one of my rants about the mainstream media, particularly Russert, being one of the primary reasons we went to war.

He, like many of my friends and family members, chuckled, and said, "I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree."

During elections, friends say that politics is just a difference of opinion - which until the past 2-3 election cycles, I was willing to admit that it was.

Now? I'm not so sure.

Certainly we are all entitled to our own opinions. We are entitled to voice them. But I find that as I get older I have little tolerance for those whose opinions are just that - opinions - based on nothing.

To me, an opinion is a preference. I like blue over green, cherry pie better than apple. I'd rather go somewhere cold than hot, north than south. I love comedy, drama, theater and film. My secret vice is reality shows, but I'd rather have my teeth pulled than watch sit-coms. Opinions that have a basis in fact, should be grounded in fact.

People used to say that Bush was the man that they'd like to have a beer with, and so voted for him because he seemed the most like them. But why would that make you want to vote for him? There was no evidence linking Osama Bin laden to Sadaam Hussein, yet over 60% of the American people believed that we went to war with Iraq because of 9/11. And still do. Before we went to war, the claims that Bush made in his State of the Union speech and that General Powell made in his speech to the UN supporting war with Iraq, were found to be false. The weapons inspectors in Iraq had found no weapons of mass destruction and in fact, requested more time to search. The "smoking gun" of attempted purchases of yellowcake from Niger and the purchase of aluminum tubes for weapons making facilities were found to be false, before we went to war.

Yet, did the mainstream media report this? Did they emphasize this? No. Whatever the Bush Administration wanted said, they said. They simply reported. They simply served as stenographers for the Administration. Rarely did they question the information they were given. Rarely did they discuss the questions brought up by others and report on the debates that were going on outside the beltway.

When we did go to war, the media wanted to ensure access, so accepted quietly the terms given to them by the military. They bowed down to the dictates of the command structure and allowed themselves to embed--thus permitting the military to screen all images and messages we saw.

When Bush was up for re-election, the media did not question his accomplishments--or lack. They simply reported what he said. Campaign reporting consisted of what each side said. When lies were told, they were repeated in the media. Bush reneged on his National Guard duty, but the media focused only on the problems with the documentation - not the facts contained therein. Swiftboaters manufactured lies out of whole cloth, but the media "reported" them without making any attempt to verify their veracity or provide information on who was providing the money for the ads they made. David Gregory said (to paraphrase) that it wasn't up to the media to question what they were told, but to report it. Excuse me?

The founders included the 1st Amendment in the Constitution for this very reason. So that the journalists would question what they were told by our politicians. So that when politicians lied, they could call them on it. Thomas Jefferson said that "A democracy cannot be both ignorant and free" meaning that the press must be able to work without hindrance from the government in order to allow the people the facts necessary to make up their own minds. Particularly in times of war. It is the role of the media to question what they are told. How are we, the people, supposed to figure out the veracity of what we are told? It is the media that has access to the politicians, to the battlefield, to the documents. It is the media that attends the hearings, the meetings, the briefings. It is the media who observe who meets with whom, who talks with whom, and who benefits from which association.

Instead, it is the media that benefits. It is the media that wants to preserve this status quo and preserve their access. The media that wants to ensure their ticket to the banquets, the dinners, the parties. The media that wants to ensure that it is their phone call that gets returned, their email that gets answered. If they ask the hard questions, question the 'facts' they are told, they put at risk the access they are given and someone else might get their seat on the campaign bus, their seat in the briefing room, and their seat at the party.

Who loses? We do. Whose fault is it? Ours. We don't pay attention. We read our gossip magazines, watch our sit-coms, don't vote, and ignore politics because it's 'boring.' We buy into the Republican mantra that government bad, taxes bad, and believe that we are not our brother's keeper. But if we pick up that phone and call 911, we demand immediate action. We demand paved streets, we demand safe skies, we demand closed borders. We demand that our government protect us, we demand that our food be cheap, safe, and plentiful. We demand that our classrooms be small, and that our children have the best teachers, books, and supplies. We demand that gang members be gotten off the streets, that drugs be gotten out of our schools, and that criminals be locked up forever. We demand a lot. We have been raised to believe that among all the rights that we are entitled to in this country, that the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness, includes the right to a job, education, safety, and help when we need it.

We just don't want to pay for it. We want all of this. We demand all of this. And we continue to say, government bad, taxes bad. I would bet that a majority of the people out waving teabags voted Republican in the last election. I would bet that many, many of the people who lost their homes and jobs in the past year have been staunch Republicans for most of their lives and continue to believe that they know best how to spend their own money. I would bet that most of the people who have lost their pensions, their savings, and their homes, continue to believe that the Republican Party and the ideals of small government and low taxes is the answer.

And the media continue to tell this story. The media--owned by just a few global corporations--report the stories that support the ideology of the Republican Party. The pundits continue to talk to each other on the talk shows and 24/7 news shows, and tell us what the critical issues are, even though most of America has an entirely different agenda. They think we care about the issues they discuss, and tell each other that Americans don't want to prosecute torture (we do), that we just want to move forward (we don't), that Americans don't understand the mess on Wall Street (we do), that we can't possibly understand the historical significance of the tribal structure in Afghanistan and Pakistan (we do), and that they can continue to lie to us about what things really mean and that we won't understand--and we do.

They wonder why the newspapers are failing. They blame us pajama-clad bloggers. Their world has narrowed to Washington D.C. and a 24-hour news cycle. They debate each other and party with each other. When a new administration comes to town, they court their attention and tell them the rules to the game and how it's played. Pretty soon, campaign promises are left behind and the insider dance begins again. We lose faith in our politicians, again. It isn't the bloggers at fault. It's the media hanging fast to their status quo who have forgotten what journalism really means. If the media fails, this is why.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Hey John McCain. You Lost.

Granted, he is a Senator, but John McCain seems to have forgotten that he lost the election. A long-term supporter of global-warming legislation, including cap and trade programs, McCain now is on the "Party of NO" bandwagon:

"Specifically, McCain opposes Obama's proposal for a "cap and trade" program, which would set limits on greenhouse gases from power plants, factories and motor vehicles. The plan, which would bring the government an estimated $650 billion, calls for a carbon auction in which polluting companies could buy carbon permits to offset their emissions. The limits get stricter over time, forcing companies to either slash their emissions or buy more permits from the government or from clean companies that don't need them."

Not realizing that it is the President who sets foreign policy, not the Senate, this morning, speaking to Margaret Carlson on Fox, he demanded that Obama "act" regarding the situation in Iran. Saying that "The administration is not going to change their policy of dialogue, etcetera, etcetera and they should be condemned."

Never mind that inserting ourselves into the situation in Iran only puts the protesters in danger (more than they might already be in). If true change is going to occur in Iran, it must come from within to be successful. In 1953, America overturned a democratically elected government. As bad as it was, Iranians believed in their government. For the first time, now they understand the true situation. It's up to them to decide what they want and ask for help if they want it, not have it imposed on them. And never mind that it's Obama's decision, not McCain's.

Leon Paneta, head of the CIA, said of former Vice President Cheney that, "It's almost as if he's wishing this country would be attacked again, in order to make his point."

McCain immediately demanded that Paneta apologize, saying that while he did not approve of the "enhanced interrogation" policies of the Bush Administration, "Never did it cross my mind that Dick Cheney would ever want an attack on the United States of America."

The Republicans are so quick to jump on statements without really listening to what was said, or the context. Paneta's statement was said after Obama's and Cheney's back to back speeches when he was ambushed by a reporter. He didn't actually say he thought Cheney wanted an attack, he said "it's almost as if ..." which changes things completely. It sounds like, it seems like, which are perfectly reasonable conclusions to reach based on the statements made by Cheney over the past weeks and months.

The Republican Party in general and John McCain specifically are in total denial. They have taken Obama's desire for bipartisanship as a sign of weakness. They forget that they lost and seem to believe that the country is really a Christian right, conservative, right-wing nation. That people really want the programs and initiatives that they espouse. They can't figure out that losing elections don't just mean they lost. Losing elections mean people don't want your ideas, your ideology. They seem to think that if they can just speak louder, spend more on advertising, make the Democrats look bad, and somehow gain seats, that everything will be all right. They are totally clueless.

And regarding this Letterman vs. Palin comedy, McCain said,

"I don't understand why Letterman would say that about a young woman. They (the Palins) deserve some kind of protection from being the butt of late-night hosts."

Umm. Maybe she should stop being a public figure and an elected official? Stop putting her kids down on her financial disclosure forms as performing official duties so she can deduct their travel? And anyway, who was that who said extremely cruel things about a 13-year-old Chelsea Clinton?

Can we all say hypocrite? Can we say bitter old man who lost an election because he thought if he picked a woman running mate he could pick up the Hillary votes, and because Bill Kristol thought she was hot that he'd pick up all the Republicans who hated him? This is not a man who has a moral high ground to stand on.

McCain needs to understand that he lost. He looks pitiful when he stomps his feet and demands Obama do it his way. Obama gets to do it any way that he wants. That's what happens when you win the election.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Jonah Goldberg, Serial Idiot Speaks Out on Iran

Oh Jonah. I hadn't paid any attention to you in years. And now, two posts in four days? What's up with that? Now you're an expert on Iran? Foreign affairs? Nation building? Obama can't win for losing with you.

Obama takes a calm, studied approach to problems. He always has. So far, it's worked out well for him and for all of us. Every crisis so far, pundits on the right and on the left have jumped in with opinions, politicians on the right and on the left have opined on what he should do - the right usually demanding some sort of military response. But Obama calmly weighs the information, studies the situation, and waits as long as possible until making a decision (well, except for Dept. of Justice rulings but that's another post altogether), and then either acts or not, makes a speech or not, or has someone say it for him. He's usually spot on in gauging the right tone to take when it comes to foreign policy matters.

But now Iran. Protests, riots, uncertainty. Information is limited, confusing, and either manipulated by the government or received from the younger, tech-savvy pro-Mousavi side able to get information out. In the midst of this, you say:

"During the campaign you mocked those who belittled your rhetoric as "just words." Well, what you've offered so far is less than just words. You've put a fresh coat of whitewash on Iran's sham "democracy." On Monday, you proclaimed yourself "troubled" by the events in Iran, before hinting that you'd negotiate with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad no matter what an investigation into his "landslide" victory found. Then there was your pre-election mumbling about "robust debate [that] hopefully will advance our ability to engage them in new ways."

You write about the grand ideals of liberal "nation building" lost during the Bush years when the Republicans embraced the idea out of need when we went to war with Iraq. Funny. I seem to remember Bush going on, and on about the need to spread democracy throughout the Middle East (including Iran) in order to ensure peace for Israel. That all people wanted democracy and to be free (of course, they all wanted American style democracy and freedom which he must have intuited by gazing deeply into their souls).

Then you say that:

"So far, "hope and change" has meant spending trillions we do not have on expanded government we do not need. Meanwhile, the huddled masses of Iranians yearning to breathe free think hope and change means something more. But the new American colossus stands all but silent, her beacon dimmed, her luster tarnished."

"Please, Mr. President, prove me wrong. "

You don't want Mr. President to prove you wrong. He couldn't if he tried. If he did, you'd find some way to find fault and discover another test for him to fail.

The point, that you and your other villagers fail to understand, is that the reason we are well-hated in the Middle East (or were) and in much of the world is because of the George Bush's of the world and his ilk. Because of the attitude that everyone wants to be free and live in an American style democracy. This attitude that America is the greatest nation on earth doesn't play well outside our borders. It's okay for us to say it to each other. It's okay for others to say it to each other and dream about coming to America. But it's not okay for us to say it to them. It's sort of like saying to your neighbor that "my house is bigger and better and more expensive than yours." Or saying that because your house is better, you're better. It's stupid. It's not how to make friends, gain allies, or earn respect.

There is this belief amongst the villagers, the right, and the previous administration that it is somehow the duty of the U.S. to take our style of democracy out into the world. That if there is a problem, it is our duty to solve it. That if there is a war, it is our duty to fight it (or start it). That if there is a different belief system, or religion, that they are wrong, and it is our duty to correct their thinking. Not a way to win popularity contests. The conservatives still talk of America as a "melting pot" when most progressives understand that we have long since moved beyond that and embraced the concept of a plural society that values our diversity. A "salad bowl" if you will, that does not expect everyone to "melt" into a blended, homogeneous sameness but appreciates the differences that make up not only the whole of our society, but the whole of our world.

In 1953, we overturned the democratically elected government of Iran because we didn't like it. Obama didn't have to say anything about it in his speech in Egypt. They already knew it. By acknowledging it, he was saying that there was fault on both sides and it was time to move on (their fault? the hostages). Whether or not they like their government or not, Iranians have believed that they had a democracy. For the first time since 1953, they now know, that they do not.

If Obama and the other nations stay out of it and let things play out as they will, they have a better opportunity of finally resolving things for themselves. If we come on too strong, the hard right, the Mullahs, can claim that the reformists are American-backed, which at this point, they are not. They and we cannot afford for the current government to be overturned by American-backed means. Peace in the Middle East will fail if so, but has real hope of being achieved if the people of Iran are able to successfully elect a new President who has the support of the world community but was not put into power by the world community. There is a huge difference.

Read more of Jonah's column here.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

GOP Staffer Mails Racist Obama Photo

Sherri Goforth, an executive assistant for Tennessee State Rep. Diane Black (R-Gallatin), sent this picture out to other legislative staffers headlined "Historical Keepsake Photo."



One of the staffers who received it wasn't impressed. In fact, she and her representative boss were appalled. She said of the photo:

"I was going to post it last week but there was a death in my family and I had to think about it. Because it made me mad. But, you know, people need to know that this stuff is going on. I would be just as angry if a Democratic staffer had sent it. Dammit, Tennessee, haven't we moved past this kind of crap? I'm serious."

Ms. Goforth said that she did send the email, but then stated that:

"I went on the wrong email and I inadvertently hit the wrong button," Goforth said. "I'm very sick about it, and it's one of those things I can't change or take back."

You'll notice that she's not sick about sending the picture. She's not sick about the content of the picture. Her employer hasn't said a word (and so far, she's still employed). She's sick that she sent it to the wrong email list. That's sick all right.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Sean Hannity Attempts to Re-Write History, Again

Sean Hannity is at it again. Fox News does it regularly, but Hannity is a master. He takes a speech by the President and cuts it to say what he wants it to say, adding his own (inflammatory) interpretation.

The speech given today in Egypt by President Obama was groundbreaking in that he made statements unprecedented in political history. He acknowledged that America overthrew a democratically elected government in Iran in 1953, he committed to the need for a 2-state solution in Israel, and demanded that Israel adhere to the Roadmap to which they had previously agreed. He also demanded an end to Arab attacks on Israel and acknowledged that the previous administration had said one thing and done another leading to much of the confusion between the Israelis and Palestinians. Remarkably, Obama stated that Iraq was a war of choice, and made other statements that touched on issues that are rarely brought out so openly, so publicly, and in such a place, and before such an audience.

Reports from around the world are of Muslim audiences shocked that an American President would speak in this way--treating them as equals and worthy of respect.

Reports from around the country are of American right-wing pundits shocked that an American President would speak in this way--treating Muslim audiences with respect. Sean Hannity therefore, unable to report the truth of the speech, found it necessary to "cut and paste" to make the speech fit the interpretation he chooses to share with his audience.



Hannity states that, President Obama "decided to give 9/11 sympathizers a voice on the world stage," when in fact, the clip in its entirety shows that President Obama was condemning anyone would attempt to justify or deny the events of 9/11.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Pull Back on Sotomayor?

A little disappointed that the White House is pulling back slightly on Sotomayor. Still supporting her, but responding the the noise on her 2001 comments regarding Latina women. Even though Obama in a conversation with Brian Williams explained the context and appropriately explained what she was trying to say - that the richness of her experiences as a Latina woman would help her as she makes her decisions - he still said that she could have said it better. Gibbs (White House Press Secretary) said today that she made a poor word choice according to people he had spoken to.

What's up with that? Why are they pandering to the establishment media and the right wing? They don't need to. They have the votes, and so what if there's noise? Can't they handle a little flack? All it does when they cave is tell the right that they will. Obviously Michelle is in charge of disciplining the two girls as Obama apparently has difficulty standing firm. He has taught the Republican leadership and the talking heads that if they talk loud enough and with enough disapproval, he'll throw them a bone.

Obama sure chooses some strange battles to stand and fight and stranger still to throw in the towel. Not that he's throwing in the towel on Sotomayor, I'm just suggesting that there was no need to agree with the right-wing noise machine about anything Sotomayor. To do so at all diminishes her before she even begins, diminishes him, and encourages the Rush's, Hannity's, and the rest who are out for any Democratic blood they can find.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Sotomayor for Supreme Court

Not a surprise that Obama chose Sotomayor, although I'm not convinced she is the best choice, although certainly not the worst. It could be that having her name out there for so long and being slammed by the right for so long made it impossible for him not to choose her, although I would hate for that to be a factor and I think Obama is wiser than that. Considering that there were better choices - still female - though, I think that is was at least a consideration.

I am surprised, however, at the reactions from the "mainstream" media as they appear, without exception, to be accepting the Rosen assessment at The New Republic. He said, some time ago,:

"I haven't read enough of Sotomayor's opinions to have a confident sense of them, nor have I talked to enough of Sotomayor's detractors and supporters, to get a fully balanced picture of her strengths."

But went on to quote "anonymous" sources who didn't like her and said that she was too temperamental, vain, and stupid to sit on the Supreme Court. The article then, became the basis for a smear campaign that has been waged since it appeared on May 8, and although it settled down somewhat in the past week or so when the attention appeared to be shifting to other candidates, after Obama's announcement of Sotomayor, has been quoted extensively all day by not just Fox and Limbaugh, but by CNN and MSNBC.

It will be interesting to see how supportive Obama is of this nominee if the heat continues.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

The Chattering Class and False Dichotomies

What is it with the mainstream media? They set up these false dichotomies playing off Obama and Cheney as if it were a true debate. Obama is the sitting president. What he says matters. He made an extremely important policy speech yesterday that whether we liked it or not, explored the reasons behind his recent decisions regarding Guantanamo, the continued use of military tribunals, and his intention of continuing the practice of indefinite detention of some detainees. The fact that he is now referring to them as prisoners of war, the fact that he is now suggesting the creation of a new 'legal framework' designed with the cooperation of the executive, judicial, and legislative branches to ensure appropriate oversight does not change the fact that he is not only continuing the practices of the Bush Administration, but is in fact, extending them. This is important stuff.

So what does the media do? Every article and news show that discussed Obama's speech compared it to Cheney's speech right afterwards. Photos showed the two side by side. The media loves conflict and if there is none, they make some up. Cheney was on the attack, defending himself, preemptively blaming Obama for any future terrorist attacks, while Obama (rightly) explained that he was trying to clean up the messes left him by the Bush Administration. He would have been more successful if he had actually advocated a clear break and change in direction, rather than a continuation of some of its worst practices, but the media created a sense of conflict by featuring Cheney and giving him the airtime.

Cheney (and Gingrich et al) can give all the speeches they want, but the networks do not have to cater to them. Just as during the campaign they made no effort to report the veracity of what the candidates said ("...if we did not stand up and say, "This is bogus," and "You're a liar," and "Why are you doing this?" that we didn't do our job. And I respectfully disagree. It's not our role."--David Gregory) the media continue to simply act as stenographers to those they consider news makers by giving them airtime and print space. They repeat what was said, give time and space to what they consider to be an opposing point of view--their false dichotomy--and assume that the people watching will then be able to determine who is right. Not for them to provide data with which to consider those opposing points of view. Not for them to actually provide opposing points of view from unbiased sources.

Consider who is out their speaking in support of Cheney. Rush Limbaugh. Now there's an unbiased viewpoint. Newt Gingrich. Now Newt is demanding an investigation of Speaker Pelosi, not because of the truthfulness or not of the use of torture--or enhanced interrogation. No, he is demanding an investigation of the strawman that he has built. According to Newt, the Speaker is corrupt and incapable of leadership because she has impugned the integrity of the CIA. Integrity. Something Mr. Gingrich should know something about. After all, he paid a $300,000 fine for lying to Congress during an ethics investigation after which he resigned his position--as Speaker--and his position in Congress.

And who else is making the rounds--and being given airtime--in support of Cheney's position? Who is an expert commentator and qualified to speak to the veracity of his words and actions? Who have the networks decided is the best able to debate on his side when they create a left/right discussion? Why, (daughter) Liz Cheney of course.

Let's see. In the past 9 days, (and never mind print media), Liz has appeared on:

• Morning Joe on May 12
• Live Desk on Fox on May 12
• On the Record on Fox on May15
• Fox & Friends Saturday on Fox on May 16
• This Week with George Stephanopolous on ABC on May 17
• Your World on Fox on May 20
• News Live on MSNBC on May 21
• Hannity on Fox News on May 21
• Anderson Cooper's 360 on CNN on May 21
• America Morning on CNN on May 22
• Morning Joe on MSNBC on May 22 (and this time, for the whole hour)
• Good Morning America on ABC on May 22

And we continue to listen to them? We continue to give credence to these pundits and this chattering class as our village idiots tell us what is important, and who? The Bush Administration operated from fear. They created a climate of fear and continue to cultivate a sense of fear to avoid being called to account for their actions. The Republicans in Congress have a single agenda, NO. With no other plan, they spend their time building strawmen and pointing fingers away from the real issues. They hope that if they convince people that the real issue is terrorists running free in our cities, we will forget that they are the ones that created the climate that made them terrorists in the first place. Fortunately, we are smarter than that.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Why Not Move Detainees to U.S?

Why can't we move Guantanamo prisoners to the U.S? The Republicans have mounted an amazing campaign claiming that we will not be safe if these terrorists currently incarcerated at Guantanamo are moved to U.S. prisons. Never mind that they would be moved to supermax prisons. Never mind that any prisoners actually released would be released to their home countries, not to the U.S. Never mind that none of this will happen anytime soon, but will happen after careful deliberation and due process (an admittedly foreign concept for Guantanamo detainees) to ensure that the most dangerous prisoners are appropriately handled.



The most recent reason why we can't have these terrorists in American prisons? Conservative pundits and blogs cite an incident that took place in 2000 involving a Muslim terrorist. This article about Mamdouh Mahmud Salim, in custody for the two embassy bombings in 1998, details his attack on a prison guard. On Nov. 1, 2000, while incarcerated in the Metropolitan Correctional Center in lower Manhattan, Salim's attack left the guard blinded and partially paralyzed. This example is used to explain how violent jihadists are because of their background. That because of the kind of training they receive, because they are on a holy mission, they are more dangerous, more brutal, and more willing to risk their own lives and thus, too dangerous for U.S. prisons.

This is one incident. More detainees at Guantanamo have been injured in custody than have their guards. In fact, we have an obligation beyond ending "enhanced interrogation" to remove these men fromGuantanamo. Everyday these men experience cruel and unusual punishment that exceeds stress positions and the other techniques listed in the OLC memos. The Immediate Reaction Force (IRF) teams at Guantanamo as detailed here are more brutal than one man with a homemade shiv could ever be.

The U.S. is more than capable of containing violent prisoners and doing it ethically and legally. Charles Manson, Sirhan Sirhan, and others are in custody. Bundy, Dahmer, and other serial killers too numerous to mention are either incarcerated or were executed and all were at least as dangerous as some of the men in Guantanamo. Many of the men in Guantanamo have actually done nothing wrong and were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. Because of the paranoia of Bush and Cheney, and the inability of the system they attempted to put in place to deal with errors, these men are still there.

Why are the Republicans so afraid of bringing these men into American prisons? Why has the Democratic leadership knuckled under and begun singing that song? We have the highest unemployment rate ever. Prisons are experiencing reductions in size, prisoners are being given early release because of over-crowding. Guards are being let go, prisons are reducing units, and some supermax prisons stand empty. Closing Guantanamo and bringing the detainees here would add jobs to the corrections system without creating any additional danger. In fact, by closing Guantanamo, a symbol of the abuse of prisoners, it would enhance our image in the world and enhance our image with potential al Qaeda recruits, thus reducing one factor leading to the reason young men join al Qaeda.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Guantanamo Funds Denial a Reality Check

Republicans are delighted that Democrats denied Obama funding to shut down Guantanamo. They think they've somehow won something and that their campaign of NO has succeeded. Not. Senator Reid fumbled badly as he attempted to explain the reasoning behind keeping Guantanamo open, saying that no detainees would ever be moved to American prisons. The vote yesterday to deny funding was not about keeping prisoners out of U.S. prisons, but rather to demand participation in Obama's planning.

I think Harry needs to spend a little time talking to his caucus. The Senate Democrats have made it clear that they are unhappy with the Obama Administration's lack of communication with them about plans for Guantanamo and the detainees. Obama has made several policy shifts since taking office and this denial of funds is Congress's way of demanding accountability from him.

"The language reads, "None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act or any prior Act may be used to transfer, release or incarcerate any individual who was detained as of May 19, 2009 at Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to or within the United States."

According to Senator Inouye, last weeks amendment to place restrictions on the funding was not a strong enough message to the Administration as there was still no plan forthcoming. The strong, inflammatory objections making the rounds in the media were also a factor as he suggested that the prison must close or continue being a recruiting tool for al Qaeda, but,

"Inouye was emphatic that Democrats still believe the prison should close, and that his amendment is only a "reality check" on the administration's intent to close it without a plan for the detainees being held there... None of the options are good, but this is one resource we have," he said. "We need to keep it. We have to keep it. It is by far the best option."

The whole article, Guantanamo Funds Stripped by Senate is here.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.

k

Obama's Long War Against Cheneyism?

Obama's Long War Against Cheneyism? is worth the read and presents a perspective that although is one that I'm not sure I agree with in its entirety, is one that I hope is true, that I want to be true. Andrew Sullivan has taken Obama's recent decisions - many of which I have slammed in these pages, as have many progressives - and offers a view of Obama that, "...reveals a cunning we miss at our peril."

In discussing Cheney and his supporters, and their ownership of the 'war on terror,' Sullivans says:

"They have no shame and no ethical boundaries. And so the only truly profound way to defeat them and what they represent is to show that a humane ruthlessness is still possible in the fight against al Qaeda - which remains a threat rather than a phantom."

He analyzes why he believes Obama retained Gates, co-opted Huntsman, and chose McChrystal and suggests that by keeping the best of Bush's choices,

"...Obama is coopting the best of the Bush legacy, while separating it from the callow cynicism of the Cheney-Rove-Kristol axis."

"Cheney is taking the torture bait from Obama even as Obama refuses brilliantly to take the terror bait from Cheney. Obama is resisting the red-blue reductionism of the past while forging a new and powerful center. And the more Cheney and Kristol and Limbaugh posture as the future of the GOP, the worse they will do and the more likely it is that more sane and sensible conservatives will eventually fight back."

It has been clear for some time that although Obama is clearly making decisions that appear to break campaign promises, some of which appear to go even further than those of Bush particularly in the area of the 'war on terror,' he is too smart not to have a plan. President Bush was a puppet, at least in the early days. Despite his Ivy League degree, he did not have the intellectual capacity nor the critical thinking skills to make informed decisions. He was the first to say that he made decisions based on what he felt in his heart.

Is this thesis presented by Sullivan the answer then to the choices Obama is making? I don't know. Sullivan certainly has the credentials to support this theory and it is a very comforting one. Check it out and let me know what you think.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.

k

Did Wanda Sykes Go To Far?

I've been hearing a lot about the White House Correspondent's Dinner this past weekend. Keith Olbermann on his show last night put his discussion of the dinner in the #1 spot when he stated that comedian Wanda Sykes went too far when she suggested that Rush Limbaugh was the 20th high-jacker and also "I hope his kidney's fail." When she then said, "Too far?" Keith responded, yes.

I'm a huge fan of Keith's and usually agree with him, but on this, I'm really torn. I like to think I'm the bigger person, that I wouldn't stoop to this level. That because I have been deeply offended by similar remarks made by Rush Limbaugh, I am of course, deeply offended by the same remarks turned back towards him. But I'm having a hard time being offended, and I think it's because of who they are.

Wanda Sykes is a comedian. She's edgy. Richard Wolffe, Keith's guest said that she was chosen because she is edgy, but he agreed with Keith that jokes about 9/11 and jokes about kidney failure are never appropriate. Richard Wolffe offered a wonderful insight about this dinner and the humor of previous presidents attending the same event. He said that Reagan made fun of people who weren't in the room and everyone laughed, Bush made jokes about people who were in the room and was "frankly mean to them" and everyone laughed because he was president, while Obama made jokes about himself and people laughed because he was funny.

This attitude about Wanda Sykes appears to be the conventional wisdom. But. Humor is what keeps us grounded. It gives life zest. It also gives another way to look at our world. It gives us permission to laugh at ourselves, to take life a little less seriously, and to temper our grief. Going over the line and making us laugh about serious issues is almost a tradition - especially about our most sacred traditions. To me, I guess it depends on the situation, the context, what is said, how it's said, why it's said, and all the other intangibles that determine whether something is funny or not funny. Ten people can tell the same joke, so why do some people laugh, others smile politely, and others become deeply offended?

I normally don't post other posts or articles in their entirety, but because it is what generated this post, and because it is important to this discussion and important to many discussions taking place today, below is the blog from the Monday 11th TAPPED blog at the American Prospect which you can find here.

WANDA SYKES' OFFENSIVE ROUTINE.

Wanda Sykes' comedy routine at the White House Correspondent's Dinner was really offensive. In it, Sykes suggested that conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh is supported by Hamas, and that Islamists are "constantly issuing Limbaugh talking points." She joked about terrorists supporting conservatives in general, suggesting that recent violent events in Iraq are attempts by terrorists to swing the upcoming midterm elections in favor of Republicans.

Then she got really personal. She joked that Limbaugh was a racist who doesn't want black people to "escap[e] the underclass." She accused him of being responsible for killing "a million babies a year," and aired her friend's theory that Limbaugh himself was a terrorist attack," a followup to 9/11. She also, most disgustingly, said that if conservatives kept apologizing to Limbaugh, they'd eventually contract "anal poisoning." She wondered when Republicans would finally stop "bending over and grabbing their ankles" for Limbaugh, and finally concluded that Limbaugh was just a "bad guy."

Oh wait. Wanda Sykes didn't say any of these things. These are things Rush Limbaugh has said about Obama or other Democrats in the past year, the kind of statements few reporters found offensive enough to write about, despite the fact that most of them were said with the utmost seriousness. And while Sykes is a mere comedian whose influence on the Democratic Party is negligible, Limbaugh's influence in the party is so great that Republican leaders can't even criticize him without having to issue apologies after the fact.

The difference? Rush Limbaugh wasn't funny when he made those comments. Rush Limbaugh wasn't trying to be funny. Rush Limbaugh was and is deadly serious. Rush Limbaugh may be an entertainer, but he is not a comedian. Rush Limbaugh may be an entertainer, but he has deluded himself and others into believing that he is the head of the Republican Party, that he is an intelligent, important man with intelligent and important things to say. That's why I can be deeply offended when Rush Limbaugh says one thing, and laugh when Wanda Sykes says the same.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Jeffery Beauregard Sessions III

Well aren't we lucky. We've increased the number of (supposedly) Democratic senators by one, and in exchange, have gotten Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III as the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Not only does this committee hold hearings to confirm the next Supreme Court Justice now that Justice Souter has retired, but it also is responsible for civil rights cases. Joy.

Why do I say supposedly when referring to Arlen Specter, our newest Democratic senator? After crossing the aisle last week to join the Democrats, Mr. Specter was reported to have told President Obama that he was a loyal Democrat. This was reported by the Washington Post and by George Stephanopolous. Four days later (an extraordinary amount of time to let such a statement go unchallenged in Washington) Mr. Specter appeared on Meet the Press this past Sunday claiming "I did not say that. I did not say that I was a loyal Democrat." hmmmm. I see problems ahead. Where does that fit into this post? We'll get to that.

Anyhoo. Mr. Sessions. Twenty-three years ago, Sessions appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee as an appointee to a Federal Judgeship under President Reagan. Unfortunately for Mr. Sessions (extremely fortunately for the rest of us as these judgeships are lifetime appointments - think Jay Bybee) he was not confirmed.

Sort of an interesting turn of the circle that Sessions went on to become a Senator and then this week to be appointed to this committee, right? Actually, although committee assignments are all about seniority, this one is all about history. The Republican leadership received a massive amount of pressure (although they certainly didn't need it - they saw the exquisite irony of this appointment) to appoint Sessions to the Senate Judiciary Committee, so they did. The deal? He sits on the committee until 2010, at which time he gives up the seat to Chuck Grassley who would normally have taken the seat. Neat huh? Just long enough to seat a new Supreme. And Specter? At some point, the full Senate votes on whomever the Committee has confirmed. So, will Specter be a Democrat or a Republican?

So why wasn't Sessions confirmed as a Federal Judge? Think racist. Extreme racist. His issue (they all have an issue) was voting rights. At the time, he had prosecuted 3 men for voter fraud in the 1984 election - 1 of whom had been an aide to Martin Luther King Jr. This after finding 14 possibly fraudulent ballots (out of 1.7 million cast) and hours spent interviewing black voters in predominantly black counties. (By the way, all three were acquitted after 4 hours deliberation - that jury wasn't stupid. They knew how hard he had to search to dummy up a case). He referred to an African American Assistant US Attorney as "boy." He claimed that the NAACP was un-American and communist inspired. He called a white civil rights attorney a "disgrace to his race" for litigating civil rights cases (remember, the Senate Judiciary Committee is responsible for civil rights cases). I could go on, but I have other stuff to do this week.

A couple of interesting points. Many articles are being written all over the blogosphere and in the mainstream press (and the not so mainstream press) about who President Obama might choose to replace Justice Souter. Many articles are being written about Senator Sessions and many, many talk shows are discussing both of these issues. You have to do a little digging to find out the details of Session's history.

MSNBC's "First Read" penned by White House political reporters including Chuck Todd would - you would expect - go into some depth, right? Today, the article posted is called SCOTUS POLITICS: Meet Jeff Sessions which you can read here which barely references this controversy, simply stating that "...Sessions had once called the NAACP an ‘un-American’ group, while another raised issues about remarks Sessions made about the Ku Klux Klan.” Not a thing about his direct, racist comments to others which are a little more potent than third hand, watered down remarks that really don't give any depth to the issue of his racism.

As a senator, Sessions was one of only nine to oppose Senator McCain's anti-torture amendment. He supported Vice-President Cheney's proposal to exempt the CIA from any anti-torture legislation. When the bill to repeal the estate tax was failing, he wanted to use Hurricane Katrina as a push-back, saying that businesses who had had a death might now be more likely to support the bill. What a delightful guy. He scores the lowest on immigration, environmental protection, global warming, and of course, civil rights. When the Republican party in the form of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity talk about the purity of the party, this is who they mean.

Want to find out more? Here are some links.
The Senator Who's Worse Than Lott
Profile of Sessions by CQ Politics
Looking for a Corpse to Make a Case

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k