February 2006 Archives

It really is amazing to see how defensive our corporate news divisions have been to the excellent Media Matters for America report that shows just how far to the right the dicussions on the Sunday news programs have tilted.

Eric Alterman writes about the controversy and explains:

Indeed, as far as critical commentary goes, with the occasional exception of E.J. Dionne, there's not a single unapologetic liberal on any of these shows, save perhaps an annual appearance as a kind of anthropological curiosity. Tune in to every show every week for a year, and you are unlikely to see Frank Rich, Paul Krugman, Rick Hertzberg, Harold Meyerson or anyone associated with The Nation, The American Prospect, The Washington Monthly, The New York Review of Books, Salon, In These Times, Mother Jones or even the liberal remnant inside The New Republic.

Eric Alterman makes an extremely important point today:

The U.S. media keeps the country in the dark about things everybody else in the world knows, then Americans, in their ignorance, vote for people who promise to do things that make no sense whatever, except in the context of their own (understandably) confused notions about what might make sense.

As Alterman concludes:

Get it now? The whole world is looking at these pictures and they are inspiring who knows how many Arabs to enlist in the jihad against the United States (just as the CIA warned us before this lunatic war). But Americans are blissfully ignorant of the evil perpetrated in their name and hence, make the same mistakes over and over.

MSNBC has a Baltimore Business Journal profile of Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-Md.). A conservative on most issues, Rep. Bartlett has been making news as a Member of Congress who is worried about peak oil and our nation's energy future. As Alan Zibel quotes Bartlett:

"Unless we have a program that has kind of the breadth of putting a man on the moon and the intensity of the Manhattan Project (the effort to develop the first nuclear bombs), I think we're going to have a very bumpy ride," Bartlett said on a recent morning in his Frederick office. "It's going to be difficult, but there are a lot things that are difficult that are very satisfying."

...

"Our problem will be solved with massive conservation, becoming more efficient and using every alternative we can, and even then we're going to have to learn to be happy with less energy than we're using today," Bartlett said. "And that's not tough. The average European gets by on half the energy that we use in this country and you'd be hard to argue that they aren't as happy as we are."

Via Editor and Publisher, here's a question the White House should be forced to answer about Vice President Dick Cheney's accidential shooting of a hunting partner on Saturday:

While E&P was first to raise the question about the delay Sunday afternoon, Frank James, reporter in the Chicago Tribune's Washington bureau, put his [own] spin on it later in the day, asking, "How is it that Vice President Cheney can shoot a man, albeit accidentally, on Saturday during a hunting trip and the American public not be informed of it until today?"

(Hat tip: Daily Kos.)

Oh. Oh. This is going to put a dent in the "state and local" conservative talking point. The Washington Post's Spencer S. Hsu writes about an upcoming report concerning the response to Hurricane Katrina:

The 600-plus-page report lays primary fault with the passive reaction and misjudgments of top Bush aides, singling out Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, the Homeland Security Operations Center and the White House Homeland Security Council, according to a 60-page summary of the document obtained by The Washington Post. Regarding Bush, the report found that "earlier presidential involvement could have speeded the response" because he alone could have cut through all bureaucratic resistance. (emphasis added)

But, really. Doesn't that miss the point? Our president was on vacation. He can't be expected to react to that. It's the hurricane's fault for coming during that time period.

How dare anyone expect our dear leader to cut short one of his vacations to deal with a catastrophe? Shouldn't we know our place? Understand that we are not to question this president's motives or operations?

Or do we remember that we live in a Constitutional Republic and point out the obvious: President George W. Bush decided it was more important to stay on vacation while the federal government failed to do the job it promised to do in the case of a natural disaster.

Heck of a job, Bushie.

Over at Crooks and Liars, Glenn Greenwald has made an important observation about today's Republican Party and all-too-much of the conservative movement.

Former Representative Bob Barr is undeniably a conservative. He was a House Manager of the Clinton impeachment. Sponsor of the Defense of Marriage Act. You'd think that he could go to the Conservative Political Action Conference and get a fine reception.

Except that Barr went this year and talked about President Bush's illegal wiretapping activities. Barr, to his credit, continues to follow through on what conservatives used to believe about civil liberties and overbearing executive power.

As Greenwald writes:

For them, even to be subjected to the idea that "Bush is off course" is traumatic and wrong. Such an opinion has no place at a "conservative" event, where only praise and reverence of the Commander-in-Chief is appropriate. One sees this time and again: "conservatism" these days very rarely has anything to do with actual conservative principles of government and has come to be distorted shorthand for "George Bush follower."

The more one agrees with and praises the Commander-in-Chief, the more "conservative" one is, even when his actions aren't even remotely "conservative." That really is the definition of a creepy cult of personality, and it has consumed a large segment of the Republican Party.

Conservatives used to remember this. As long ago as January 19, 2001.

Former CIA agenda Larry Johnson wonders about CIA Director Porter Goss' rather selective outrage over national security leaks. As Johnson writes:

If Porter Goss is serious about going after unauthorized disclosures then he should start with Dick Cheney. The Vice President’s access to classified material should be suspended. That’s what should happen if Goss were serious about this issue. But it looks like Goss is more concerned about political cover for Bush than national security. The selective nature of the outrage sure suggests that what we are witnessing is political theatre designed to intimidate and silence political opponents. They don’t want to staunch all leaks; just the ones that make them look bad. The Bush Administration and its political allies want to be free to leak information when it suits their purpose.

National Journal columnist Stuart Taylor Jr. now has problems with the Bush Administration's Guantanamo prison camp. Taylor describes how the Bushies have lied about the people we are holding there.

That's nice. About time.

But, alas, the story must not end there. You see, Taylor has supported the Guantanamo camp in the past. Yet, he does not mention his previous support in his new column.

Thankfully, Brad DeLong reminds us of what Taylor used to think.

It's nice that Taylor has changed his mind. But, as DeLong explains, he still must be held to account for what he used to believe.

Glenn Greenwald is live blogging the Senate NSA hearings today, and he makes spot-on observation at the beginning:

Of course Gonzales begins his Opening Statement by quoting Osama bin Laden and Zawahri. We used to quote Madison, Jefferson and Lincoln to decide what the principles of our Government are going to be. Now we quote Al Qaeda. The Administration wants Al Qaeda and its speeches to dictate the type of Government we have. It is the centerpiece of everything they do and say.

This probably won't matter to the fact-free pundits from our nation's conservative side, but here's yet another story outlining the conclusion that Valerie Plame was indeed a covert agent when Scotter Libby and Karl Rove decided to out her identity in a cheap trick of political retaliation.

Also, count me with John from Americablog in stating that I do not want to hear anyone in the Bush Administration lecture us about the need to protect state secrets as long as Karl Rove remains on the payroll with a security clearance.

Even in the Bush Era, hypocrisy must have its limits.

Instead of reversing the series of huge tax cuts that significantly contributed to the nation's out of control deficits, the Republican Party decided to pay for a small fraction of their handout to the nation's richest Americans by sticking it (again) to the poor.

The Los Angeles Times' Richard Simon and Joel Havemann report on the GOP's latest budget action:

The House on Wednesday approved and sent to the White House a far-reaching bill that will trim the growth of federal benefit programs by more than $39 billion in the next five years — Congress' first major budget-cutting exercise in almost a decade.

The measure, which is expected to cost California at least $1.7 billion in federal assistance, squeaked through the Republican-led House by two votes — 216 to 214 — and without a single Democrat in favor. The Senate had passed the legislation shortly before Christmas, also with no Democratic support, when Vice President Dick Cheney broke a 50-50 tie.

President Bush issued a statement praising the House vote and added, "I look forward to signing this bill into law." The 2007 budget he will submit to Congress on Monday, Bush said, "will continue to build on the spending restraint we have achieved."

Among its many provisions, the bill will charge higher interest rates on student loans, reduce federal aid to force absent parents to pay child support and impose stricter work requirements on welfare recipients.

Affordable health care for the poor, or tax cuts for the rich? The Republicans choose the tax cuts.

Helping ensure child support payments are met, or tax cuts for the rich? The Republicans choose the tax cuts.

And I mean that literally. It's not just the horrible tax cuts passed earlier this decade under the Bush Administration. As the Washington Post's Jonathan Weisman writes:

As the House debated the budget-cutting measure, the Senate moved to begin final negotiations with the House on a package of tax cuts and extension of expiring tax cuts that could cost up to $60 billion over five years, more than negating the savings from the budget bill.

Really, can the Republicans' priorities be any more clear? Is this really what you voted for, my fellow Americans?

Oh, and by the way, how's that "collectinator" promise going, Governor Schwarzenegger? California loses nearly $2 billion in federal aid -- nice clout you have there. Why don't you give us a few more of your lame movie lines to try to cover up this failure, hmmm?

JenR sent me an e-mail about this yesterday, but I didn't have the opportunity to write about it.

The Capitol Police's decision to eject (and arrest) Cindy Sheehan and (just eject) the wife of Rep. Bill Young (R-Fla.) from the House gallery prior to the State of the Union message deserves every patriotic American's condemnation.

Such police state tactics are unacceptable -- especially in the people's house of our Congress. Can the State of the Union really be strong when a t-shirt can get you roughed up by a police force, as happened to Sheehan?

No, an apology is not enough. If Capitol Police Chief Terrance Gainer really wants to take responsibility for this outrageous and extremely troubling incident, he should at least have the decency to resign.

That would be a start towards taking responsibility. Words, in this case, really mean nothing.