PEEK

Buzz, perspectives, insight and news from AlterNet

Senate Votes to Move Forward on Health-Care Bill: McCain Accuses Reid of Criminal Scheme
Posted by Adele Stan, AlterNet on November 21, 2009 at 4:50 PM.

Health-care reform legislation cleared a significant hurdle in the Senate on Saturday evening, as Democrats defeated a Republican-led effort to prevent the Patient Protection and Affordability Act, unveiled this week by Majority Leader Harry Reid, from moving to the Senate floor for debate. The vote split along party lines, 60-39. (The bill will almost certainly face a similar procedural fight after debate has concluded before a final vote is taken.)

As it became apparent that Democrats would be able to move the bill forward, Republicans used the debate over the procedure as a forum for tantrums and fear-mongering over details of the bill itself.

Most hysterical was Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who referred to the bill’s accounting -- signed off on by a very conservative Congressional Budget Office -- as a criminal Ponzi scheme.

“I think Bernie Madoff went to jail for this kind of behavior,” McCain said. Was he suggesting that CBO Douglas Elmendorf should be sent to the slammer? Or Harry Reid.

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, who, earlier this week, promised a “holy war” over the bill, today embarked on his jihad, which sounded a lot like the talking points advanced at Tea Party rallies by the astroturfing groups FreedomWorks and Americans for Prosperity.

“I hope they’re not trying to take us to socialism,” Hatch said.

Debate began yesterday under a cloud of uncertainty regarding whether Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid would be able to rally every single member of the Democratic caucus to yield the 60 votes needed to break a Republican filibuster. Then, mid-day today, Sen. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, the last hold-out in the caucus, announced that she would vote to allow the bill to move forward.

Lincoln, who is up for re-election in 2010, has been targeted by progressive organizations for home-state pressure. Progressive groups, such as FDL Action, have run ads in Arkansas prodding Lincoln, a very conservative Democrat, to vote for health-care reform, and FDL Action's Jane Hamsher dangled the prospect of a primary challenge at Lincoln should she prove to be an obstacle to health-care reform.

While announcing, from the Senate floor, her willingness to vote for the procedural motion known as cloture -- the mechanism by which a filibuster is broken -- Lincoln complained of the pressure under which she finds herself. (C-SPAN has the video here.)

 

 

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

ACORN: Another Super Villain with Super Powers
Posted by Steve M., No More Mister Nice Blog on November 21, 2009 at 3:22 PM.

We all know that right-wingers think Guantanamo terrorists are terrifying supervillains who'll put every American's life in danger if they're allowed to set foot on U.S. soil, even manacled and under extraordinarily heavy security. As it turns out, they're not the only people to whom right-wing bedwetters ascribe superhuman powers:

The new national poll from Public Policy Polling (D) has an astonishing number about paranoia among the GOP base: Republicans do not think President Obama actually won the 2008 election -- instead, ACORN stole it.

... The poll asked this question: "Do you think that Barack Obama legitimately won the Presidential election last year, or do you think that ACORN stole it for him?"

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Tiny Michigan Town Tells Liz Cheney to Take her Fearmongering Elsewhere
Posted by BarbinMD, Daily Kos on November 21, 2009 at 11:10 AM.

Standish, Michigan, tells Liz Cheney to sell it up the street:

Officials in a small Michigan town featured in a new video about Guantanamo by Liz Cheney’s national security group want her to know that they’re not falling for her “fearmongering” — and tell us they want Gitmo detainees in their town.

Cheney’s group, Keep America Safe, has released a short documentary starring several residents of little Standish, Michigan, slamming the Obama administration over a proposal to transfer some Guantanamo detainees to the town’s maximum security facility, one of several facilities being discussed.  [...]

Cheney is “certainly not representing the views of our community,” the City Manager, Michael Moran, told our reporter, Amanda Erickson.

While some local residents do appear to have expressed mixed feelings or opposition to the plan, Moran says that they’re an isolated minority that Ms. Cheney’s video elevates out of proportion in a way that’s “off base.”

The teabagger way -- pretend that the voice of extremism is speaking for everyone.

What Sarah Palin's "Jewish people will be flocking to Israel" prediction really means
Posted by Bruce Wilson, AlterNet on November 21, 2009 at 7:24 AM.

There's some acceptance that statements such as Sarah Palin's prediction that Jews will soon be "flocking to Israel" may indicate Palin holds apocalyptic beliefs. What's not understood is that she's closely associated with a religious tendency whose leaders promote anti-Jewish conspiracy theories, including one most commonly used by the Third Reich, in the 1930's and 1940's, to whip up anti-Semitic hatreds: the claim that a worldwide cabal of Jewish bankers manipulates the world economy and preys on working classes.

Stumping for her new autobiography, Sarah Palin has made a round of interviews with high profile media figures such as Oprah Winfrey and Barbara Walters. In the Walters interview Palin justified her support for expansion of Jewish settler enclaves on Israel's West Bank with a strange prediction. Walters asked, "Now let's talk about some issues - the Middle East. The Obama Administration does not want Israel to build any more settlements on what they consider Palestinian territory. What is your view on this ?" Palin responded, "I disagree with the Obama Administration on that. I believe that, um, the Jewish settlements should be allowed to be expanded upon because the population of Israel is going to grow. More and more Jewish people will be flocking to Israel in the days and weeks and months ahead."

Why might Palin's prediction come to pass ?

In the 1920's and 1930's, rising anti-Semitism was propelled, in part, by conspiracy theories alleging that Jewish bankers such as the Rothschild banking family controlled both the German and world economies through the manipulation of global money markets. Leaders in Sarah Palin's religious tendency have for years been promoting extremely similar conspiracy theories. Some of these allege that the Rothschild banking family heads an international conspiracy that dominates much of the world economy and controls the U.S.economy through the Federal Reserve.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Considering a Faux Turkey for the Holidays? Better Read This First
Posted by Tara Lohan on November 21, 2009 at 5:27 AM.

Thank Lou Bendrick for doing the dirty work for you. Bendrick enlisted a team of taste testers to try out four different faux turkeys. The hilarious write up was featured in Grist. The rationale behind it: "Any moral high ground gained by having a plant-based Thanksgiving may become absolutely meaningless if you screw up a happy, festive experience with a protein centerpiece that looks gross, or worse yet, has a flavor capable of sending guests, carnivorous and non, in search of a Butterball."

I've never quite recovered from my first and only Tofurky experience about 8 years ago and I even like a lot of veggie meat. Here's what the tasters (and some of them are kids, if that explains any of the comments) had to say about the Tofurky:

 

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Will Gen. Jim Jones Be Obama's National Security Advisor?
Posted by Chris Bowers, Open Left on November 21, 2008 at 4:42 PM.

CNN is reporting that retired General Jim Jones is the leading candidate to become Obama's national security advisor. There is good reason to believe this reporting, given that Jones was one of sixteen names on the "semi-short list" for Obama's Vice-President. While Jones was taken out of contention when it was revealed he supported John McCain, in the third debate Obama still mentioned him as an advisor he would "surround" himself with when elected President. So yeah, this report is probably accurate.

Although not as bad as keeping Gates as Secretary of Defense (I'm not sure any cabinet appointment could be that bad), it would still be a very disappointing selection. Jones, as already noted, supported McCain, and was also offered the deputy Secretary of State job in the Bush administration. He turned the offer down, but turning down an offer like that from the Bush administration in mid-2007 isn't exactly a progressive master stroke. Not many people are keen to jump on board an administration with a sub-30% approval rating and only twenty months left in office.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Obama's (Rumored) Pick for Secretary of the Treasury Makes Wall Street Happy
Posted by Steve Benen, Washington Monthly on November 21, 2008 at 3:36 PM.

Of the three apparent cabinet moves this afternoon, we know a lot about Hillary Clinton, quite a bit about Bill Richardson, but comparably less about Timothy Geithner. If he's going to be the Secretary of the Treasury in the midst of a historical financial crisis, it's probably worth taking some time to get to know him.

I've read two solid pieces lately on the likely next Treasury Secretary. The first was back in September, when Robert Kuttner wrote a fascinating item on Geithner's background and expertise.

Unlike many senior Treasury and Fed officials, Geithner is not a high roller from a big bank or investment house but a public-minded civil servant. He has neither a doctorate in economics nor an M.B.A. After receiving a master's degree in international economics from Johns Hopkins University, he worked as a research assistant to Henry Kissinger and then joined the Treasury, where he was posted as an assistant attache in Japan. He came to the attention of both Larry Summers and Robert Rubin and quickly moved up the ladder. He was a key player in the containment of the Asian financial crisis of 1997-1998 and later went to the International Monetary Fund as a top official. Despite being a Democrat, he was named president of the New York Fed after two stronger and more conservative candidates withdrew. 

Geithner's admirers span the spectrum from Republican financial mogul Pete Peterson to liberal Democrat Barney Frank. One can infer from his broad fan base three possible conclusions: Wall Street is so clubby and politically powerful that permissible policy differences just aren't that great; or maybe Geithner is all things to all people; or perhaps, in a deep crisis, truly talented and effective people can earn broad respect.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Wanted: A New Slogan for Coal
Posted by Bruce Nilles, Sierra Club on November 21, 2008 at 2:33 PM.

With dozens of new coal plants across the country now on hold because of last week's ruling requiring a second look at carbon emissions, the coal industry is stepping up its game. Already in Kansas they've sued the Sebelius administration in an attempt to prevent states from acting to fight global warming. 

We're stepping up our game in response and need your input. 

Already through our new website and online video at CoalIsNotTheAnswer.org, tens of thousands of people have learned the truth about coal -- revealing the reality behind the coal industry's slick $40 million advertising campaign that masks the harmful and polluting nature of coal-fired power plants.

 

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Franken: Coleman's Lead Is Less Than 100 Votes
Posted by Sam Stein, Huffington Post on November 21, 2008 at 2:04 PM.

Aides to Al Franken's campaign said on Friday that the deficit they face against Norm Coleman in their Senate recount is now less than 100 votes.

"It is fair to say that Norm Coleman's lead is now in the double digits," said Marc Elias, a lawyer for the campaign. He added, more optimistically that, "there are more Democratic areas with votes left to be counted than Republican."

The Franken math is not official. They are basing their findings both on the 51.1 percent of the state-wide recount that they have completed, but which is not reported by the Secretary of State, as well as a portion of the 800-or-so contested ballots that they believe will be easily resolved.

The dwindling margin separating the two camps, however, is making for high political drama. If Franken's numbers are to be believed, the Democratic challenger has more than halved his deficit with just over half the recount completed. The election, in short, could be decided by a single digit difference, though there is no telling if the margin will continue to close at the same pace.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Reports: Clinton Accepts Secretary of State Nomination; Geithner and Richardson Also Likely Cabinet Choices
Posted by Satyam Khanna, Think Progress on November 21, 2008 at 1:11 PM.

The New York Times reports that Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) "has decided to give up her Senate seat and accept the position of secretary of state." According to MSNBC, it is "also expected Monday" that New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson will be named Commerce Secretary,” and New York Fed President Tim Geithner is expected to be announced as Treasury Secretary, "barring last minute changes."

Who Is in Charge? Economic Crisis Worsens Because of Transitional Power Vacuum
Posted by Digby, Hullabaloo on November 21, 2008 at 1:02 PM.

Krugman brings up something this morning that I was coincidentally chatting about over dinner with a friend last night -- what are the ramifications of having the lamest of lame ducks visibly uninterested and engaged at this moment of economic crisis, (not to mention a congress that has time to laud convicted felons in their midst but can't seem to stick around to deal with this huge problem developing in Detroit?) I vaguely recalled something similar in 1932 but couldn't remember the details.
Krugman fills in the blanks:

There is, however, another and more disturbing parallel between 2008 and 1932 -- namely, the emergence of a power vacuum at the height of the crisis. The interregnum of 1932-1933, the long stretch between the election and the actual transfer of power, was disastrous for the U.S. economy, at least in part because the outgoing administration had no credibility, the incoming administration had no authority and the ideological chasm between the two sides was too great to allow concerted action. And the same thing is happening now.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Obama, the Senate, and China ... All Eying the Big 3
Posted by Jane Hamsher, Firedoglake on November 21, 2008 at 11:09 AM.

I see the Obama team is already denying this:

"President-Elect Barack Obama's transition team is exploring a swift, prepackaged bankruptcy for automakers as a possible solution to the industry's financial crisis, according to a person familiar with the matter.

Obama's team has already contacted at least one bankruptcy- law firm to say that Daniel Tarullo, a professor at Georgetown University's law school who heads Obama's economic policy working group, would call to discuss the workings of a so-called prepack, according to this person.

Since the election, Team Obama has become "trial balloon central" (if they were genuinely serious about firing the leaker, Rahm Emanuel would hit the Chief Of Staff revolving door post-haste).  They have been strategically using the media to test public opinion, but in this case I'd imagine they also did so with the intent to force the unions, bond holders and other stakeholders in the Big 3 into a more pliant negotiating position.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Maddow Fails to Question Huckabee On His Recent Anti-Gay Statements. Update: Maddow Responds
Posted by Ali Frick, Think Progress on November 21, 2008 at 10:01 AM.

Since Prop. 8's passage in California, which revoked same-sex couples' right to marry, MSNBC host Rachel Maddow has been a powerful outspoken advocate of the rights of gay citizens. "The amendment does not just prohibit gay rights. It takes away rights previously enjoyed," she said. She has also called the vote a "rebuke to the incumbent rights of gay couples." Watch a mashup:

However, last night, Maddow was notably silent on the issue of gay rights when interviewing former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee. On Tuesday, Huckabee had insisted that gay rights and civil rights were totally different because gay rights activists' "skulls" weren't getting "cracked." On Wednesday morning, Huckabee claimed that Prop. 8 "did not prohibit" gay marriage; it "simply affirmed that which already has and forever has existed," he said.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Minnesota Recount Going Well for Franken
Posted by Matt Stoller, Open Left on November 21, 2008 at 9:02 AM.

Update (From Steve Benen): In Minnesota, Norm Coleman's lead over Al Franken is down to just 136 votes. As of last night, about 46% of the 2.9 million ballots had been counted as part of the statewide recount.

Looks like Norm Coleman is feeling the heat.  Here's Minnesota Monitor reporter Chris Steller being thrown out of a Coleman press conference.

I made it as far as the inside of a small press conference room at a drab office park in St. Paul where I was just about to settle into the chair that seemed least conveniently located to the exit when a staffer asked who I was with. When I said the Minnesota Independent, he said I'd have to leave. To my protest that MnIndy is a news outlet like others represented there, the staffer replied, "Right, and it's funded by George Soros," and he escorted me out.

Franken is picking up votes in GOP areas and doing a bit better than he needs to in order to take the seat.  It's still early but there is a reason Coleman is sweating.

AlterNet is a nonprofit organization and does not make political endorsements. The opinions expressed by its writers are their own.

 

Iraqi Oil Exports Have 'Nosedived'
Posted by Saadoun al-Jaberi, Azzaman on November 21, 2008 at 7:35 AM.

Iraq's oil exports are decreasing by nearly 100,000 barrels a day every month, said former Oil Minister Ibrahim Bahar al-Uloom.

Uloom said the drastic decline started last May and has slashed exports to 1.65 million barrels a day from about 2 million.

"Iraqi (oil) exports have nosedived 25 per cent since the beginning of 2008," Uloom said in an interview.

"This represents a big challenge to the government," he said.

He said he could not see how the government would be able to meet budgetary expenses for 2009.

"2009 budget has been based on the assumption of exporting two million barrels a day and an estimated price of not less than $80 for a barrel," he said.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Obama's Team Makes Good on Threat of Bipartisanship
Posted by Steve Benen, Washington Monthly on November 21, 2008 at 5:41 AM.

No one seriously expects congressional Republicans to roll up their sleeves and start working with Democrats on policy solutions. That's just not how this game is played.

The question is how open GOP lawmakers are to outreach. The New York Times reported yesterday morning that the House Republican caucus has "so far balked" at a chance to meet with the incoming White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, but Emanuel spent the day on the Hill anyway, and had some individual meetings with Republicans willing to let him in their offices.

Incoming White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel said President-elect Barack Obama wants to work with Republicans, saying the new chief executive will "welcome their ideas" on how to resolve the ongoing financial crisis the country faces.

Emanuel met today with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and the entire GOP leadership from that chamber for about 30 minutes, and is currently huddling with House Republican Conference Chairman Mike Pence (Ind.). A one-on-one session with House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (Va.) will follow the Pence meeting.

Emanuel noted that he personally had spoken to almost two dozen Republicans in the last two weeks to tell them that the new administration is serious about bipartisan cooperation.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Kristol Continues His Love Affair With Sarah Palin
Posted by Sam Stein, Huffington Post on November 21, 2008 at 5:37 AM.

Bill Kristol defended yet again of the choice of Sarah Palin as McCain's Vice President during a breakfast conference on Thursday. But the prominent neoconservative pundit and Weekly Standard editor did make one small concession: had John McCain tapped Sen. Joseph Lieberman for his number-two post, the results could have been just as good, if not better for the GOP ticket.

 

Speaking at a National Journal 2008 campaign retrospective event, Kristol argued that had the Connecticut Independent been the Republican vice presidential nominee, McCain would have lost "20 percent of the vote at the convention," staff would have "left the campaign," there would have been protests on the convention floor, and the news media would have been obsessed with the inter-party friction for a solid month.

Nevertheless, he added, "I think it could have been managed and it could have ended up net-net by the time of the election. But that is a very tough choice to make in real time..."

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Poll: Public's Loathing of the GOP Hits All Time High
Posted by Melissa McEwan, Shakesville on November 21, 2008 at 5:32 AM.

In the latest Gallup poll, Americans' antipathy for the GOP has increased yet again, with only 34% saying they view the GOP favorably and 61% saying they view the GOP unfavorably, "the highest Gallup has recorded for that party since the measure was established in 1992."

Couldn't happen to a nicer party.

Here's the real fun, though:

The Republican Party heads into the New Year with its brand tattered by the election after decisive losses in the 2008 presidential and congressional races. Such a defeat inevitably leads to introspection in party circles about its message going forward.

Gallup addressed this issue in the recent poll with a question asking, "Over the next few years, would you like to see the Republican Party and its candidates move in a more conservative direction, a less conservative direction, or stay about the same?"

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Bush Is Pushing Hard to Gut the Endangered Species Act
Posted by Ryan Powers, Think Progress on November 21, 2008 at 5:15 AM.

The Associated Press reported yesterday that, as part of its long-fought campaign to gut the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the Bush administration is pushing a last-minute regulatory change that would significantly weaken the ESA:

The rules would eliminate the input of federal wildlife scientists in some endangered species cases, [by allowing] the federal agency in charge of building, authorizing or funding a project to determine for itself whether a project would be likely to harm endangered wildlife and plants.

At today's White House press conference, a reporter asked if the Associated Press had accurately described the proposed regulatory change. Perino responded first by saying she didn't have the documentation with her, but suggested that the rule change would have little effect because the ESA doesn't help protect "any species, including ours" anyway:

PERINO: I don't have [the documentation] with me. I know conceptually what we support. And I know that the Endangered Species Act is a tangled web that doesn't actually help support any species, including our own. ...

Q: (Laughter) So you're proposing eliminating it?

PERINO: No.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Stephen Baldwin Is a Liar and an Ass
Posted by Lisa Derrick, Firedoglake on November 21, 2008 at 5:01 AM.

The only downside of the presidential election:  Born-again Christian and McCain supporter Stephen Baldwin will not be leaving the country, which he'd promised to do if Obama was elected:

The liberal Democrats who didn't get that I was joking need to lighten up. Obama is obviously talented and intelligent, and I have great respect for the man. He's got my full support, and I'm gonna be praying for him and his administration.

If they legalize gay marriage in all 50 states in my lifetime, I'll get a Billy Ray Cyrus tattoo on my butt to go with the Hannah Montana one.

Based on his ability to keep promises, don't expect to be seeing that piece of ink anytime soon. Not that you'd want to look at his butt.

NY Jets Fans: Desperate to Score, or At Least See What Women's Breasts Look Like
Posted by Litbrit , Shakesville on November 21, 2007 at 2:00 PM.

This post, written by Litbrit, originally appeared on Shakesville

What an appalling story. Oh, I'm quite familiar with the notion of people drinking and getting wild at football games: after all, I graduated from the University of Florida. (Although lately, that place is arguably more famous for Tasing students who mouth off at speaking events, and most recently, we learn, for shelling out $40,000--that's about $100 Canadian for you readers in the Great White North, unless the exchange rate has shifted even further southward since I last checked--to a disgraced ex-Attorney General for the privilege of having him bring Federal-caliber slime to that which is already a remarkably sleazy swamp.)

This, however, is yet another example of institutionalized misogyny at its most bald-faced: an entire section of the New York Jets' stadium--Gate D--would seem, these days, to be a de facto Girls Gone Wild audition, with raucous male fans using language that underscores the points Melissa made earlier today. Meanwhile, the team's security guards stand around, doing little if anything to put a stop to the situation, just smoking their cigarettes and detaining (and confiscating tape recorders from) any reporters who dare to ask questions about the outrage:

At halftime of the Jets' home game against the Pittsburgh Steelers on Sunday, several hundred men lined one of Giants Stadium's two pedestrian ramps at Gate D. Three deep in some areas, they whistled and jumped up and down. Then they began an obscenity-laced chant, demanding that the few women in the gathering expose their breasts.

When one woman appeared to be on the verge of obliging, the hooting and hollering intensified. But then she walked away, and plastic beer bottles and spit went flying. Boos swept through the crowd of unsatisfied men.

Marco Hoffner, an 18-year-old from Lacey Township, N.J., was expecting to see more. Not from the Jets -- they pulled off a big upset over the Steelers. He wanted more from the alternative halftime show that, according to many fans, has been a staple at Jets home games for years.

"Very disappointed, because we're used to seeing a lot," Hoffner said.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

The Smoking Gun in the Form of Scott McClellan
Posted by GottaLaff , Brave New Films on November 21, 2007 at 1:00 PM.

This post, written by GottaLaff, originally appeared on Cliff Schecter's Brave New Films Blog

My patented, award-winning quick notes on today's Thom Hartmann Show. As always, there are many accurate quotes among the paraphrased ones.

The mainstream media is burying the Scott McClellan story today. The question is: How will the media and Congress handle this story? Will McClellan Be John Dean to Bush's Richard Nixon? They were both confidants of the president, and both came out with bombshells.

We still live in a nation where we can discuss these things.

Here are the rationales for impeachment, the things Bush has done: (that and more on the flip)

--Wireless searches of Americans and lying about it. The 4th Amendment is unambiguous. Everyone shall be secure against unreasonable search and seizure. Bush tried to lie his way out of this one: "...Constitutional guarantees are in place... We value the Constitution"... Bush is lying through his teeth.

And when he's caught, he says, "There's a process that goes through the Department of Justice...about leaks...My personal opinion is, it's a shameful act for someone to disclose thes very important program in a time of war. It's helping the enemy..." Be afraid! We'll do away with the Constitution, just like Musharraf did.

He's wiretapping the same way Nixon did. What would Gingrich have done if Clinton did what Bush is doing?

--Invading Iraq illegally. And the resolution that the Senate passed that required Bush to write letter in 60 days? -- and he did -- It's a lie.

--Torture

--Unlawful combatant status

--Extraordinary rendition

--Gitmo, the treatment of detainees

--Outing a CIA agent

--The yellowcake forgery

--The grand jury leaks

--Commuting Libby's sentence, if it was done to prevent Libby from implicating Bush in criminal acts.

This is of Nixonian proportions...where is the media?

The President of the United States is revealed by his own press secretary as one of the liars around an act that Bush's own father referred to as a traitorous act. Bush is not the Decider, the Constitution is.

--The Downing Street Minutes says that Bush was fully intending to go to war with iraq, no matter who disagreed with him or what the evidence was. Another bald faced lie.

--The inspectors were in Iraq, Hans Blix was saying we're not finding anything at all. Blix said he had no evidence of WMD. Bush made the inspectors leave so he could drop bombs, and he lied about that. He lied about Saddam kicking out the inspectors.

-- He lied about finding the biological labs.

--Signing statements: Another impeachable offense.

At what point do the lies affect the media? Some blogs, Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann devoted time to it, but nobody in the corporate media.

When Scott McClellan lied, there were several members of the media who knew he was lying (those subpoenaed: Tim Russert, Matt Cooper, Judith Miller), and pedaled the lies. They were used to pedal the lies and they went with it. So, treason was committed by 4th estate and the government. The media is failing us.

Scott McClellan is promoting his book 6 months in advance, which would kill it. An author usually drops leaks a month before, which starts the news cycle. This is Scott trying to clear his name, pointing out the lies.

The LA Times placed the story on page 20, on the bottom right hand corner. Here's the story that took up most of the page: Seven remaining Munchkins were honored with a star on Hollywood's Walk of Fame.

All infotainment all the time. Where are the Bob Woodwards of our day?

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Is the GOP Ready to Nominate a Mob-Connected Man for the Presidency?
Posted by Howie Klein, Down With Tyranny! on November 21, 2007 at 12:00 PM.

This post, written by Howie Klein, originally appeared on Down With Tyranny!

Giuliani's problems go well beyond his immediate associates-- criminals and ne'er-do-wells like best buddy/Mafia bagman Bernie Kerik, South Carolina cocaine dealer Tom Ravenel, or an assortment of monstrosities in his inner circle from child molesting priest Alan Placa to countless unscrupulous money men and paid off shills working to rig the election for Giuliani, like Paul Singer, the guy who has been bankrolling the attempt to steal California's electoral votes and the one fireman willing-- for cash-- to dispute Rudy's shameful real 9/11 record.

Today's Chicago Tribune has been digging where Republicans feared someone was bound to go eventually: Giuliani's multimillion dollar, very shady business connections. And "each revelation raises new questions for the first major presidential candidate in memory to build a multimillion-dollar business on the foundation of his time in elected office, and not the other way around."

Giuliani has managed to hide most of his mobster connections-- but not all. He hides behind "confidentiality agreements" and, basically, says that the crooks he's dealing with are entitled to their privacy. "Questioned during a campaign appearance Tuesday in Chicago, Giuliani said that, 'all of Giuliani Partners' clients, maybe with one or two exceptions, I'm not even sure that's right, are public. ... At least the ones that I was familiar with.'"

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Military Charity To O’Reilly: "If You Really Want To Help U.S. Troops, Set The Record Straight"
Posted by Amanda Terkel, Think Progress on November 21, 2007 at 11:00 AM.

This post, written by Amanda Terkel, originally appeared on Think Progress

Last week, Fox News host Bill O'Reilly visited U.S. troops in Afghanistan. After his trip, he sharply criticized the United Service Organizations (USO) for not sending more celebrities to the country. AP reported:

[T]he cantankerous Fox News Channel commentator told The Associated Press that he's disappointed that the United Service Organizations "doesn't put anybody out there (in Afghanistan)."

"I went to thank these guys on behalf of me and my audience," he said in an interview from Istanbul, Turkey. "As far as I know, the only famous people in the past year were (country music singer) Toby Keith and me."

At our request, USO provided ThinkProgress with its letter responding to O'Reilly's inaccurate charges, urging him to "set the record straight." USO has already sent seven entertainment tours to Afghanistan this year, and expects to send approximately 19 celebrities total in 2007. From the USO letter:

Just through September of this year, we produced 37 overseas tours with 241 performances for 98,000 troops in 14 countries, 9 stateside tours, 15 celebrity education events for military dependents, and 48 celebrity visits to military hospitals. ... For 2007, we expect to take approximately 19 celebrities to Afghanistan and more than 35 to Iraq.

If you really want to support America's service men and women and their families, please set the record straight (both on your show and with the AP) on the work the USO is doing right now on behalf of the nation's troops and encourage your viewers to support the USO.

Additionally, providing entertainment is just 20 percent of USO's work supporting the troops. It also operates 132 service centers around the world (including one in Afghanistan) and coordinates amenities such as phone cards, care packages, and more.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Union Activists Uncover American Crucifixes Made in Chinese Sweatshops
Posted by Lindsay Beyerstein, Majikthise on November 21, 2007 at 5:01 AM.

This post, written by Lindsay Beyerstein, originally appeared on Majikthise

Labor activists at the National Labor Committee say they have traced the path of crucifixes from a sweatshop factory in China to prominent retailers in North America:

NEW YORK - With Christmas just weeks away, a labor group on Tuesday denounced "horrific" sweatshop conditions where crucifixes are made in China to be sold at religious gift shops in the United States.

Charles Kernaghan, director of the National Labor Committee, held a news conference in front of St. Patrick's Cathedral to call attention to conditions at a factory in Dongguan City where the religious objects, sold in St. Patrick's gift shop, are made.

Kernaghan said the crosses were exhibited at an annual trade show organized by the Association for Christian Retail, a Colorado-based trade association that works with thousands of religious stores across the country. [AP]

Here is the National Labor Committee's report on the working conditions at the Junxingye Metal and Plastic Products Factory in Guangdong Province, China.

The report documents the paper trail from the factory, to major importers of religious gifts, to prominent end-line retailers in the USA.

The report's sourcing on the working conditions is a bit thin. Apart from a few direct quotes from anonymous workers, it's not clear how the ILC got its information.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Bush Should Pardon All of the Turkeys
Posted by Bill Maher, Huffington Post on November 21, 2007 at 4:42 AM.

It's probably too much to expect from the man who wanted "no child left behind," then vetoed health care for kids. But think of the upside. Freeing the turkeys might help the president's credibility when he says things like, "We don't torture."

Take a look at this video, shot just last month at a typical American turkey slaughterhouse, and this one, shot undercover last year at a Butterball slaughterhouse by investigators from PETA, and you'll see that my use of the word is no exaggeration. Butterball employees, taking a page out of the Abu Ghraib handbook, laughed while they kicked, punched, stomped, and even sexually assaulted turkeys.

These people should be arrested. They would be if the turkeys were dogs or cats. Too bad our animal protection laws make about as much sense as fighting a war against a country that doesn't have an army. Even though 98 percent of the land animals Americans eat are turkeys and chickens, the federal Humane Methods of Slaughter Act specifically excludes birds from protection. I'm not kidding.

The Butterball plant in the video slaughters about 50,000 turkeys every day. Fifty million turkey corpses will go into American ovens this Thanksgiving. More than 9 billion turkeys and chickens are killed in the U.S. each year. But not one of them is guaranteed a painless death, as documented in this video that was narrated by my fellow animal-lover and HuffPo Blogger, Alec Baldwin. The Senate can find time to vote to condemn an advertisement, but not to add birds to humane slaughter laws.

So in the face of this surreal situation, in which, once again we can't put our faith in the president, I ask you to do what I'm going to do and pardon a turkey this Thanksgiving. It's not hard. Just eat something else (ideas here and here). Not someone else, because it doesn't seem fair to spare a turkey and roast a hunk of pig or cow instead. If we can bow our heads in gratitude for our families, our friends and our big screen TVs, and then carve into a creature who lived a miserable life and died a horrible death, then our ethics are about as sensible as Britney's parenting skills.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Giuliani Pays a NYC Fireman to Like Him
Posted by GottaLaff , Brave New Films on November 21, 2007 at 4:12 AM.

This post, written by GottaLaff, originally appeared on Cliff Schecter's Brave New Films Blog

The only way Rudy can get support from firefighters, it seems, is to hire them, per the Huffington Post's Sam Stein:

But at least one member of the FDNY continues to offer his support to the former mayor -- and may be getting paid for it.

John R. Orlando, who serves with Engine 216 in Brooklyn, New York, has been cited prominently as a Giuliani supporter. Last June, in a New York Times article detailing the mixed reviews Giuliani has among the city's 11,000-membered firefighting force, Orlando said he regularly saw Giuliani at fires despite suggestions otherwise.

Here's what Rudy's paid bff says about him:

[T]he "bottom line is, I think he's been more of a friend to firefighters than I've seen in the news. I don't think all the criticism is warranted."

The bottom line is, that just cost Rudy $1,580.

Three months after he praised Giuliani, Orlando found himself on the former mayor's payroll. On September 28, 2007, the Giuliani campaign paid one John R. Orlando more than $1,580 for what they deemed on a campaign filing as "political strategy consulting."

Oohhh, "political strategy consulting". Is that what the kids are calling it now?

Nobody in the Giuliani mob camp would comment, including Orlando.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Nevada Brothel Owner Pimps for Ron Paul
Posted by Adam Howard, AlterNet on November 21, 2007 at 4:00 AM.

Ron Paul seems to keep garnering support from the most unlikely or at least not necessarily desirable places. First there were those folks with a bunch of stolen credit cards who gave him a major boost in donations last quarter.

That was followed by the wave of endorsements he received from his rapid fanbase in the white supremacist community. And now, just as polls show Ron Paul climbing into fourth place in New Hampshire. He gets the big guns to come out for him:

Campaigning through Northern Nevada today, Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul picked up the enthusiastic support of Nevada brothel owner Dennis Hof.

After sitting through a 20-minute press conference with Paul, Hof vowed to put up a collection box outside the door of his Moonlight Bunny Ranch brothel to take up contributions for the candidate who he says, "Makes a lot of sense, doesn't he?"

"I'll do it today," he said. "I'll get all the Bunnies together and we can raise him some money. I'll put up a collection box outside the door. They can drop in $1 dollar, $5 dollar contributions. What a great way for the working girls to support Ron Paul. It's just the right thing to do."

Paul's campaign was surprised to see Hof, flanked by two prostitutes, emerge from a limousine outside of Lawlor Events Center this morning. They arrived with MSNBC journalist Tucker Carlson, who has been traveling with Paul for a piece he's writing for the New Republic.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Headline of the Year!
Posted by Evan Derkacz on November 21, 2006 at 4:21 PM.

Umm, not sure if I want to know how rigorous the testing process was:

Lieberman hires neo-con chameleon
Posted by Evan Derkacz on November 21, 2006 at 1:24 PM.

With the acquisition of former Christian Coalition Legislative Affairs director, Marshall "Bull Moose" Wittman, Lieberman continues his glacial break from the Democratic Party. Maybe he'll talk about it tonight with Hannity & Colmes on Fox?

Wittman, a former cohort of the CC's scandal-plagued leader, Ralph Reed, has made his home at the withering Democratic Leadership Council's PPI think tank and as an adviser to John McCain, who recently began pandering to right wing bigots like Jerry Falwell in his bid for the '08 presidency. Wittman praised the move as "unconventional." Because, you know, pandering to someone you don't agree with in politics doesn't come often.

He abandoned his "Bull Moose" blog with this sentiment:

The great and grand political development of the past year has been the triumph of Independent - Democrat Senator Joe Lieberman. Joe has bravely revived the great tradition of Scoop Jackson that is so critically needed at this time of international challenge and crisis.

For those unfamiliar with Henry "Scoop" Jackson, he was a (proto-neo-) conservative Democrat who vigorously supported the Vietnam War, nuclear arms, Japanese internment during WWII, and a Steroidal military in general. In a 2002 profile the Guardian UK wrote of Jackson that: "One man more than any other can credibly claim the intellectual and political credit for the Bush administration's bellicose showdown with Iraq and its muscular new doctrine of pre-emption."

Wittman, along with Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle (who worked for "Scoop" and retains his Democratic registration in his honor), Elliot Abrams, and Douglas Feith, are all followers of Jackson, along with, of course, Joe Lieberman.

Jackson, Wittman, Lieberman, and the neocons are a tough bunch to pin down in some ways. Largely a bunch of social liberals (they generally, rhetorically at least, support some semblance of environmental responsibility, concern for the poor, equality for people of color etc etc), though their foreign policy is riddled with White Man's Burden-style optimism.

In some oafishly narrow sense they seek to liberate the world (parts of it anyway) from tyranny. The problem with this omelet, of course, is all the eggs that have to be cracked along the way. Delivering liberation at the tip of a gun, they've managed to push for Vietnam and much of our misguided Middle East policy, ironically sapping our military and turning perception of America on its head.

Lieberman has strong ties to the Christian Zionist/Conservative Jewish network, including Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, John Hagee and the Left Behind players, and so does Wittman, from his days in Robertson's Christian Coalition.

With the hiring of Wittman, Lieberman rounds the homestretch to neo-con-dom. Nothing new here... just the final creaking sounds of a ship going under.

Alcohol/rape study reignites the 'short skirt' theory
Posted by Melissa McEwan on November 21, 2006 at 10:50 AM.

Actual Headline: Should women be more responsible?

Actual Subject: Rape.

A study which reveals many sexually assaulted women may have had too much to drink rather than been drugged has sparked a debate over how much the victims themselves are to blame.

Ah, because if you over-indulged, then you get whatever's coming to you -- bloodshot eyes, a hangover, sexual assault, y'know. Once you pass out, babe, your body's community property. Everyone knows that. So who's really to blame if someone takes your unconsciousness as tacit consent?

Damn, this shit is infuriating.

I can understand the arguments made that no one -- of either sex -- is well served by regularly drinking so much that they lose consciousness. Something bad is bound to happen when one makes a habit of trusting to the goodness of humanity. That’s not to suggest that a victim is to blame in any case; the worse part of human nature is not doing something foolish, but exploiting unintentional exposure for our own gain. However, using this study as a basis to call for greater responsibility on the part of women is particularly disingenuous. Note that its basis was whether women who had been sexually assaulted were drugged, as they thought. That doesn't sound like women who regularly drink so much they lose consciousness, but instead women who -- for whatever reason -- drank too much one night and were thusly so surprised by their physical response they figured it must have been something more than the alcohol. Maybe they always have three glasses of wine, but that night they hadn't had dinner, and so it hit them harder. Maybe they're inexperienced drinkers, who thought three martinis wouldn't affect them so much differently than three glasses of wine. Whatever. So what is the point of telling them to be more responsible? Their condition was obviously an unintentional aberration in the first place. But let's not allow that, nor the notion that the responsibility of any victimization lies with the victimizer, to stop us from redirecting blame upon them.

Tory MP Ann Widdecombe helpfully explains, "You can't always ask 'what can be done?' Is government responsible for people's actions? What needs to be done is people need to grow up and take more responsibility for themselves." But not men doing the raping, of course. "I have been saying for a very long time that drink is putting women in danger and I've also been saying for a very long time women have to take responsibility for themselves." Right. If only women were more responsible, there wouldn't be so much gosh-dern rape.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Olbermann: Lessons for Bush on Vietnam [VIDEO]
Posted by Evan Derkacz on November 21, 2006 at 8:27 AM.

Keith Olbermann's latest special comment.

Scathing, sober, snitty, sane: The usual. Transcript from MSNBC:

It is a shame and it is embarrassing to us all when President Bush travels 8,000 miles only to wind up avoiding reality again.

And it is pathetic to listen to a man talk unrealistically about Vietnam, who permitted the “Swift-Boating” of not one but two American heroes of that war, in consecutive presidential campaigns.

But most importantly — important beyond measure — his avoidance of reality is going to wind up killing more Americans.

And that is indefensible and fatal.

Asked if there were lessons about Iraq to be found in our experience in Vietnam, Mr. Bush said that there were, and he immediately proved he had no clue what they were.

“One lesson is,” he said, “that we tend to want there to be instant success in the world, and the task in Iraq is going to take a while.”

“We’ll succeed,” the president concluded, “unless we quit.”

If that’s the lesson about Iraq that Mr. Bush sees in Vietnam, then...

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

A Baptist minister wonders, "What if we're wrong about homosexuality?"
Posted by Melissa McEwan on November 21, 2006 at 7:39 AM.

Oliver "Buzz" Thomas is a Baptist minister who wonders "What if Christian leaders are wrong about homosexuality?" and suggests that a refusal to disregard the mounting scientific evidence that sexual orientation is not a choice will undermine religion's credibility.

Religion's only real commodity, after all, is its moral authority. Lose that, and we lose our credibility. Lose credibility, and we might as well close up shop.

It's happened to Christianity before, most famously when we dug in our heels over Galileo's challenge to the biblical view that the Earth, rather than the sun, was at the center of our solar system. You know the story. Galileo was persecuted for what turned out to be incontrovertibly true. For many, especially in the scientific community, Christianity never recovered.

This time, Christianity is in danger of squandering its moral authority by continuing its pattern of discrimination against gays and lesbians in the face of mounting scientific evidence that sexual orientation has little or nothing to do with choice. To the contrary, whether sexual orientation arises as a result of the mother's hormones or the child's brain structure or DNA, it is almost certainly an accident of birth. The point is this: Without choice, there can be no moral culpability.

Although there are certainly small pockets within Christianity (and Orthodox Judaism and Islam, which Thomas also rightfully charges with intolerance) who are ahead of the curve, and either simply don't discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or do fully regard homosexuality as a legitimate and intractable part of the spectrum of human sexuality, it's difficult to imagine a time in which Christianity wholly submits to the prevailing view of science and ends its reign of persecution against the LGBT community. This time, they are not going after one man, but millions of people, and some of Christianity's most prominent leaders -- including the Pope -- regularly speak out against gay tolerance. In America, many Christian leaders actively pursue discriminatory legislation, seeking to limit the rights of the LGBT community throughout society. Should they eventually embrace the scientific view this time, they will have a lot more for which to answer -- which certainly means their reluctance to admit their error is much greater.

Medical doctors, psychiatrists, psychologists, sociologists, anthropologists, people of science of every stripe, are telling them they're wrong. Tolerant religious people are telling them they're wrong. Parents of gay children and friends of gay people are telling them they're wrong. The LGBT community is telling them they're wrong. At what point will they listen? At what cost will they continue to insist they are right?

Thomas describes watching the "growing conflict between medical science and religion over homosexuality" as like watching a train wreck from afar: "You can see it coming for miles and sense the inevitable conclusion, but you're powerless to stop it. The more church leaders dig in their heels, the worse it's likely to be." Indeed -- if the church eventually become the singular voice of antagonism against the LGBT community, the blood of every Matthew Shepard will be on their hands. And they will have lost much more than their credibility.

Michael Richards apologizes for 'Nigger' comments [VIDEO]
Posted by Melissa McEwan on November 21, 2006 at 7:19 AM.

You can watch a snippet of the TMZ.com video of Richards' racist tirade, and the video of him apologizing on David Letterman's show last night -- both to the right. (Go to TMZ.com to watch the whole tirade.)

The allusion to Hurricane Katrina and comedians in Vegas and NOLA, in case you don't know, is referencing Comic Relief, which took place last weekend to raise money for victims of the hurricane.

It appears, to me anyway, that he's genuinely sorry and ashamed of himself, as well he should be. He's not blaming his actions on substance abuse or the people at whom he unleashed his fury; aside from a half-hearted excuse rooted in the nature of his act, he's taking responsibility for what he did. So that's to be commended.

That said, I don't think he really gets it. Anyone who explodes in that particular manner and has the self-awareness to admit it's coming from rage he feels against other people, or another nation, or what-the-fuck-ever, is indeed a racist. There’s a difference between active racism and passive racism -- and Richards may not be (or may not have been) an active racist previous to that outburst, but that doesn't mean he didn't hold prejudices that were bubbling away underneath the surface. Clearly he did. He admits as much himself in his apology.

And much like many passive racists, he assumes that all people have those subterranean biases. Passive racists tend to conflate a recognition of stereotypes -- which we all have, by nature of being raised in a culture that promotes them -- with a belief in them. Not everyone who knows what the stereotypes are also subscribes to them on some level, and not getting that is a key feature of passive racism -- both holding the biases and assuming everyone else does, too.

That's what makes his statement about black people's solidarity so telling. He seems to believe that only people of color could have been offended by what he said. He apologizes to the white people who were witness to his rage, but it doesn’t appear to register that there are those of us who simply don't share his attitude. He believes it does lurk in "all of us," and I've been around enough white people who tried to nudge me into admitting that somewhere -- deep down -- I share their prejudices to recognize it when I see it. Nothing pisses off a passive racist like an honest admission that you don't share their views, because they've convinced themselves that simply not overtly discriminating against someone is sufficient to claim, "I'm not a racist."

Hey Barack, guess where Northern Iraq is?
Posted by Joshua Holland on November 21, 2006 at 7:11 AM.

Dem rock-star Barack Obama called for a "gradual withdrawal" of U.S. forces, without a firm end date, "linked to conditions on the ground in Iraq and based on the advice of U.S. commanders."

Could you get any mushier?

And the troops aren't necessarily coming home. To where might they withdrawal? "He proposed redeploying troops to Northern Iraq and to other countries in the region."

God bless Obama, but I don't think he's really getting this whole withdrawal concept.

I actually have heard one analyst suggest that the U.S. could pull its troops into the relatively friendly Kurdish-controlled areas in the hope of salvaging something. If the Baker Commission is considering whether to "go long," "go deep" or "go home," this plan would be "go build a tree-house and hide from the bad guys."

Anyway, while some people I respect favor a gradual withdrawal without a specific end date, it seems to me that it would be the worst of both worlds; it decreases U.S. forces' ability to keep major battles from breaking out but it doesn't give the Iraqi government the boost in legitimacy that a date-certain might -- might -- give it (especially if we have them demand it) and it doesn't provide Iraqis a guarantee that the U.S. won't maintain some permanent bases in the country.

Victory for free speech on the internets
Posted by Melissa McEwan on November 21, 2006 at 7:06 AM.

Bloomberg:

The California Supreme Court said Internet publishers can't be held liable if they post defamatory comments written by others...

The court, in a unanimous decision, said those claiming defamation can only sue the original source of the allegedly offending comments, not publishers or distributors, even if the distributor is an individual. Internet users are protected by the same 1996 Communications Decency Act that grants immunity against defamation claims to publishers in most circumstances, the court said, overturning a San Francisco appeals court.

"By declaring that no 'user' may be treated as a 'publisher' of third party content, Congress has comprehensively immunized republication by individual Internet users," the court said today.

..."It's good news for free speech on the Internet because the Internet can't be the vibrant forum for free speech that it's become if users and Internet service providers alike have to worry about getting sued when they republish something that someone else says," said Ann Brick, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union.

Offended parties can still, of course, seek recourse against the original source of defamatory material. The point is, if the New York Times publishes something, and a blogger reprints it, someone who wants to sue over the item must go to the Times, not the blogger. And that's a very good thing.

(Via Crooks and Liars)

McCain stumping for racist
Posted by Evan Derkacz on November 21, 2005 at 1:45 PM.

He was the liberal fave; the conservative it was ok for liberals to like. But now it looks as though he's sunk lower than anyone thought imaginable, fundraising for outspoken racist and candidate for Lt. Gov. of Alabama, George Wallace Jr.

According to Atrios, Wallace Jr. is a frequent speaker at the Council of Conservative Citizens (as recently as this year, so unless he's "clarified his views" as they say in DC parlance, this is valid. The CoCC's statement of principles includes this repugnant doosie:

We also oppose all efforts to mix the races of mankind, to promote non-white races over the European-American people through so-called "affirmative action" and similar measures, to destroy or denigrate the European-American heritage, including the heritage of the Southern people, and to force the integration of the races.

Atrios comments: "I'll never understand certain liberals love affair with John McCain. I'll set my bar slightly higher than 'not as obviously incompetent and evil as George Bush' thank you." (Eschaton)

--> Sign up for Peek in your inbox... every morning! (Go here and check Peek box).

Reclaim the chocolate
Posted by Evan Derkacz on November 21, 2005 at 12:02 PM.

I don't know about anybody else, but I am so sick of feeling like there's no candy bar that speaks to me. As a man, I mean.

Alas, as Constantine von Hoffman points out, Nestle has unleashed, as it were, the Footie bar with an aggressive ad campaign claiming that football (soccer) is "not for girls." Other slogans include: "no passes to lasses," and "no wenches on the benches."

von Hoffman quotes Nestle's spokesperson: "The spirit of this is to reclaim chocolate for men, based on the consumer insight that there are not many things that men can look at and say that it’s just for him."

She comments:

"OK, first off: Because there just aren’t enough things in the world that cater to men? Second – umm, that’s a consumer insight? Guys just don’t feel they have a candy bar that speaks to them. I dunno. Mars Bars. Three Musketeers. Sound pretty butch to me... Almond Joy, however, definitely girlie."

I'm just happy that I'll finally be able to eat chocolate while I repair appliances, program the VCR and pump iron. (CMOblog)

--> Sign up for Peek in your inbox... every morning! (Go here and check Peek box).

So you still like Tony Blair...
Posted by Evan Derkacz on November 21, 2005 at 11:12 AM.

Ex-pat Avedon Carol takes the floor to remind progressives who harbor a shred of respect for Tony Blair "because he can talk better than Bush," that they needn't waste their time.

"[H]e's more Ralph Reed than Al Gore," she argues, noting that "He exploits his alleged belief in God, knows how to get the support of the powerful, and keeps trying to 'modernize' things that already worked just fine."

With the Tories as an opposition party, he's free to pursue biometric ID cards, make alliances with Bush (a far more willing and active one than the he was swept up in Bush's vision scenario), and such safety-enhancing measures as extended detention without due process. Looks like our leaders are sharing notes.

And then this morsel that I missed entirely: "Not a surprise, then, that he's already set to join the Carlyle Group..." (PoliticalAnimal)

--> Sign up for Peek in your inbox... every morning! (Go here and check Peek box).

PBS chief perjury
Posted by Evan Derkacz on November 21, 2005 at 10:36 AM.

Tim Karr asks whether Public broadcasting's discredited Republican operative Ken Tomlinson didn't lie under oath to the Senate.

First, testifying -- under oath -- to the Senate in July, Tomlinson swore that he had no role in bringing the Wall St. Journal and Paul Gigot to the network. Except, in an email to Gigot, recently made public, Tomlinson notes:

"We are close to a deal that would put Gigot/WSJ on public broadcasting. . . I realize God is in the details, but this is a real deal we can live with. But I don’t want to turn loose of CPB’s money or let authorization go forward until you have a show that gets everything Moyers gets except for time."

Hmm.

Karr also notes that Tomlinson's remarks to the press have been similarly reliable. After telling the LA Times that he had no contact with anyone from the White House regarding public broadcasting, we find out that Tomlinson and Rove exchanged emails bout potential hires for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. (MediaCitizen)

--> Sign up for Peek in your inbox... every morning! (Go here and check Peek box).

Fire Woodward
Posted by Evan Derkacz on November 21, 2005 at 9:14 AM.

After reading the Washington Post "non-budsman's" defense of Woodward's decision to conceal from his editor's his knowledge of the outing of Valerie Plame, John Aravosis writes: "just in case any real journalists are still left at the Washington Post: Bob Woodard's excuse is a lie that a child could unravel."

Woodward says he didn't come clean to his editor in June of 2003 because he was afraid Patrick Fitzgerald would subpoena him.

But Patrick Fitzgerald wasn't even appointed special prosecutor until December of 2003, and Fitzgerald didn't start subpoenaing journalists until May of 2004.

And once Fitzgerald was on the job, Woodward was hardly afraid of going to jail: He OFFERED to go to jail in Judith Miller's place this past July, 2005.

And just so we're clear about how unethical this all is, he not only concealed his knowledge of the outing of Valerie Plame (as well as the reason for concealing it), but he also denounced and belittled the investigation no less than seven times.

Yes, Washington Post, by all means keep wondering why readership is falling. (Americablog)

--> Sign up for Peek in your inbox... every morning! (Go here and check Peek box).

Unkosher Alito
Posted by Evan Derkacz on November 21, 2005 at 7:35 AM.

Meeting in the, uh, second homeland of Houston, the Union of Reform Judaism made its opposition to Sammy Alito a formality.

Nothing personal, of course, they just didn't like his "record with respect to abortion, women's and civil rights, federal power and the separation of church and state." You know, more or less everything.

Jeralyn also notes that "It is the only branch of Judaism that recognizes civil unions between same-sex couples and ordination of gays."

Now, the Union represents around 1.5 million members but it just happens that an inordinate number of Jews sit on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Five to be exact, and four of the eight Democrats.

I may be going waaaaay out on a limb here, but if these senators in particular rely on the support of organized Jewish groups for reelection, this unequivocal expression of opposition could weigh disproportionately on their decision to oppose Bush's nominee... maybe. (TalkLeft)

--> Sign up for Peek in your inbox... every morning! (Go here and check Peek box).