Tom DeLay & Chris Matthews
Chris Matthews' no-holds-barred interview with Tom DeLay aired last night, during which DeLay was able to clear his name on several accounts. Among the hard-hitting questions: "Okay I've got to ask you a cosmic question, you're Tom Delay. You're not in this business for the money. You live modestly. You commute back and forth from Washington to Houston, Texas. Why? What drives you every day?"
(For more on DeLay's "modest" lifestyle, the Plank recommends this AP piece.)
During the interview, that trouble DeLay has been having with the renegade prosecutor in Texas was quickly explained away as a tremendous conspiracy amongst the members of the Texas judicial system - which is the only way to characterize DeLay's belief that a politically-motivated prosecutor can successfully indict DeLay on a law "that [doesn't] make sense" (the law is one against Money Laundering).
Among DeLay's more entertaining explanations is that the indictment was brought by a grand jury "that didn't even go through orientation" - I suppose they missed the "Tom DeLay is never to be indicted" part of the orientation, then.
When the subject of the Abramoff investigation came up, where one of DeLay's former top aides, Michael Scanlon, has pled guilty to bribery and fraud, DeLay got a little carried away:
There's nothing they can say against me unless they lie. I've had it all checked out by my lawyers and everything that we've done has a clean bill of health. Department of Justice has told my lawyers on several occasions that I'm not a target of this investigation. We have no problem here. All we have are leftist groups trying to create a sense of guilt by association in this case. They can not tell you or charge me with one thing that's against the law or against the House rules or even unethical.
It's worth pointing out that one does not receive a target letter from investigators (meaning that you're in immediate danger of being charged) until you're a target. But the fact that you haven't received a letter certainly does not mean that you never will. So that's a meaningless comment.
On the subject of his golfing trip to Scotland in 2000, DeLay asserted that the trip had been paid for by "a legitimate conservative organization....there was no pass through." Apparently Jack Abramoff's credit card is a legitimate conservative organization?
(The Fix has more.)
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
Monday, January 30, 2006
Administration Tie to Abramoff Revealed
Official Warned Abramoff, Filing Alleges
By PETE YOSTThe Associated PressSunday, January 29, 2006; 9:41 PM
WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration's former chief procurement official tipped off lobbyist Jack Abramoff that the government was about to suspend the federal contracts of an Abramoff client, newly filed court papers say.
David Safavian provided "sensitive and confidential information" about four subsidiaries of Tyco International to Abramoff regarding internal deliberations at the General Services Administration, say the court papers filed Friday in a criminal case against Safavian.
Abramoff has pleaded guilty to conspiracy, tax evasion and mail fraud in a burgeoning bribery probe centered on Capitol Hill but also involving the Interior Department.
The White House is refusing to release photographs of President Bush and Abramoff or to reveal what contact Abramoff had with White House aides.
Acting on the information that Abramoff provided the company in November 2003, Tyco lawyer Timothy Flanigan, a former assistant attorney general in the Bush administration, contacted the general counsel to the GSA and asked for an opportunity to address the suspension.
The company revealed Flanigan's role in a statement.
In October, Flanigan withdrew his nomination to be Bush's deputy attorney general. His confirmation was delayed due to questions about his dealings with Abramoff when Abramoff was a Tyco lobbyist.
The government had planned to suspend Tyco because of alleged criminal conduct by former Tyco executives.
After advising Abramoff about the internal deliberations at GSA, Safavian suggested to Abramoff what arguments Tyco should make when it appealed the suspension decision, the court papers in Safavian's federal court case say.
Once tipped off by Abramoff, Tyco hired an outside law firm and successfully petitioned the government to lift the suspension and allow Tyco to continue to perform on government contracts.
The law firm outlined "the many steps that Tyco had taken, including to bring on a new board of directors, a new CEO and new corporate senior management," Tyco said in its statement.
Safavian faces trial on charges that he lied and obstructed investigations into whether he aided Abramoff in efforts to acquire GSA-controlled property around the nation's capital.
The government said in its court filing Friday that it intends to present the information regarding Tyco at Safavian's upcoming trial. Safavian has pleaded innocent and his lawyers have moved for dismissal of all charges.
Safavian is accused of concealing from federal investigators that Abramoff was seeking to do business with the GSA when Safavian joined the lobbyist on a golf trip to Scotland in 2002. At the time, Safavian was GSA's chief of staff. He became the Bush administration's chief procurement official in November 2004.
In its statement, Tyco said that the information from Abramoff had come in unsolicited, that the corporation did not use Abramoff's services to respond to GSA, and that the company did not contact Safavian directly.
The company said its outside counsel, George Terwilliger, was assured by Justice Department prosecutors that neither the company nor anyone at the company, including Flanigan, is accused, is suspected or is being investigated for any wrongdoing.
In May 2003, Abramoff, then employed by the Washington firm Greenberg Traurig, solicited Tyco for lobbying on a tax issue.
Prosecutors say Abramoff recommended that Tyco hire both him and a public relations and campaign consulting firm called GrassRoots Interactive, but hid from Tyco that GrassRoots Interactive was his business.
In May and June 2003, Tyco paid GrassRoots Interactive, directly and through Greenberg Traurig's bank account, about $1.8 million, of which about $1.6 million went to Abramoff and entities he controlled, prosecutors say.
By PETE YOSTThe Associated PressSunday, January 29, 2006; 9:41 PM
WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration's former chief procurement official tipped off lobbyist Jack Abramoff that the government was about to suspend the federal contracts of an Abramoff client, newly filed court papers say.
David Safavian provided "sensitive and confidential information" about four subsidiaries of Tyco International to Abramoff regarding internal deliberations at the General Services Administration, say the court papers filed Friday in a criminal case against Safavian.
Abramoff has pleaded guilty to conspiracy, tax evasion and mail fraud in a burgeoning bribery probe centered on Capitol Hill but also involving the Interior Department.
The White House is refusing to release photographs of President Bush and Abramoff or to reveal what contact Abramoff had with White House aides.
Acting on the information that Abramoff provided the company in November 2003, Tyco lawyer Timothy Flanigan, a former assistant attorney general in the Bush administration, contacted the general counsel to the GSA and asked for an opportunity to address the suspension.
The company revealed Flanigan's role in a statement.
In October, Flanigan withdrew his nomination to be Bush's deputy attorney general. His confirmation was delayed due to questions about his dealings with Abramoff when Abramoff was a Tyco lobbyist.
The government had planned to suspend Tyco because of alleged criminal conduct by former Tyco executives.
After advising Abramoff about the internal deliberations at GSA, Safavian suggested to Abramoff what arguments Tyco should make when it appealed the suspension decision, the court papers in Safavian's federal court case say.
Once tipped off by Abramoff, Tyco hired an outside law firm and successfully petitioned the government to lift the suspension and allow Tyco to continue to perform on government contracts.
The law firm outlined "the many steps that Tyco had taken, including to bring on a new board of directors, a new CEO and new corporate senior management," Tyco said in its statement.
Safavian faces trial on charges that he lied and obstructed investigations into whether he aided Abramoff in efforts to acquire GSA-controlled property around the nation's capital.
The government said in its court filing Friday that it intends to present the information regarding Tyco at Safavian's upcoming trial. Safavian has pleaded innocent and his lawyers have moved for dismissal of all charges.
Safavian is accused of concealing from federal investigators that Abramoff was seeking to do business with the GSA when Safavian joined the lobbyist on a golf trip to Scotland in 2002. At the time, Safavian was GSA's chief of staff. He became the Bush administration's chief procurement official in November 2004.
In its statement, Tyco said that the information from Abramoff had come in unsolicited, that the corporation did not use Abramoff's services to respond to GSA, and that the company did not contact Safavian directly.
The company said its outside counsel, George Terwilliger, was assured by Justice Department prosecutors that neither the company nor anyone at the company, including Flanigan, is accused, is suspected or is being investigated for any wrongdoing.
In May 2003, Abramoff, then employed by the Washington firm Greenberg Traurig, solicited Tyco for lobbying on a tax issue.
Prosecutors say Abramoff recommended that Tyco hire both him and a public relations and campaign consulting firm called GrassRoots Interactive, but hid from Tyco that GrassRoots Interactive was his business.
In May and June 2003, Tyco paid GrassRoots Interactive, directly and through Greenberg Traurig's bank account, about $1.8 million, of which about $1.6 million went to Abramoff and entities he controlled, prosecutors say.
nothing to offer but a long list of failures
Gay Marriage Amendment: In 2006, with nothing to offer but a long list of failures, GOP will return to hate in the name of Jesus by August Keso
With Republicans and Bush never less popular; Iraq about to implode; the economy limping along; illegal domestic spy programs leading to possible impeachment; Katrina's incompetent handling continuing, and Abramoff casting a long shadow over the entire Republican so-called revolution - the GOP has decided to, once again, distract the people from the real issues. Unable to take a message, or record of success to the American people in 2006, Republicans, Raw Story has learned, intend to return to their message of hate in the name of Jesus. They will offer an amendment to ban gay marriage, and on the issues that really matter, leave the people to fend for themselves.In 2006, as in 2002 and 2004, there will be no meaningful discussions about jobs, healthcare, education, deficits, and how to exit Iraq successfully. No, the Republican Party, which has failed the nation and people on every level, won't engage the most pressing and vital issues facing the country. Then again, how could they? After more than ten years of controlling the House, four leading the Senate, and five possessing the White House - what have Republicans accomplished?The answer is nothing positive, and an avalanche of detrimental and monumentally devastating results. Here is the Republican record they can't run on:1. Wiped out a budget surplus of $236 billion and instituted a crippling deficit, which currently stands at more than $8 trillion.2. Left the people of New Orleans to fend for themselves3. Sold the government -- the people's government -- to, not only Abramoff, but literally thousands of Jack Abramoffs4. Their House Majority Leader, Tom DeLay, has been indicted on money laundering charges5. A Republican House member, Duke Cunningham, has pleaded guilty to bribery charges6. They tried to rip Terry Schiavo out of her deathbed, for cheap political gain7. Bush's Pentagon, FBI, and NSA have spied on innocent Americans like the Quakers and people who don't eat meat - all of it done illegally8. They lied the nation to war in Iraq and have spent more than $228 billion to date, fighting that war9. They've completely lost control of the war in Iraq, and the only people that have benefited are the Shia radicals and Halliburton, which has received almost $11 billion for services including knowingly providing the troops with tainted water10. Their foreign policy has resulted in Iran returning to its fundamentalist, insane Islamic roots and Hamas winning elections in Palestine11. They've cut college education loans, so they could give tax-cuts of more than $12 billion to oil and energy corporations who've amassed the largest financial gains in recorded history - all by over-charging the American consumer12. They've made it impossible for the average working American to file bankruptcy when medical bills and lost jobs force them into poverty, but allowed the wealthiest to continue bankruptcy revolving door opportunities13. They've destroyed Medicare14. Paid journalists to write propaganda, so they can trick the people into going along with their failed policies15. They've destroyed FEMA, which by all accounts, under Clinton and Democrats, had been the governments crowning jewel16. According to the Pentagon's own report, Bush and Republicans have shattered the US military17. Three years on, and Bush and Republicans have yet, to get armor to the troops in Iraq18. Usama bin-Laden still thumbs his nose at Bush19. While the wealthiest in America have experienced record profits and increased wages, working family's wages have fallen. 20. Six million Americans have lost health insurance since Bush and Republicans have gained powerYes, that is the true list of Republican "accomplishments," so with nothing to offer, not one single successful program or plan; they bring America more division, more hate, and more distractions from the Republican miserably failed record - they offer a gay marriage amendment. How pathetic!Though the Democrats won't be smart enough or courageous enough to do it, the Party response to this latest Republican plan of hate and division should be, "Just as soon as Frist, Hastert, Bush, and Blunt show us how this gay marriage amendment will create one single job, lower by one-cent the cost of healthcare, make one school better, or prevent the death of one more US military person in Iraq - we'll gladly sign onto the their pathetic gay marriage amendment. Until then - not only no, but HELL NO!"
Copyright © 2005 Progressive Daily BeaconPlease contact editor@progressivedailybeacon.com with any questions or comments
With Republicans and Bush never less popular; Iraq about to implode; the economy limping along; illegal domestic spy programs leading to possible impeachment; Katrina's incompetent handling continuing, and Abramoff casting a long shadow over the entire Republican so-called revolution - the GOP has decided to, once again, distract the people from the real issues. Unable to take a message, or record of success to the American people in 2006, Republicans, Raw Story has learned, intend to return to their message of hate in the name of Jesus. They will offer an amendment to ban gay marriage, and on the issues that really matter, leave the people to fend for themselves.In 2006, as in 2002 and 2004, there will be no meaningful discussions about jobs, healthcare, education, deficits, and how to exit Iraq successfully. No, the Republican Party, which has failed the nation and people on every level, won't engage the most pressing and vital issues facing the country. Then again, how could they? After more than ten years of controlling the House, four leading the Senate, and five possessing the White House - what have Republicans accomplished?The answer is nothing positive, and an avalanche of detrimental and monumentally devastating results. Here is the Republican record they can't run on:1. Wiped out a budget surplus of $236 billion and instituted a crippling deficit, which currently stands at more than $8 trillion.2. Left the people of New Orleans to fend for themselves3. Sold the government -- the people's government -- to, not only Abramoff, but literally thousands of Jack Abramoffs4. Their House Majority Leader, Tom DeLay, has been indicted on money laundering charges5. A Republican House member, Duke Cunningham, has pleaded guilty to bribery charges6. They tried to rip Terry Schiavo out of her deathbed, for cheap political gain7. Bush's Pentagon, FBI, and NSA have spied on innocent Americans like the Quakers and people who don't eat meat - all of it done illegally8. They lied the nation to war in Iraq and have spent more than $228 billion to date, fighting that war9. They've completely lost control of the war in Iraq, and the only people that have benefited are the Shia radicals and Halliburton, which has received almost $11 billion for services including knowingly providing the troops with tainted water10. Their foreign policy has resulted in Iran returning to its fundamentalist, insane Islamic roots and Hamas winning elections in Palestine11. They've cut college education loans, so they could give tax-cuts of more than $12 billion to oil and energy corporations who've amassed the largest financial gains in recorded history - all by over-charging the American consumer12. They've made it impossible for the average working American to file bankruptcy when medical bills and lost jobs force them into poverty, but allowed the wealthiest to continue bankruptcy revolving door opportunities13. They've destroyed Medicare14. Paid journalists to write propaganda, so they can trick the people into going along with their failed policies15. They've destroyed FEMA, which by all accounts, under Clinton and Democrats, had been the governments crowning jewel16. According to the Pentagon's own report, Bush and Republicans have shattered the US military17. Three years on, and Bush and Republicans have yet, to get armor to the troops in Iraq18. Usama bin-Laden still thumbs his nose at Bush19. While the wealthiest in America have experienced record profits and increased wages, working family's wages have fallen. 20. Six million Americans have lost health insurance since Bush and Republicans have gained powerYes, that is the true list of Republican "accomplishments," so with nothing to offer, not one single successful program or plan; they bring America more division, more hate, and more distractions from the Republican miserably failed record - they offer a gay marriage amendment. How pathetic!Though the Democrats won't be smart enough or courageous enough to do it, the Party response to this latest Republican plan of hate and division should be, "Just as soon as Frist, Hastert, Bush, and Blunt show us how this gay marriage amendment will create one single job, lower by one-cent the cost of healthcare, make one school better, or prevent the death of one more US military person in Iraq - we'll gladly sign onto the their pathetic gay marriage amendment. Until then - not only no, but HELL NO!"
Copyright © 2005 Progressive Daily BeaconPlease contact editor@progressivedailybeacon.com with any questions or comments
Million Phone March
Million Phone March Monday to STOP Alito
Over the weekend you generated a tsunami of phone calls supporting a filibuster of Alito. Today at 4:30 PM EST is the cloture vote on the Alito filibuster, and with your dedication we will generate two tsunamis. We will win because we will hit them where they are weakest, their fear of not getting reelected. In your calls today we will arm you below with specifics about candidate registration deadlines for primary challenges so THEY know WE know where their election hopes live. The bottom line is ANY senator who betrays the will of the people must be removed from the general election before they have a chance to lose yet another seat because of their cowardice, and be replaced w ith a stronger candidate who WILL fight for the people and win. Regardless of how this turns out, we will immediately and aggressively move in that direction. Very simply, in your calls today ask for a commitment that they will either vote against cloture OR abstain (either is acceptable). If not tell them you will encourage a challenger to run in their own state and support them any way you can. Use the details below (like cutoff date for primary candidate filing) to let them know how very serious you are. Tell them what state you are actually calling from if they ask. Please concentrate on your own senators and the ones listed below as the key ones to sway. All the toll free numbers to the Washington offices we have are 888-355-3588, 888-818-6641, 800-426-8073, 877-851-6427, 866-340-9279 and 866-340-9281. The master list of all direct dial phone and fax numbers for all senators state by state including all district offices is here: http://www.nocrony.com/master_senate_phones.txt UP FOR ELECTION IN 2006 Mary Landrieu [LA], currently has NO primary challenger but if she will not listen to the people we have until 8/11 to find an alternative to run against her. Daniel Akaka [HI], already has two primary challengers, one of whom, Ed Case, is a former elected state representative and is polling well. Joe Lieberman [CT], already has a primary challenge looming from Ned Lamont who has set up an exploratory site, and until 5/16 to make the decision to jump in. They last thing Joe needs is lots of more encouragement for Lamont. Bill Nelson [FL], currently has NO primary challenger, with until 5/12 to find one. Ben Nelson [NE], currently has NO primary challenger, but if there is a concerned citizen in Nebraska who wants to run they have until 3/1 to register as a candidate. Jeff Bingaman [NM], currently has NO primary challenger but still two weeks remain until the deadline for filing of 2/14. Carper [DE], currently has NO primary challenger and all the way until 7/28 to enter the primary against him. Kohl [WI], currently has NO primary challenger. We have heard he plans on skipping the vote, which is the same thing as an abstain. The filing deadline in Wisconsin is 7/11. Cantwell [WA], is being already challenged by a strong progressive candidate, Mark Wilson. Byrd [WV], has no serious primary challenger we can confirm and the 1/28 deadline has just expired. Perhaps you can appeal to his professed love of the Constitution which Alito would gut. Robert Menendez [NJ], was just appointed but has to run himself this year. If he drops the ball there are challengers waiting in the wings and until 4/10 to decide. Lincoln Chafee [RI] is a Republican who professes to be pro-choice and not feeling very secure right n ow about her 2006 prospects. Perhaps he is a possibility for abstention on cloture. Olympia Snowe [ME] is a another Republican who professes to be pro-choice who must face the electorate in 2006. She should also be encouraged to abstain on cloture. OTHER POSSIBLE SWING SENATORS Blanche Lambert Lincoln [AR], up for reelection in 2010 Mark Pryor [AR], up for reelection in 2008 Tom Harkin [IA], up for reelection in 2008 Evan Bayh [IN], up for reelection in 2010 Susan Collins [ME], up for reelection in 2008 Carl Levin [MI], up for reelection in 2008 Max Baucus [MT], up for reelection in 2008 Frank Lautenberg [NJ], up for reelection in 2008 Tim Johnson [SD], up for reelection in 2008 Patty Murray [WA], up for reelection in 2010 Just tell them that failure to support this filibuster will be a deal breaker as Alito starts to cast the votes that his reactionary supporters absolutely know he will. If you can't get through any other way, or even if you can, also submit these two action pages too: http://www.millionphonemarch.com/nuke_option.php http://www.millionphonemarch.com/reid.php Let us be able to look back and say we did everything we could have done to win this victory in spite of the corrupt media pundits who are working overtime to tell us what we cannot do. We are proving them wrong day by day. At the very worst we will establish once and for all who we can never trust with the public office ever again. Please take action NOW, so we can win all victories that are supposed to be ours, and forward this message to everyone else you know.
This link is an EASY and QUICK way to simultaneously FAX undecided moderate Senators on supporting the filibuster initiated by Sen. Kerry:http://www.savethecourt.org/siteapps/advocacy/index.aspx?c=mwK0JbNTJrF&b=1387741&action=5400&template=x.ascxPlease pass it on and keep up the fight--let all our Senators know that we're behind them if they'll fight for us! :) I know that a filibuster is a long shot, but it will show that our elected Senators are willing to fight for the rights of all Americans. :)
For Florida Election News See:
http://www.changeintallahassee.com/
Political Talk For And By Political Junkies
http://politalk1.blogspot.com/
Over the weekend you generated a tsunami of phone calls supporting a filibuster of Alito. Today at 4:30 PM EST is the cloture vote on the Alito filibuster, and with your dedication we will generate two tsunamis. We will win because we will hit them where they are weakest, their fear of not getting reelected. In your calls today we will arm you below with specifics about candidate registration deadlines for primary challenges so THEY know WE know where their election hopes live. The bottom line is ANY senator who betrays the will of the people must be removed from the general election before they have a chance to lose yet another seat because of their cowardice, and be replaced w ith a stronger candidate who WILL fight for the people and win. Regardless of how this turns out, we will immediately and aggressively move in that direction. Very simply, in your calls today ask for a commitment that they will either vote against cloture OR abstain (either is acceptable). If not tell them you will encourage a challenger to run in their own state and support them any way you can. Use the details below (like cutoff date for primary candidate filing) to let them know how very serious you are. Tell them what state you are actually calling from if they ask. Please concentrate on your own senators and the ones listed below as the key ones to sway. All the toll free numbers to the Washington offices we have are 888-355-3588, 888-818-6641, 800-426-8073, 877-851-6427, 866-340-9279 and 866-340-9281. The master list of all direct dial phone and fax numbers for all senators state by state including all district offices is here: http://www.nocrony.com/master_senate_phones.txt UP FOR ELECTION IN 2006 Mary Landrieu [LA], currently has NO primary challenger but if she will not listen to the people we have until 8/11 to find an alternative to run against her. Daniel Akaka [HI], already has two primary challengers, one of whom, Ed Case, is a former elected state representative and is polling well. Joe Lieberman [CT], already has a primary challenge looming from Ned Lamont who has set up an exploratory site, and until 5/16 to make the decision to jump in. They last thing Joe needs is lots of more encouragement for Lamont. Bill Nelson [FL], currently has NO primary challenger, with until 5/12 to find one. Ben Nelson [NE], currently has NO primary challenger, but if there is a concerned citizen in Nebraska who wants to run they have until 3/1 to register as a candidate. Jeff Bingaman [NM], currently has NO primary challenger but still two weeks remain until the deadline for filing of 2/14. Carper [DE], currently has NO primary challenger and all the way until 7/28 to enter the primary against him. Kohl [WI], currently has NO primary challenger. We have heard he plans on skipping the vote, which is the same thing as an abstain. The filing deadline in Wisconsin is 7/11. Cantwell [WA], is being already challenged by a strong progressive candidate, Mark Wilson. Byrd [WV], has no serious primary challenger we can confirm and the 1/28 deadline has just expired. Perhaps you can appeal to his professed love of the Constitution which Alito would gut. Robert Menendez [NJ], was just appointed but has to run himself this year. If he drops the ball there are challengers waiting in the wings and until 4/10 to decide. Lincoln Chafee [RI] is a Republican who professes to be pro-choice and not feeling very secure right n ow about her 2006 prospects. Perhaps he is a possibility for abstention on cloture. Olympia Snowe [ME] is a another Republican who professes to be pro-choice who must face the electorate in 2006. She should also be encouraged to abstain on cloture. OTHER POSSIBLE SWING SENATORS Blanche Lambert Lincoln [AR], up for reelection in 2010 Mark Pryor [AR], up for reelection in 2008 Tom Harkin [IA], up for reelection in 2008 Evan Bayh [IN], up for reelection in 2010 Susan Collins [ME], up for reelection in 2008 Carl Levin [MI], up for reelection in 2008 Max Baucus [MT], up for reelection in 2008 Frank Lautenberg [NJ], up for reelection in 2008 Tim Johnson [SD], up for reelection in 2008 Patty Murray [WA], up for reelection in 2010 Just tell them that failure to support this filibuster will be a deal breaker as Alito starts to cast the votes that his reactionary supporters absolutely know he will. If you can't get through any other way, or even if you can, also submit these two action pages too: http://www.millionphonemarch.com/nuke_option.php http://www.millionphonemarch.com/reid.php Let us be able to look back and say we did everything we could have done to win this victory in spite of the corrupt media pundits who are working overtime to tell us what we cannot do. We are proving them wrong day by day. At the very worst we will establish once and for all who we can never trust with the public office ever again. Please take action NOW, so we can win all victories that are supposed to be ours, and forward this message to everyone else you know.
This link is an EASY and QUICK way to simultaneously FAX undecided moderate Senators on supporting the filibuster initiated by Sen. Kerry:http://www.savethecourt.org/siteapps/advocacy/index.aspx?c=mwK0JbNTJrF&b=1387741&action=5400&template=x.ascxPlease pass it on and keep up the fight--let all our Senators know that we're behind them if they'll fight for us! :) I know that a filibuster is a long shot, but it will show that our elected Senators are willing to fight for the rights of all Americans. :)
For Florida Election News See:
http://www.changeintallahassee.com/
Political Talk For And By Political Junkies
http://politalk1.blogspot.com/
Sunday, January 29, 2006
Ted Koppel Pens First Piece as 'NY Times' Columnist--Comes Out Swinging
Ted Koppel Pens First Piece as 'NY Times' Columnist--Comes Out Swinging By
E&P Staff NEW YORK In his first contribution after being named a New York Times columnist, former ABC newsman Ted Koppel declares, "I cannot help but see that the industry in which I have spent my entire adult life is in decline and in distress."He adds: "The accusation that television news has a political agenda misses the point. Right now, the main agenda is to give people what they want. It is not partisanship but profitability that shapes what you see." In a surprise conclusion, he suggests that perhaps rather than aiming news shows at the disinterested younger segment, the networks should focus on serving older consumers who actually are interested in serious news. Is there a lesson for newspapers here? The goal for the traditional broadcast networks now "is to identify those segments of the audience considered most desirable by the advertising community and then to cater to them," Koppel writes. "Most television news programs are therefore designed to satisfy the perceived appetites of our audiences. That may be not only acceptable but unavoidable in entertainment; in news, however, it is the journalists who should be telling their viewers what is important, not the other way around. "Indeed, in television news these days, the programs are being shaped to attract, most particularly, 18-to-34-year-old viewers. They, in turn, are presumed to be partly brain-dead — though not so insensible as to be unmoved by the blandishments of sponsors. "Most particularly on cable news, a calculated subjectivity has, indeed, displaced the old-fashioned goal of conveying the news dispassionately. But that, too, has less to do with partisan politics than simple capitalism." Koppel knocks CNN's new emphasis on journalism-by-empathy, and observes: "Even Fox News's product has less to do with ideology and more to do with changing business models..."Now, television news should not become a sort of intellectual broccoli to be jammed down our viewers' unwilling throats. We are obliged to make our offerings as palatable as possible. But there are too many important things happening in the world today to allow the diet to be determined to such a degree by the popular tastes of a relatively narrow and apparently uninterested demographic...."If the network news divisions cannot be convinced that their future depends on attracting all demographic groups, then perhaps, at least, they can be persuaded to aim for the largest single demographic with the most disposable income — one that may actually have an appetite for serious news. That would seem like a no-brainer. "
E&P Staff NEW YORK In his first contribution after being named a New York Times columnist, former ABC newsman Ted Koppel declares, "I cannot help but see that the industry in which I have spent my entire adult life is in decline and in distress."He adds: "The accusation that television news has a political agenda misses the point. Right now, the main agenda is to give people what they want. It is not partisanship but profitability that shapes what you see." In a surprise conclusion, he suggests that perhaps rather than aiming news shows at the disinterested younger segment, the networks should focus on serving older consumers who actually are interested in serious news. Is there a lesson for newspapers here? The goal for the traditional broadcast networks now "is to identify those segments of the audience considered most desirable by the advertising community and then to cater to them," Koppel writes. "Most television news programs are therefore designed to satisfy the perceived appetites of our audiences. That may be not only acceptable but unavoidable in entertainment; in news, however, it is the journalists who should be telling their viewers what is important, not the other way around. "Indeed, in television news these days, the programs are being shaped to attract, most particularly, 18-to-34-year-old viewers. They, in turn, are presumed to be partly brain-dead — though not so insensible as to be unmoved by the blandishments of sponsors. "Most particularly on cable news, a calculated subjectivity has, indeed, displaced the old-fashioned goal of conveying the news dispassionately. But that, too, has less to do with partisan politics than simple capitalism." Koppel knocks CNN's new emphasis on journalism-by-empathy, and observes: "Even Fox News's product has less to do with ideology and more to do with changing business models..."Now, television news should not become a sort of intellectual broccoli to be jammed down our viewers' unwilling throats. We are obliged to make our offerings as palatable as possible. But there are too many important things happening in the world today to allow the diet to be determined to such a degree by the popular tastes of a relatively narrow and apparently uninterested demographic...."If the network news divisions cannot be convinced that their future depends on attracting all demographic groups, then perhaps, at least, they can be persuaded to aim for the largest single demographic with the most disposable income — one that may actually have an appetite for serious news. That would seem like a no-brainer. "
Saturday, January 28, 2006
Mitchell mischaracterized NSA surveillance program, polling
Mitchell mischaracterized NSA surveillance program, polling
Summary: NBC's Andrea Mitchell claimed that recent polls on President Bush's authorization of warrantless wiretapping showed "little public outcry over the program, especially when [the administration] tell[s] people it is limited only to those who talk to Al Qaeda." What Mitchell did not note is that the administration's characterization of the program understates its scope. Moreover, recent polling shows that support for the program is at best split.
During the January 25 edition of NBC's Nightly News, NBC chief foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell claimed that recent polls on President Bush's authorization of warrantless wiretapping by the National Security Agency (NSA) showed "little public outcry over the program, especially when [the administration] tell[s] people it is limited only to those who talk to Al Qaeda." What Mitchell did not note is that the administration's characterization of the program as limited to Al Qaeda communications significantly understates its reported scope. Moreover, recent polling shows that support for the program is at best split, even when respondents are asked whether they approve or disapprove of the program based on the administration's limited and disputed characterization. The most recent polls -- released before Mitchell's statement -- show that 51 percent of Americans do not approve of the program. In addition, a January 23 CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll found that 58 percent of Americans believe a special prosecutor should be appointed to investigate the wiretapping authorization, while 39 percent disagree.
Reporting on the Bush administration's effort, over the past week, to defend the NSA program, Mitchell said: "Democrats think their best argument is that the program is a power grab by the president and will ultimately prove to be unpopular. Despite the political furor, the White House is encouraged by recent polls, showing little public outcry over the program, especially when they tell people it is limited only to those who talk to Al Qaeda."
However, according to The New York Times' initial report and its subsequent reporting on the surveillance program, government sources tell quite a different story from the one suggested by the administration and advanced by Mitchell, namely that the program involves only the surveillance of "those who talk to Al Qaeda" and that only international calls are monitored.
Contrary to the administration's characterization of the program as monitoring only international calls, a December 21 Times article reported that the NSA program captured "purely domestic" calls. Further, a January 17 Times report quoted FBI officials saying that the NSA program produced a high volume of leads but the vast majority led to individuals within the United States who had no connection to terrorism.
Moreover, surveillance is reportedly far from limited to "those who talk to Al Qaeda." Far from the certainty implied by Mitchell's statement that only those who are actually "talk[ing] to Al Qaeda" are surveillance targets, President Bush and White House spokesman Scott McClellan have acknowledged that all the NSA requires is that it "reasonably suspect" someone of links to Al Qaeda to have that person's communications intercepted.
While no national polls have yet presented a description of the program broad enough to encompass what has been reported to be its scope -- none have asked respondents whether they support the surveillance of persons without proven links to Al Qaeda within the United States without first obtaining a warrant required by law -- public opinion has been split and is turning increasingly negative. The CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll presented the administration's limited characterization of the program as monitoring strictly international calls that involved individuals suspected of terrorism. Nevertheless, the poll found that 51 percent of respondents said that the Bush administration was wrong to "wiretap[ ] telephone conversations between U.S. citizens living in the United States and suspected terrorists living in other countries without getting a court order allowing it to do so." The poll also found that 58 percent support appointing a special prosecutor to investigate the matter. Because Mitchell's comments were made before the releases of the January 27 New York Times/CBS News and Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg polls, we have not cited them in the analysis of her comments, but they are consistent with our conclusions that polling shows Americans to be split on the question, with changes in approval percentages very much a function of the wording of questions.
From the January 25 edition of NBC's Nightly News, which featured Andrew Kohut, president of the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press:
MITCHELL: Democrats think their best argument is that the program is a power grab by the president and will ultimately prove to be unpopular. Despite the political furor, the White House is encouraged by recent polls, showing little public outcry over the program, especially when they tell people it is limited only to those who talk to Al Qaeda.
KOHUT [clip]: The public is concerned about civil liberties but what they tell us in the polls is they're more concerned about whether the government is doing enough to -- to protect it from another terrorist attack.
MITCHELL: And tonight the president pledged to reauthorize the eavesdropping for as long as terrorists remain a threat. Andrea Mitchell, NBC News, Washington.
From the December 21 New York Times article:
A surveillance program approved by President Bush to conduct eavesdropping without warrants has captured what are purely domestic communications in some cases, despite a requirement by the White House that one end of the intercepted conversations take place on foreign soil, officials say.
The officials say the National Security Agency's interception of a small number of communications between people within the United States was apparently accidental, and was caused by technical glitches at the National Security Agency in determining whether a communication was in fact ''international.''
From the January 17 New York Times article:
More than a dozen current and former law enforcement and counterterrorism officials, including some in the small circle who knew of the secret eavesdropping program and how it played out at the F.B.I., said the torrent of tips led them to few potential terrorists inside the country they did not know of from other sources and diverted agents from counterterrorism work they viewed as more productive.
"We'd chase a number, find it's a school teacher with no indication they've ever been involved in international terrorism - case closed," said one former FBI official, who was aware of the program and the data it generated for the bureau. "After you get a thousand numbers and not one is turning up anything, you get some frustration."
Contact information:
NBCNBC News
NBC News 30 Rockefeller Plaza New York, N.Y. 10112
When contacting the media, please be polite and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and be sure to indicate exactly what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.
Summary: NBC's Andrea Mitchell claimed that recent polls on President Bush's authorization of warrantless wiretapping showed "little public outcry over the program, especially when [the administration] tell[s] people it is limited only to those who talk to Al Qaeda." What Mitchell did not note is that the administration's characterization of the program understates its scope. Moreover, recent polling shows that support for the program is at best split.
During the January 25 edition of NBC's Nightly News, NBC chief foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell claimed that recent polls on President Bush's authorization of warrantless wiretapping by the National Security Agency (NSA) showed "little public outcry over the program, especially when [the administration] tell[s] people it is limited only to those who talk to Al Qaeda." What Mitchell did not note is that the administration's characterization of the program as limited to Al Qaeda communications significantly understates its reported scope. Moreover, recent polling shows that support for the program is at best split, even when respondents are asked whether they approve or disapprove of the program based on the administration's limited and disputed characterization. The most recent polls -- released before Mitchell's statement -- show that 51 percent of Americans do not approve of the program. In addition, a January 23 CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll found that 58 percent of Americans believe a special prosecutor should be appointed to investigate the wiretapping authorization, while 39 percent disagree.
Reporting on the Bush administration's effort, over the past week, to defend the NSA program, Mitchell said: "Democrats think their best argument is that the program is a power grab by the president and will ultimately prove to be unpopular. Despite the political furor, the White House is encouraged by recent polls, showing little public outcry over the program, especially when they tell people it is limited only to those who talk to Al Qaeda."
However, according to The New York Times' initial report and its subsequent reporting on the surveillance program, government sources tell quite a different story from the one suggested by the administration and advanced by Mitchell, namely that the program involves only the surveillance of "those who talk to Al Qaeda" and that only international calls are monitored.
Contrary to the administration's characterization of the program as monitoring only international calls, a December 21 Times article reported that the NSA program captured "purely domestic" calls. Further, a January 17 Times report quoted FBI officials saying that the NSA program produced a high volume of leads but the vast majority led to individuals within the United States who had no connection to terrorism.
Moreover, surveillance is reportedly far from limited to "those who talk to Al Qaeda." Far from the certainty implied by Mitchell's statement that only those who are actually "talk[ing] to Al Qaeda" are surveillance targets, President Bush and White House spokesman Scott McClellan have acknowledged that all the NSA requires is that it "reasonably suspect" someone of links to Al Qaeda to have that person's communications intercepted.
While no national polls have yet presented a description of the program broad enough to encompass what has been reported to be its scope -- none have asked respondents whether they support the surveillance of persons without proven links to Al Qaeda within the United States without first obtaining a warrant required by law -- public opinion has been split and is turning increasingly negative. The CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll presented the administration's limited characterization of the program as monitoring strictly international calls that involved individuals suspected of terrorism. Nevertheless, the poll found that 51 percent of respondents said that the Bush administration was wrong to "wiretap[ ] telephone conversations between U.S. citizens living in the United States and suspected terrorists living in other countries without getting a court order allowing it to do so." The poll also found that 58 percent support appointing a special prosecutor to investigate the matter. Because Mitchell's comments were made before the releases of the January 27 New York Times/CBS News and Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg polls, we have not cited them in the analysis of her comments, but they are consistent with our conclusions that polling shows Americans to be split on the question, with changes in approval percentages very much a function of the wording of questions.
From the January 25 edition of NBC's Nightly News, which featured Andrew Kohut, president of the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press:
MITCHELL: Democrats think their best argument is that the program is a power grab by the president and will ultimately prove to be unpopular. Despite the political furor, the White House is encouraged by recent polls, showing little public outcry over the program, especially when they tell people it is limited only to those who talk to Al Qaeda.
KOHUT [clip]: The public is concerned about civil liberties but what they tell us in the polls is they're more concerned about whether the government is doing enough to -- to protect it from another terrorist attack.
MITCHELL: And tonight the president pledged to reauthorize the eavesdropping for as long as terrorists remain a threat. Andrea Mitchell, NBC News, Washington.
From the December 21 New York Times article:
A surveillance program approved by President Bush to conduct eavesdropping without warrants has captured what are purely domestic communications in some cases, despite a requirement by the White House that one end of the intercepted conversations take place on foreign soil, officials say.
The officials say the National Security Agency's interception of a small number of communications between people within the United States was apparently accidental, and was caused by technical glitches at the National Security Agency in determining whether a communication was in fact ''international.''
From the January 17 New York Times article:
More than a dozen current and former law enforcement and counterterrorism officials, including some in the small circle who knew of the secret eavesdropping program and how it played out at the F.B.I., said the torrent of tips led them to few potential terrorists inside the country they did not know of from other sources and diverted agents from counterterrorism work they viewed as more productive.
"We'd chase a number, find it's a school teacher with no indication they've ever been involved in international terrorism - case closed," said one former FBI official, who was aware of the program and the data it generated for the bureau. "After you get a thousand numbers and not one is turning up anything, you get some frustration."
Contact information:
NBCNBC News
NBC News 30 Rockefeller Plaza New York, N.Y. 10112
When contacting the media, please be polite and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and be sure to indicate exactly what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.
Poison Justice Stevens, Coulter jokes
LITTLE ROCK, Arkansas (AP) -- Conservative commentator Ann Coulter, speaking at a traditionally black college, joked that Justice John Paul Stevens should be poisoned.
Coulter had told the Philander Smith College audience Thursday that more conservative justices were needed on the Supreme Court to change the current law on abortion.
Stevens is one of the court's most liberal members.
"We need somebody to put rat poisoning in Justice Stevens' creme brulee," Coulter said. "That's just a joke, for you in the media."
Coulter has made a career of writing and lecturing on her strongly conservative views.
At one point during her address, which was part of a lecture series, some audience members booed when she cut off two questioners. "I'm not going to be lectured to," Coulter told one man in a raised voice.
She drew more boos when she said the crack cocaine problem "has pretty much gone away."
Coulter had told the Philander Smith College audience Thursday that more conservative justices were needed on the Supreme Court to change the current law on abortion.
Stevens is one of the court's most liberal members.
"We need somebody to put rat poisoning in Justice Stevens' creme brulee," Coulter said. "That's just a joke, for you in the media."
Coulter has made a career of writing and lecturing on her strongly conservative views.
At one point during her address, which was part of a lecture series, some audience members booed when she cut off two questioners. "I'm not going to be lectured to," Coulter told one man in a raised voice.
She drew more boos when she said the crack cocaine problem "has pretty much gone away."
Friday, January 27, 2006
Dems Don’t Know Jack
Dems Don’t Know Jack
Dems Don't Know Jack Abramoff
I guess Russert missed this one.
"A new and extensive analysis of campaign donations from all of Jack Abramoff's tribal clients, done by a nonpartisan research firm, shows that a great majority of contributions made by those clients went to Republicans. The analysis undercuts the claim that Abramoff directed sums to Democrats at anywhere near the same rate... read on"
Update: Josh has more...
Here's the "Open Letter to Tim Russert"
Dems Don't Know Jack Abramoff
I guess Russert missed this one.
"A new and extensive analysis of campaign donations from all of Jack Abramoff's tribal clients, done by a nonpartisan research firm, shows that a great majority of contributions made by those clients went to Republicans. The analysis undercuts the claim that Abramoff directed sums to Democrats at anywhere near the same rate... read on"
Update: Josh has more...
Here's the "Open Letter to Tim Russert"
Canada PM Slaps Bush-CO In The Face
New Canadian PM rebuffs US envoy Canadian Prime Minister-elect Stephen Harper has defended plans to send military ice-breakers to the Arctic in defiance of criticism from Washington.
US ambassador David Wilkins said on Wednesday that Washington opposed the plan and, like most other countries, did not recognise Canada's claims.
Mr Harper said his mandate was from the Canadian people, not Mr Wilkins.
Mr Harper's Conservatives have promised to defend Canada's northern waters from claims by the US, Russia and Denmark.
The party won a narrow victory over the outgoing Liberal administration in Monday's election, but failed to secure an overall majority.
'Non-existent problem'
The Conservative plans include the construction and deployment of three new armed heavy ice-breaking ships and an underground network of listening posts.
It is the Canadian people we get our mandate from, not the ambassador of the United States Stephen Harper
The BBC's Lee Carter in Toronto says Canada has only recently woken up to the fact that, with global warming being blamed for melting ice in the Arctic, the so-far-mythical northwest passage, which could link the Atlantic and the Pacific, may in fact become a reality.
The US and Canada, together with Denmark, Norway and Russia, have competing claims on parts of the Arctic and the economic bounty they may yield, including trade routes, fishing rights, and oil and gas.
The US has challenged Canada's current claims, saying that it considers much of the region to be international waters.
Ambassador Wilkins described the Canadian position as creating a problem that did not exist, prompting an angry reaction from Mr Harper.
"The United States defends its sovereignty, the Canadian government will defend our sovereignty," he said.
"It is the Canadian people we get our mandate from, not the ambassador of the United States."
Mr Harper had criticised election opponents for attacking the US in a bid to win votes.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/world/americas/4652746.stm
US ambassador David Wilkins said on Wednesday that Washington opposed the plan and, like most other countries, did not recognise Canada's claims.
Mr Harper said his mandate was from the Canadian people, not Mr Wilkins.
Mr Harper's Conservatives have promised to defend Canada's northern waters from claims by the US, Russia and Denmark.
The party won a narrow victory over the outgoing Liberal administration in Monday's election, but failed to secure an overall majority.
'Non-existent problem'
The Conservative plans include the construction and deployment of three new armed heavy ice-breaking ships and an underground network of listening posts.
It is the Canadian people we get our mandate from, not the ambassador of the United States Stephen Harper
The BBC's Lee Carter in Toronto says Canada has only recently woken up to the fact that, with global warming being blamed for melting ice in the Arctic, the so-far-mythical northwest passage, which could link the Atlantic and the Pacific, may in fact become a reality.
The US and Canada, together with Denmark, Norway and Russia, have competing claims on parts of the Arctic and the economic bounty they may yield, including trade routes, fishing rights, and oil and gas.
The US has challenged Canada's current claims, saying that it considers much of the region to be international waters.
Ambassador Wilkins described the Canadian position as creating a problem that did not exist, prompting an angry reaction from Mr Harper.
"The United States defends its sovereignty, the Canadian government will defend our sovereignty," he said.
"It is the Canadian people we get our mandate from, not the ambassador of the United States."
Mr Harper had criticised election opponents for attacking the US in a bid to win votes.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/world/americas/4652746.stm
Did O'Reilly get the fax
O'Reilly cited, then denied personal knowledge of, internal Republican polling data
On the January 24 broadcast of The Radio Factor, host Bill O'Reilly cited internal Republican polling data on the Bush administration's domestic spy program then denied that he personally received such information. O'Reilly mentioned the data after guest Newsday columnist Ellis Henican noted the findings of a USA Today/Gallup poll. Henican was apparently referring to this aspect of the poll's findings: 58 percent of respondents think a special prosecutor should be appointed to investigate the wiretapping of conversations of U.S. citizens without obtaining a court order. O'Reilly then cited "Republican internal polling," which he claimed showed support for the surveillance program because "Americans want to be protected."
When Henican noted that the GOP doesn't share its internal reporting with him -- "You get that," Henican said, "I don't" -- O'Reilly backpedaled, replying, "I don't get it [internal GOP polling] ... [Fox News anchor Sean] Hannity probably gets it ... I don't get it. I don't get anything, from anybody." O'Reilly added: "But our sources are good."
From the January 24 broadcast of Westwood One's The R adio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:
HENICAN: Now, did you see, by the way, the USA Today/Gallup poll today on the NSA domestic spying --O'REILLY: Yes, I did see that.HENICAN: Fifty what? Was it 58 percent of Americans have serious, serious --O'REILLY: Yeah, if you look at the way -- if you look at the way the poll question is --HENICAN: Oh --O'REILLY: Look, the Republican internal polling -- and I don't know whether you know this or not -- but that's why [White House senior adviser] Rove --HENICAN: They don't share their internal polling with me. You get that; I don't.O'REILLY: Right. But, I don't get it. We have good sources, unlike some of you guys who can't -- nobody will talk to.HENICAN: See, they don't call me with that.O'REILLY: No. Hannity probably gets it.HENICAN: He gets it.O'REILLY: I don't get it. I don't get anything, from anybody. But our sources are good, and that's why Rove came out for the weekend and made it a campaign issue --HENICAN: Well --O'REILLY: -- because their numbers say, look, Americans want to be protected. They're not buying the theoretical argument that their phone calls are going to be tapped, and I believe that's true.
Contact: Bill O'Reilly | oreilly@foxnews.com |
Contact: The Radio Factor | Westwood One Bart Tessler Sr. VP, Network News / Talk Programming 202.457.7998 |
Contact: Westwood One | Shane Coppola shane_coppola@westwoodone.com |
For News And Commentary:
For Florida Election News See:
Political Talk For And By Political Junkies
Did O'Reilly get the fax
O'Reilly cited, then denied personal knowledge of, internal Republican polling data
http://mediamatters.org/items/200601260010
On the January 24 broadcast of The Radio Factor, host Bill O'Reilly cited internal Republican polling data on the Bush administration's domestic spy program then denied that he personally received such information. O'Reilly mentioned the data after guest Newsday columnist Ellis Henican noted the findings of a USA Today/Gallup poll. Henican was apparently referring to this aspect of the poll's findings: 58 percent of respondents think a special prosecutor should be appointed to investigate the wiretapping of conversations of U.S. citizens without obtaining a court order. O'Reilly then cited "Republican internal polling," which he claimed showed support for the surveillance program because "Americans want to be protected."
When Henican noted that the GOP doesn't share its internal reporting with him -- "You get that," Henican said, "I don't" -- O'Reilly backpedaled, replying, "I don't get it [internal GOP polling] ... [Fox News anchor Sean] Hannity probably gets it ... I don't get it. I don't get anything, from anybody." O'Reilly added: "But our sources are good."
From the January 24 broadcast of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:
HENICAN: Now, did you see, by the way, the USA Today/Gallup poll today on the NSA domestic spying --
O'REILLY: Yes, I did see that.
HENICAN: Fifty what? Was it 58 percent of Americans have serious, serious --
O'REILLY: Yeah, if you look at the way -- if you look at the way the poll question is --
HENICAN: Oh --
O'REILLY: Look, the Republican internal polling -- and I don't know whether you know this or not -- but that's why [White House senior adviser] Rove --
HENICAN: They don't share their internal polling with me. You get that; I don't.
O'REILLY: Right. But, I don't get it. We have good sources, unlike some of you guys who can't -- nobody will talk to.
HENICAN: See, they don't call me with that.
O'REILLY: No. Hannity probably gets it.
HENICAN: He gets it.
O'REILLY: I don't get it. I don't get anything, from anybody. But our sources are good, and that's why Rove came out for the weekend and made it a campaign issue --
HENICAN: Well --
O'REILLY: -- because their numbers say, look, Americans want to be protected. They're not buying the theoretical argument that their phone calls are going to be tapped, and I believe that's true.
Contact: Bill O'Reilly
Compose?To=oreilly@foxnews.com
Contact: The Radio Factor
Westwood One Bart Tessler Sr. VP, Network News / Talk Programming 202.457.7998
Contact: Westwood One
Shane Coppola Compose?To=shane_coppola@westwoodone.com
http://mediamatters.org/items/200601260010
On the January 24 broadcast of The Radio Factor, host Bill O'Reilly cited internal Republican polling data on the Bush administration's domestic spy program then denied that he personally received such information. O'Reilly mentioned the data after guest Newsday columnist Ellis Henican noted the findings of a USA Today/Gallup poll. Henican was apparently referring to this aspect of the poll's findings: 58 percent of respondents think a special prosecutor should be appointed to investigate the wiretapping of conversations of U.S. citizens without obtaining a court order. O'Reilly then cited "Republican internal polling," which he claimed showed support for the surveillance program because "Americans want to be protected."
When Henican noted that the GOP doesn't share its internal reporting with him -- "You get that," Henican said, "I don't" -- O'Reilly backpedaled, replying, "I don't get it [internal GOP polling] ... [Fox News anchor Sean] Hannity probably gets it ... I don't get it. I don't get anything, from anybody." O'Reilly added: "But our sources are good."
From the January 24 broadcast of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:
HENICAN: Now, did you see, by the way, the USA Today/Gallup poll today on the NSA domestic spying --
O'REILLY: Yes, I did see that.
HENICAN: Fifty what? Was it 58 percent of Americans have serious, serious --
O'REILLY: Yeah, if you look at the way -- if you look at the way the poll question is --
HENICAN: Oh --
O'REILLY: Look, the Republican internal polling -- and I don't know whether you know this or not -- but that's why [White House senior adviser] Rove --
HENICAN: They don't share their internal polling with me. You get that; I don't.
O'REILLY: Right. But, I don't get it. We have good sources, unlike some of you guys who can't -- nobody will talk to.
HENICAN: See, they don't call me with that.
O'REILLY: No. Hannity probably gets it.
HENICAN: He gets it.
O'REILLY: I don't get it. I don't get anything, from anybody. But our sources are good, and that's why Rove came out for the weekend and made it a campaign issue --
HENICAN: Well --
O'REILLY: -- because their numbers say, look, Americans want to be protected. They're not buying the theoretical argument that their phone calls are going to be tapped, and I believe that's true.
Contact: Bill O'Reilly
Compose?To=oreilly@foxnews.com
Contact: The Radio Factor
Westwood One Bart Tessler Sr. VP, Network News / Talk Programming 202.457.7998
Contact: Westwood One
Shane Coppola Compose?To=shane_coppola@westwoodone.com
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
Joe Trippi endorses John Bonifaz for Secretary of State for Massachusetts
Joe Trippi endorses John Bonifaz for Secretary of State for Massachusetts
Joe Trippi has just posted on Dailykos.com his endorsement for John Bonifaz for Secretary of State for the upcoming elections in 2006.
See his endorsement here: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/1/25/143446/290
"John will be a Secretary of state who will strengthen democracy for MA and for the nation. He'll use his background as the founder of the National Voting Rights Institute to continue to fight for the right to vote and will create a model for free and fair elections for the country. For the past dozen years John has been at the forefront of voting rights battles across the nation including the Ohio recount in 2004. Now he wants to take his passion and experience and apply it to the Secretary of State's office in Massachusetts."
Joe Trippi has just posted on Dailykos.com his endorsement for John Bonifaz for Secretary of State for the upcoming elections in 2006.
See his endorsement here: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/1/25/143446/290
"John will be a Secretary of state who will strengthen democracy for MA and for the nation. He'll use his background as the founder of the National Voting Rights Institute to continue to fight for the right to vote and will create a model for free and fair elections for the country. For the past dozen years John has been at the forefront of voting rights battles across the nation including the Ohio recount in 2004. Now he wants to take his passion and experience and apply it to the Secretary of State's office in Massachusetts."
McCain Lied
McCain Lied (or was grossly negligent) and his assertions should be fought with the full force of the truth.
To contact Senator McCain's office:At approximately 7:10 EST, Wednesday, January 25, 2005, Senator John McCain (R-AZ), referring to President Bush's domestic spying program, told Matt Lauer in an interview on the Today Show that "It's important to note that members of Congress including Democrats were briefed on this program and there didn't seem to be at least any public outcry until recently."
This is patently FALSE and shamelessly misleading.
First, Democrats were briefed. But, the briefings have been limited to the Republican an d Democratic leaders of the House and Senate and of the Intelligence Committees, the so-called 'Gang of Eight'.
These include, but are not necessarily limited to:
Senator Bob Graham (R-FL)
The Washington Post interviewed former Democratic Senator Bob Graham, who stated that he "[had] no discussion about expanding [NSA eavesdropping] to include conversations of U.S. citizens or conversations that originated or ended in the United States... I came out of the room with the full sense that we were dealing with a change in technology but not policy." The Post further reported "he believed eavesdropping would continue to be limited to 'call s that initiated outside the United States, had a destination outside the United States but that transferred through a U.S.-based communications system.'"
Senate Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi
"I was advised of President Bush's decision to provide authority to the National Security Agency to conduct unspecified activities shortly after he made it and have been provided with updates on several occasions. The Bush Administration considered these briefings to be notification, not a request for approval. As is my practice whenever I am notified about such intelligence activities, I expressed my strong concerns during these briefings."
Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV)
Democratic Senator J ay Rockefeller of West Virginia, ranking member of the Intelligence also stated that he was briefed, and that he wrote to Vice President Dick Cheney expressing concern about the surveillance. The information he received was so confidential that Rockefeller actually handwrote a note to Cheney rather than have a staffer type one out. However, Republican Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas, the Intelligence Committee chairman, disputed this, saying that he did not recall Rockefeller expressing concerns during briefings, and also disputed whether he was effectively gagged from telling other senators about the surveillance. Roberts stated that "a United States Senator has significant tools with which to wield power and influence over the executive branch. Feigning helplessness is not one of those tools."
Second, the assertion that Democrats have only made their concerns public recently -- clearly implying that they're doing so because they see potential for political gain from such acts -- is also completely disingenuous. To Boot, Administration mouthpiece, Alberto Gonzales joined McCain in this deliberate deception.
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has asserted that...
...any member of Congress who thought the program was illegal "had an obligation" to say something publicly at the time they learned about it..
This assertion is preposterous since...
Some lawmakers have said they weren't informed of the program's scope during briefings -- nor were they allowed to go public with concerns because of the program's sensitive nature.
In fact, there have been multiple instances of Democrats questioning the validity of the program. These concerns were clearly communicated both in private when the existence of the program was still secret and also in public once the NY Times broke the story.
Nancy Pelosi
A letter that Pelosi wrote in October 2001 when she was Ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, was declassified at her request in January 2006, along with the response from Lieutenant General Michael Hayden, then the NSA Director (Pelosi release). The letter expressed concerns about "whether, and to what extent, the National Security Agency has received specific presidential authorization for the operations you are conducting." Hayden responded that he used authorities "to adjust NSA's collection and reporting." Judith A. Emmel, a spokeswoman for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence said, "He had authority under E.O. 12333 that had been given to him, and he briefed Congress on what he did under those authorities."
You can read the text of Pelosi's letter here.
Representative Jane Harman
On January 4, 2006, Harman wrote to the President that "In my view, failure to provide briefings to the full congressional intelligence committees is a continuing violation of the National Security Act." (Washington Post) Notification of Congress is not directly relevant to the legality of the wiretaps, but is important politically and for separation of powers. Suzanne Spaulding, who worked with the House and Senate Intelligence Committees as g eneral counsel argues that the method of congressional notification Bush used "eliminates the possibility of any careful oversight" because only 8 legislators were notified, and it would have been illegal for them to discuss what they were told, even to other legislators or to their staff in order to determine the program's legality.
Jay Rockefeller
Senator Rockefeller released a copy of the memo that he wrote on July 17, 2003 to the Vice President expressing his concerns about the program. Read it here.
You should also read Rockefeller's "Statement on need for Congressional hearings on the NSA Program"
Other Congressional opposition to reported events according to Wikipedia:
Senate
Judiciary and Intelligence Committees
House of Representatives
- Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA), the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said that "there is no doubt this is inappropriate" and referred to the White House program as "clearly and categorically wrong." Specter said that he would hold hearings into the matter early in 2006. His call for investigations was echoed by Congressman Rob Simmons (R-CT), the chairman of the House Homeland Security Intelligence Subcommittee. "Was the eavesdropping narrowly designed to go after possible terrorist threats in the United States or was it much, much more?" Simmons asked in a statement.
- In a telephone interview with the Associated Press, Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) called the president's remarks "breathtaking in how extreme they were." He added, "If that's true, he doesn't need the Patriot Act, because he can just make it up as he goes along. I tell you, he's President George Bush, not King George Bush. This is not the system of government we have and that we fought for." Feingold spoke just as harshly in an interview with CNN. "We have a president, not a king," he said. Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, added later, "The Bush administration seems to believe it is above the law."
- On December 19, 2005, a bipartisan group of Senators--Democrats Dianne Feinstein of California, Carl Levin of Michigan, Ron Wyden of Oregon and Republicans Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Olympia Snowe of Maine, sent a letter to the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees calling for an investigation into the alleged domestic surveillance.
- On January 15, 2006, Republican Senate judiciary committee chairman Arlen Specter, who is launching an investigation of the warrantless spying program, mentioned impeachment and criminal prosecution as potential remedies if President Bush broke the law, though he downplayed the likelihood of such an outcome.
- On January 20, 2006, Patrick Leahy (D-VT) introduced a resolution "expressing the sense of the Senate that the Authorization for Use of Military Force, which Congress passed to authorize military action against those responsible for the attacks on September 11, 2001, did not authorize warrantless eavesdropping on American citizens." updated AUMF Resolution 201-19 He stated, "The resolution I introduce today is intended to help set the record straight. It is an important first step toward restoring checks and balances between the co-equal branches of Government."
House of Representatives
Judiciary Committee
Bottom Line:
McCain Lied (or was grossly negligent) and his assertions should be fought with the full force of the truth.
- On January 10, 2006, John Conyers (D-MI) announced in a press release on his official website that the Democratic members of the House Judiciary Committee would hold an informal hearing on the warrantless spying program.
- On January 20, 2006, the Democratic members of the House Judiciary Committee held an informal hearing on the warrantless spying program. They heard the testimony of Caroline Fredrickson of the ACLU, who told them, "The executive power of our country is not an imperial power... The president has demonstrated a dangerous disregard for our Constitution and our laws with his authorization for this illegal program".
Bottom Line:
- Only the Democrats on the House and Senate Intelligence Committees were briefed.
- Democrats (and all others) w ere disallowed from publicly discussing the issue due to its sensitive nature.
- Once the story was made public by the New York Times, Democrats presented evidence that they opposed the actions -- even showing skepticism regarding the program's legality.
McCain Lied (or was grossly negligent) and his assertions should be fought with the full force of the truth.
Go here: http://mccain.senate.gov/Or call: (202) 224-2235Or Fax: (202)-228-2862Or snail mail: 241 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
For News And Commentary:
For Florida Election News See:
THE TRIANGLE: Matthews, Moore, Murtha, and the Media
THE TRIANGLE: Matthews, Moore, Murtha, and the Media: What's the common thread running through the past half-decade of Bush's presidency? What's the nexus between the Swift-boating of Kerry, the Swift-boating of Murtha, and the guilt-by-association between Democrats and terrorists? Why has a seemingly endless string of administration scandals faded into oblivion? Why do Democrats keep losing elections? It's this: the traditional media, the trusted media, the "neutral" media, have become the chief delivery mechanism of potent anti-Democratic and pro-Bush storylines. And the Democratic establishment appears to be either ig norant of this political quandary or unwilling to fight it.
CHRIS MATTHEWS UPDATE - Rep. Slaughter: "Over the last few days, I have watched with concern as prominent media personalities and political pundits like Chris Matthews have engaged in reckless rhetoric comparing critics of the Bush Administration to the world's most wanted terrorist, Osama Bin Laden. This isn't just offensive, it's absurd-- and harmful to our nation." MORE
TIM RUSSERT UPDATE - Atrios: "When Barack Obama hires Belafonte to be his consultant, endorses him for president, gives a speech at his house, or if he does robo-calls in multiple states for him, then there would be a legitimate reason for Russert to have him comment on his remarks." MORE
Posted by: Peter Daou -- 1/24/2006 #
COMMENT (3)
TIM RUSSERT UPDATE - Atrios: "When Barack Obama hires Belafonte to be his consultant, endorses him for president, gives a speech at his house, or if he does robo-calls in multiple states for him, then there would be a legitimate reason for Russert to have him comment on his remarks." MORE
Posted by: Peter Daou -- 1/24/2006 #
COMMENT (3)
Kos: "Let's not forget that ultimately, Osama's vision for the Arab world is far more akin to the Right's vision of America. Remember these old posts? On homosexuality, on militarism, on women's rights, on religion in school, on capital punishment, on free speech, on curtailment of civil liberties, and on a million different other issues Islamic fundamentalists don't share many disagreements with the ideologues running our country. The reason we hate Islamic fundamentalists is pretty much the same reason we're fighting to take back this country from the Republicans. They are two peas from the same pod, and diametrically opposed to everything we liberals stand for."
Posted by: Peter Daou -- 1/24/2006 #
COMMENT (2)
Posted by: Peter Daou -- 1/24/2006 #
COMMENT (2)
A Blogger's Bogus Defense of Chris Matthews: Distinction Without a Difference - One of the core attributes of the right's "liberal media" absurdity is that the definition of 'liberal' is anyone or anything opposed to Bush. Tom Maguire, who thinks he's got an irr efutable defense of Matthews' heinous comparison of Bin Laden to Michael Moore, says, "as a reliable Bush-basher, [Matthews] long ago lost his audience on the right... Matthews' point is that Osama is adopting the rhetoric of Michael Moore, NOT that Michael Moore is adopting the rhetoric of Osama Bin Laden. This is an important distinction that the critics on the left seem to be determined to blur." [Read More]
Posted by: Peter Daou -- 1/23/2006 #
COMMENT (12)
Posted by: Peter Daou -- 1/23/2006 #
COMMENT (12)
Was Race a Factor in Russert's Obama Interview? (cross-posted on HuffPo): In light of the still-burning Chris Matthews scandal, I watched Sunday's political shows with keener interest than usual. And something very strange happened on Meet The Press: Tim Russert asked Senator Barack Obama to respond to Harry Belafonte's remarks about George W. Bush being the "greatest terrorist in the world." [Read More]
Posted by: Peter Daou -- 1/22/2006 #
COMMENT (56)
Posted by: Peter Daou -- 1/22/2006 #
COMMENT (56)
Josh Marshall: "On the left or center-left, until very recently, there's simply never been an organized chorus of people ready to take t he Howells of the press biz to task and mau-mau them when they get a key fact wrong. Without that, the world of political news was like an NBA game where one side played the refs hard and had roaring seats of fans while the other never made a peep. With that sort of structural imbalance, shoddy scorekeeping and cowed, and eventually compliant, refs are inevitable."
mcjoan: "I'm just wondering when the traditional media is finally going to give up the pretense that it is objective in reporting the news. From Chris Matthews' (and the entire Fox gang's) hate speech to Deborah Howell's non-corr ection "correction," it's time they just admit the truth. They are Republican party organs. Most of the rest of the developed world doesn't operate on the false assumption that their media is unbiased. Why should we? Let's just get that out in the open, recognize who is on which side, and go on our merry way."
Posted by: Peter Daou -- 1/22/2006 #
COMMENT (0)
mcjoan: "I'm just wondering when the traditional media is finally going to give up the pretense that it is objective in reporting the news. From Chris Matthews' (and the entire Fox gang's) hate speech to Deborah Howell's non-corr ection "correction," it's time they just admit the truth. They are Republican party organs. Most of the rest of the developed world doesn't operate on the false assumption that their media is unbiased. Why should we? Let's just get that out in the open, recognize who is on which side, and go on our merry way."
Posted by: Peter Daou -- 1/22/2006 #
COMMENT (0)
SHAKESPEARE'S SIS ON MATTHEWS & MOORE: "And the fact that Michael Moore is not as dangerous for America as Osama bin Laden is only half of the lie. The other half is that Michael Moore is part of the institutional Left, which he isnt. Michael Moore is a filmmaker, and a media personality at best. Hes not entrenched in the political process. He doesnt, for example, sell access to unnamed members of Washingtons Power Eliteand doesnt have that access himself." [Read More]
Posted by: Peter Daou -- 1/21/2006 #
COMMENT (5)
Posted by: Peter Daou -- 1/21/2006 #
COMMENT (5)
Matthews Responds to Bloggers: "People Misunderstood What I Said Last Night" (cross-posted on HuffPo)
For those of you following the Hardball scandal, the online community's fury elicited this response from Matthews: MATTHEWS: "Why is [OBL] doing it? Why is he trying to track what he picks up in the internet and from the media as the lingo of the left in America, like Moore? Why would he start to talk like Moore? People misunderstood what I said last night. I think he's getting some advice from people, he's getting some lingo, some wordage that he hears working in the United States about this thing for war profiteers and he's jumping on every opportunity. Is that what you are saying Joe?" [Read More]
Posted by: Peter Daou -- 1/20/2006 #
COMMENT (4)
For those of you following the Hardball scandal, the online community's fury elicited this response from Matthews: MATTHEWS: "Why is [OBL] doing it? Why is he trying to track what he picks up in the internet and from the media as the lingo of the left in America, like Moore? Why would he start to talk like Moore? People misunderstood what I said last night. I think he's getting some advice from people, he's getting some lingo, some wordage that he hears working in the United States about this thing for war profiteers and he's jumping on every opportunity. Is that what you are saying Joe?" [Read More]
Posted by: Peter Daou -- 1/20/2006 #
COMMENT (4)
UPDATE: Welcome Open Letter readers. Below is my original post written shortly after Chris Matthews made hi s OBL/Moore comparison...
DEMAND AN APOLOGY: "Bin Laden sounds like Clint Eastwood" -- "Bin Laden sounds like Ron Silver" -- "Bin Laden sounds like Rush Limbaugh" -- "Bin Laden sounds like Bill O'Reilly"-- "Bin Laden sounds like Mel Gibson" -- "Bin Laden sounds like Bruce Willis" -- "Bin Laden sounds like Michelle Malkin"... Imagine the outrage on the right and in the press (but I repeat myself) if a major media figure spat out those words. Well, on Hardball, Chris Matthews just blurted out that Bin Laden sounds like Michael Moore. Simple: Matthews should apologize. On the air. This has NOTHING to do with Michael Moore and everything to do with how far media figures can go slandering the left. [Read More]
Posted by: Peter Daou -- 1/19/2006 #
COMMENT (195)
DEMAND AN APOLOGY: "Bin Laden sounds like Clint Eastwood" -- "Bin Laden sounds like Ron Silver" -- "Bin Laden sounds like Rush Limbaugh" -- "Bin Laden sounds like Bill O'Reilly"-- "Bin Laden sounds like Mel Gibson" -- "Bin Laden sounds like Bruce Willis" -- "Bin Laden sounds like Michelle Malkin"... Imagine the outrage on the right and in the press (but I repeat myself) if a major media figure spat out those words. Well, on Hardball, Chris Matthews just blurted out that Bin Laden sounds like Michael Moore. Simple: Matthews should apologize. On the air. This has NOTHING to do with Michael Moore and everything to do with how far media figures can go slandering the left. [Read More]
Posted by: Peter Daou -- 1/19/2006 #
COMMENT (195)
<>The Blog Buzz - 1.19.06 (Compiled and edited by Peter Daou and Steve Benen)
Bin Laden returns, countdown begins for our Twilight Zone media to suggest his reappearance helps Bush: "The OBL tape released the Friday before the elections were widely credited (amongst other excuses) for being a big PUSH for W.... At least one Bush staffer called it "a nice little present" or something like that, you can look it up. Of course the really WEIRD part is how W is given CREDIT for 9/11. Think about that-he openly TAKES CREDIT for 9/11." [LINK] [Read More]
Posted by: Peter Daou -- 1/19/2006 #
COMMENT (6)
Bin Laden returns, countdown begins for our Twilight Zone media to suggest his reappearance helps Bush: "The OBL tape released the Friday before the elections were widely credited (amongst other excuses) for being a big PUSH for W.... At least one Bush staffer called it "a nice little present" or something like that, you can look it up. Of course the really WEIRD part is how W is given CREDIT for 9/11. Think about that-he openly TAKES CREDIT for 9/11." [LINK] [Read More]
Posted by: Peter Daou -- 1/19/2006 #
COMMENT (6)
Blogging from the Left
CHRIS'S RANTS
White House Declines to Provide Katrina PapersWe have been told all along that no one could have anticipated that
1/25/2006
HUFFINGTON POST (Kristen Breitweiser)
The Bush "Hay"stack of LiesThe Bush Administration has continually used 9/11 as an excuse to break the laws of our great nation. A simple reading of the September 11th story shows that General Michael Hayden and the Bush Administration are, once again, contradicting themselves in their use of 9/11, this time with regard to President Bush's illegal domestic spying program.
1/24/2006
IDDYBUD
EJ Dionne on Dems and Karl RoveE.J. Dionne makes the same point I made last Sunday.
What's so hot about Bush's post 9-11 strategy, anyhow?
1/24/2006
< /DIV> CARPETBAGGER
Just another day in BushvilleTrying to fact check every speech Bush delivers is too daunting a task for a humble blogger a typical event includes far too much mendacity to bother. But since yesterday's speech was supposed to be the president's latest comprehensive defense of his warrantless-search program, it's probably worth taking a moment to document the more obvious problems.
1/24/2006
PISSED ON POLITICS
Spying and Torture: The New American WayI do not agree with the conservative values of spying and torture. I do not think spying and torturing are American Ideals but conservatives have made it the new American Way. Give Me Liberty of Give Me Death no longer applies thanks to Conservatives. Live Free or Die is no longer an American Value. The sad thing is that Conservatives don't even realize they have killed America.
1/24/2006
JUAN COLE
Top Ten Mistakes of the Bush Administration in Reacting to Al-QaedaThe Bush administration and the American Right generally has refused to acknowledge what we now know. Al-Qaeda is dangerous. All small terrorist groups can do damage. But it is not an epochal threat to the United States or its allies of the sort the Soviet Union was (and that threat was consistently exaggerated, as well).
1/24/2006
DIGBY
Killing Me SoftlyI am watching George W. Bush repeat his patented mantra for the 514,346th time. It's filled with lies, mischaracterizations and simple-minded gibberish, as always, and I'm watching it go out unfiltered, in its entirety, unchallenged by the media, no Democrats in sight, on every cable channel. I think they are personally trying to drive me crazy.
1/23/2006
TENNESSEE GUERILLA WOMEN
Reasons to Oppose AlitoThe Senate Judiciary Committee votes on Alito tomorrow (Filibuster Possible). The latest poll (ARG) puts the Bushie job approval at its lowest point ever, Among all Americans, "36% approve of the way Bush is handling his job as president." Among registered voters, Bushie does better, yeah, one point better - 37%. (via Josh Marshall) The American people have no confidence in Bushie, why on earth would the Senate Judiciary Committee give him a vote of confidence by voting to confirm Alito?
1/23/2006
BAD ATTITUDES
Mild Murmurs of DissentAtrios points us to this WaPo editorial that timidly ponders the limits of presidential power. My guess is that the WaPo editors will soon beat a hasty retreat from even this Milquetoast stance. As the current RNC talking points make clear, posing even the most innocuous questions about Bush's authority or actions makes the questioner an al Qaeda fellow-traveler.
1/23/2006
CROOKS AND LIARS
It contin ues: Buchanan compares Clinton to OsamaThe right wing's attempt to label democrats and war opponents as equal to Osama continues. If anyone believes that this is some dubious connection then you are sadly mistaken. I will continue to monitor this "meme" the Rovian republicans are hoping becomes buried in the subconscious of the American people. Let me know when you hear other talking heads making these statements.
1/23/2006
GLENN GREENWALD
The media's distorted understanding of "neutrality"Karl Rove is peddling transparent falsehoods about the [NSA] scandal because he knows we have a neutered media that will s imply pass them along, at most tepidly and neutrally noting that some Democrats disagree, but never, ever pointing out that the claims are factually false. If things continue as they are, public opinion polls will undoubtedly soon show that a majority believes that Democrats oppose eavesdropping on Al Qaeda and that the NSA scandal-- as numerous dishonest Bush followers keep framing it -- is based on a disagreement about whether we should have to "hang up" when Osama calls.
1/23/2006
PANDAGON (Amanda Marcotte)
Dedicated to the people who support Bush by screaming "9/11"Bush won the squeaker election of 2004 not because of god, guns, or gays, but because he managed to convince a number of piss-their-pants cowards that he was the only thing standing between them and getting nuked by terrorists. Cowards like Lileks, like Andrew Sullivan, like Christopher Hitchens, even like Dennis Miller. People who bought into the fear and gave up thinking and just begged Daddy Bush to make the mean terrorists to go away.
1/23/2006
FIREDOGLAKE
Why is Russert Asking Obama About Harry Belafonte?What the hell is Tim Russert asking Barack Obama to express his opinion about Harry Belafonte for? Russert has had two weeks to ask anybody on his show about it; why does he save this particular question for Obama? What sort of special expertise does Obama have about Harry Belafonte, a private citizen with no connection to the Democratic party, that none of Russert's other guests would have?
1/22/2006
NEEDLENOSE
A "red line," or a goal-line stand?The Los Angeles Times reports today that the Bushites are, at last, openly acknowledging the struggle that's been going on behind the scenes in Iraq for the past year...
1/22/2006
FUZZY AND BLUE
Michael Moore: Hardballs Matthews in the FaceIn response to Chris Matthews vomitous attack on Michael Moore and all people who oppose this questionable war in Iraq, Moore has righteously hardballed Matthews-- right upside his giant vacuous yellow head.
1/22/2006
Blogging from the Right
TOM RANTS
How big a threat is terrorism?The US numbers? [In an average week] less than 4 deaths due to terrorism, 825 deaths in traffic accidents, 26,346 babies lost to abortion. (Going back to and including the Marine barracks bombing in Beirut, total US deaths in terrorist incidents are less than 4,000 in 22 years.)
1/25/2006
CAPTAIN'S QUARTERS
Bush Offered Blair An Out For IraqGeorge Bush offered Tony Blair a pass on participating in the invasion and liberation of Iraq, afraid of the political effect it would have on the British PM's stability, Bush revealed yesterday in a speech at Kansas State University. The London Telegraph reports on Bush's statement for the benefit of British voters ... He has been ridiculed as Bush's "poodle" in the European press. This development might earn him more respect as his own man in terms of policy...
1/24/2006
RED STATE RANT
Exploring the "glory wall"Just what do pictures of President Bush with disgrace lobbyist Jack Abramoff mean? Probably not too much, says John Dickerson.
1/24/2006
WANDERINSTAR
"I don't support our troops"A few posts back I argued that you cannot "support the troops" if you oppose them being there...here is an honest opinion (If glib and c heeky) offerred by Joel Stein in "Warriors And Wusses...I don't support our troops" a 24 jan editorial in the LA Times. [LINK] I suspect that Stein cannot recognize the latent guilt he truly feels as being a beneafctor of "American imperialism and culture" in the year 2006.
1/24/2006
GAY PATRIOT
Another anti-Bush Government Voted OutIt seems that just like their neighbors to the South, even the Canadians dont pa y much attention to Michael Moore. Despite the last minute desperate appeal from this anti-American propagandist, Canadian voters yesterday rejected the Liberal government of Paul Martin. Those in the Great White North were not swayed by the Liberals fear-mongering that a pro-American government would be bad for their nation.
1/24/2006
THE CORNER (John J. Miller)
On Bush, Clinton, and JesusIn his WSJ review of the new book on Bush by Fred Barnes, Tom Bray highlights this fact I hadn't heard before: "Mr. Bush, contrary to media hysteria on the subject, mentions Jesus Christ less often than Bill Clinton did."
1/24/2006
RIGHT WING NEWS
The Most & Least Desired 2008 Republican NomineeRight Wing News emailed more th an 230 right-of-center bloggers and asked them to send us a ranked list 1-5 of the candidates that they would most like to take the Republican nomination for President in 2008 and the 1-5 candidates they'd least like to see as the Republican nominee in 2008. Representatives from the following 58 blogs responded...
1/23/2006
ANDREW SULLIVAN
Fixing FISAThis is certainly the best defense I've yet read of why the 1978 FISA law could do with an overhaul, given the advance of information technology. No doubt Karl Rove is already performing rhetorical calisthenics. What the op-ed doesn't do convincingly, however, is explain why the Bush administration, after 9/11, couldn't have asked Congress to amend the law to make surveillance of al Qaeda more efficient and effective. Ms Toensing's answer: the Dems would engage in "political posturing"...
1/23/2006
SECULAR BLASPHEMY
The candidate called HitlerThe NYT has a profile of one candidate for the Palestinian elections. The candidate's name is Jamal Abu Roub, but everyone here calls him Hitler because, well, that is the name he has answered to quite comfortably since he was a teenager. And, hey, this is one of the "good" guys that we hope will win, running for Fatah, against the people in Hamas who are, presumably, even worse.
1/23/2006
HOLY COAST
Now It's Ford's TurnI've reported a couple of times on the job losses in the auto industry at General Motors, and now it's Ford's turn to bite the bullet: Ford Motor Co., the nation's second-largest automaker, said Monday that it will cut 25,000 to 30,000 jobs and idle 14 facilities by 2012 as part of a restructuring designed to reverse a $1.6 billion loss last year in its North American operations. It's not a good time to have your livelihood depend on the U.S. auto industry.
1/23/2006
ACE OF SPADES HQ
American Meddling in Canadian ElectionsMichael Moore is aghast at the thought that Canadians might actually elect a Conservative government. Oh, Canada -- you're not really going to elect a Conservative majority on Monday, are you? That's a joke, right? I know you have a great sense of humor, and certainly a well-developed sense of irony, but this is no longer funny. Maybe it's a new form of Canadian irony -- reverse irony! OK, now I get it. First, you have the courage to stand against the war in Iraq -- and then you elect a prime minister who's for it. You declare gay people have equal rights -- and then you elect a man who says they don't.
1/23/2006
MAROON BLOG
"Munich" extremists and the Moderate ShiftSteven Spielberg was discuss ing his latest epic work of equivocation and non-postured moral posturing on Sunday when he unleashed on straw man "extremists" who decry his film, demonstrating one of the most frustrating trends in leftist ideology today: the moderate shift. Now, this isn't something new on the left, as Ted Kennedy and the gang of congressional soap-box mongers will tell you.
1/23/2006
PARDON MY ENGLISH
Free Expression Now Includes a "Right" to Public NudityThe folks in Daytona Beach can let it all hang out. Federal Judge John Antoon assured that Spring Break in this college student spring hot spot ought to be even more interesting than normal this year.
1/22/2006
BALLOON JUICE
Last Thoughts on HaleighIn a long post/update on the sad case of Haleigh Poutre, Michelle Malkin laments the fact that no talk-show hosts or big media types have taken up the cause, and then dishonestly singles me out...
1/22/2006
COUNTRY STORE
Iraq "hostage" has some 'splaining to doReport says ransom money found on Osthoff: Part of the ransom money alleged to have been paid by the German government to win the freedom of Iraq hostage Susanne Osthoff last month was found on Osthoff after her release, the German magazine Focus said on Saturday.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
VIDEO NEWS WIRE
Politico 44 President's Calendar
AlterNet.org: Video
Followers
ShareThis
http://feeds.salon.com/salon/greenwald_podcast_rss
The Real News Network
Politics on HuffingtonPost.com
MSNBC.com: Countdown With Olbermann
RawStory.com Headlines
The Nation: Top Stories
YouTube :: Videos by politicstv
Links
- If You Think You Are A Conservative
- GoLeft T.V.
- News From Florida
- Bent Society Blog
- My: Political Junki Site
- Election Geek 08
- Travel Democratic
- Just Rumor Mills
- Democratic Victory Network
- Philter Media- Websites
- Rainbow USA
- Democratic News
- Visit Our Shopping Mall
- Read My Book
- If You Think You Are A Conservative
Blog Archive
-
▼
2006
(224)
-
▼
January
(84)
- Tom DeLay & Chris Matthews smooch Fest
- Administration Tie to Abramoff Revealed
- nothing to offer but a long list of failures
- Million Phone March
- Ted Koppel Pens First Piece as 'NY Times' Columnis...
- Mitchell mischaracterized NSA surveillance program...
- Poison Justice Stevens, Coulter jokes
- Dems Don’t Know Jack
- Canada PM Slaps Bush-CO In The Face
- Did O'Reilly get the fax
- Did O'Reilly get the fax
- Joe Trippi endorses John Bonifaz for Secretary of ...
- McCain Lied
- THE TRIANGLE: Matthews, Moore, Murtha, and the Media
- The Real State of Our Union
- Brown Was Paid To Aid Investigation Of Katrina Res...
- GOP newspaper says impeachment is a real possibility
- The Money Behind the Marriage Amendments
- Why I'm joining the Confirm Alito Coalition I've d...
- Open Letter To Chris Matthews
- RE: A bold maneuver
- So You Want to Play Hardball Eh?
- CHRIS MATTHEWS AND OSAMA BIN LADEN -- A "SPECIAL" ...
- Why the Chris Matthews smear matters
- I Will Not Support Hillary Clinton for President
- Rove on 06
- "Worst Person in the World"
- Democrats Scold White House Over Spying
- Pentagon man jailed over spying
- Wayward Christian Soldiers
- The Right Going to Far
- Chris Matthews compares Michael Moore to Osama Bin...
- Republican Dennis Hastert is proved to be a liar
- Fallen Through The Cracks?
- Free 411 Calls
- Donors underwrite DeLay's deluxe lifestyle
- Bill Frist and Tom Delay had day-traders working o...
- A Swift Boat Too Far
- Bush Heart Abramoff
- Gore responds to White House 'hypocrisy' comments
- Right-wing Murtha smear campaign
- spotlight of the House Lobbying Scandal
- Cronkite's Vietnam moment: 'US must leave Iraq'
- New Zogby Poll: 52% of Americans Support Impeachin...
- Republican Party in DEEP DODO
- Clinton says he didn't use warrantless wiretaps
- How out of touch can a politician be?
- Rep. John Murtha
- The President’s Attack on DemocracyPresident Bush ...
- Documents show extent of ties between Abramoff and...
- Knight Ridders Alito
- The Impeachment of George W. Bush
- Alito and His Coaches
- Alito Plays Dodge Ba
- Bush planned war
- MEMO TO: PAT ROBERTSON <?xml:namespace prefix = ...
- Racicot�s revisionist history on utility deregulation
- Howard Dean Whips Up On Wolf
- Alito's Credibility Problem
- Results of AP-Ipsos Poll on Bush, Congress
- Our odds.... 2006
- Top Alito myths and
- RANDY 'BIG PUSSY' CUNNINGHAM:
- Jack Abramoff Connecting the dots..........
- Your 2006 Starter Kit: 12 Political Insights from ...
- Is The Old Grey Lady Bitting The Dust
- Gene Shalit Offers Defamatory 'Brokeback' Review o...
- Is Newt Gingrich really outraged about corruption?
- Olbermann to OReilly
- Newspapers Urge President to Quit
- Pass the Jesus Juice
- A President at war with America
- "Socket of Abraham's Hope,"
- Abramoff agrees to cooperate with federal prosecutors
- SAM ALITO: SO WHAT IF HE DOESN'T "CHANGE HIS UNDER...
- U.S. military 'shuts down' soldiers' blogs
- The Hidden State Steps Forward
- What is the Bush Administration Trying to Hide?
- HYPOCRISY, DECEIT AND EXPLOITATION
- House That Jack Built Comes Tumbling Down on Tuesday
- Bush @ War
- Ron Mills & Howard Dean
- Welcome To Our New Blog
- Happy New Year !!!
-
▼
January
(84)