Conservatives Complain about Frankenstein

After spending years acting like spoiled, unbehaved, or angry children, conservatives have decided that society is angry. But rather than actually act like grown ups and take responsibility and help fix the problem they helped create, they are now working to hide their role in creating the angry society.

The latest example is the new White House Press Secretary Tony Snow's complaints about comments made about him. After spending years belittling and degrading others Snow had the gall to write a column "We need a pause button for the insult industry" where he asked "Where do such passions come from?"

Gee, Tony, I don't know. Maybe from listening to you, as American Street pointed out, or your budy Rush Limbaugh, whose comparison of former Senator Tom Daschle to the devil may have inspired threats against Daschle, or Jerry Falwell's or Robert Bartley's Wall Street Journal editorial page long term crusade against President Clinton.

While one might think that people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, apparently conservatives believe that by attacking, rather than admit responsibility, is the best political move.

Recently Daniel Henninger of the previously mentioned Journal's Editorial page also complained about the Internet and liberals without mentioning the Journal's or conservatives role in degrading today's political discourse.

Now it's no doubt that the Internet is a wild and uncouth place in many areas. The question is why? Could it be that after eight years of relentless and unfounded attacks on Clinton, followed by the media's War on Gore, that the public now thinks its OK to act that way? If so, isn't it a little hypocritical to complain about what one helped create?

CIA Determines Scapegoat

With the announcement by a lawyer of fired CIA officer Mary McCarthy that she had neither the access to the information she is accused of leaking nor did she leak the information, one has to wonder if the CIA determined who to blame by looking at campaign contributions rather than evidence.

If true, then a statement by political hack turned CIA director, Porter Goss potentially passed along was dishonest or disinformation by alleging that McCarthy "knowingly and willfully shared classified intelligence, including operational information."

NBC reported that "a defense source tells NBC News that while McCarthy may have failed her polygraph on the issue of having unauthorized contacts with reporters, she did not fail the question about leaking information on the secret prison system."

The CIA says unauthorized speaking with the media is grounds for dismissal, McCarthy's lawyer said that was why she was terminated. However it appears Goss decided to go the extra mile in order and found a Democrat to blame for the leak. (Maybe the classified information McCarthy leaked is that the Bush administration is incompetent, although I'm pretty sure that information was declassified long ago.)

So at Goss's CIA outing a fellow agent is OK but telling the media about secret prisons is cause for finding a scapegoat. That must make CIA agents sleep well at night knowing that their job is secondary to the political whims of the Bush administration.

But with Bush's approval rating dropping to the freezing range and stories on the prisons winning Pulitzers, it may have become extremely important to find a scapegoat. McCarthy appeared to be a good one, donating money to Democrats and John Kerry. One has to wonder if the CIA's investigation was limited to running CIA employee names through Fundrace.org until they got a hit for someone contributing to Sen. John Kerry.

During his confirmation hearing, Sen. Jay Rockefeller questioned whether Goss would be politically objective after reviewing a series of attacks Goss made on Kerry on security issues yet didn't attack Republicans.

With Sen. Kerry getting high marks for his recent public statements lately and the American people abandoning Bush, perhaps this is Goss attempt to get back at Kerry and Democrats.

Or perhaps there is actually something to the CIA is claim. Unfortunately, the history of dishonesty the Bush Administration has built up leads one to question anything and everything they do.

FOX = GOP?

If anyone had any questions about whether FOX News is biased one only has to look at recent media reports about the relationships between the GOP and the FOX News network.

In one episode a FOX News anchor praises a questionable political hit job, while in the other two FOX news staff are rumored to be under consideration for White House Press Secretary.

In the first, in an article on FOX News anchor Brit Hume in the Washington Post, Howard Kurtz reports that former President Clinton spokesman Mike McCurry said that Hume would sit in the front row during press briefings doing crossword puzzles and that "If you tried to slip a little spin in, he'd suddenly erupt and say, 'Wait a minute!'

Wow, what a great reporter! Yet Kurtz also mentioned that Hume and Fox News were among the first to jump on the charges by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth about Sen. John Kerry's Vietnam record, with Hume pushing the controversy day after day.

As the lead panelist on "Fox News Sunday," Hume said in August 2004 that the book by the Swift Boat Veterans "is a remarkably well-done document. It is full of detail. It is full of specifics. The charges that are being made of Kerry, of irresponsible and indeed in some cases mendacious conduct in his service in Vietnam, are made by people who were there."

Remarkably well-done? For a GOP political piece of spin it may have been remarkably well done. As a journalist piece it was hardly well-done. Factcheck.org pointed out the multiple problems with the book and the veterans stories and even the Post has pointed out the problems, yet Kurtz failed to point out, or challenge, Hume on the problematic book. Maybe crossword puzzles are getting harder these days.

It's doubtful Hume's views surprise anyone, even though they go against the networks "fair and balanced" slogan. Reasonable people instead probably think Hume's on the GOP's payroll. He may not be but his coworker soon may be. FOX News reported that one of the people the White House has approached as a possible replacement for McClellan is FOX News Radio host Tony Snow and the Washington Post said Dan Senor, a Fox News contributor and former spokesman for the U.S. civilian authority in Iraq, is also among those being considered.

One wonders if Snow, a frequent guest host for Rush Limbaugh and GOP cheerleader, will have to take a pay cut to go on the "official" GOP payroll?

White House Needs New Lackey

Perhaps the pressure of being a White House lackey finally got to be too much for Scott McClellan, who announced today he was resigning as White House Press Secretary.

Since July 2003 years McClellan has been the face of the White House, spouting its half truths and distortions, helping his boss retain his job in spite of the administration's overwhelming incompetence.

In typical dishonesty, stupidity or cluelessness, Bush said of McClellan at the resignation announcement, "I thought he handled his assignment with class, integrity."

The question now is would anyone want to hire someone who basically soldout for a spot in sun, or as Pink Floyd wrote in Wish You Were Here..

...did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage?

Time will tell.

Perhaps Rumsfeld Should Stay

One of the points that hasn't been made during the discussion over whether Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld should resign is whether Bush would appoint a more qualified or competent person to replace him.

The same point should be considered during the discussions over the talk of impeaching George Bush. What would that accomplish? Make Dick Cheney President? Please. If there is one person who would do a worse job as President than Bush it is Cheney.

While people have an interest in holding government officials accountable, the Bush administration, whether through planning, arrogance, or stupidity, aren't very good about personnel issues and there is no guarantee that a replacement would be any better. One only has to look at the number of people who told the truth and left while the yes-men or true believers stayed around to continue their destructive impulses.

One such example was former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill in who in The Price of Loyalty, wrote that efforts to collect evidence and construct smart policy are, with little warning, co-opted by the White House political team, or the Vice President, or whoever got to the President and said something, true or not."

And just look at who Bush picked to replace Andy Card as Chief of Staff - Josh Bolten, who helped oversee the transition of budget surpluses to massive budget deficits as White House Budget Director.

One could hope that getting Bolten out of the Budget Office might mean that a more competent person would step into the role, but that would involve Bush picking a more qualified person as opposed to a true believer.

So rather than pushing Bush to install good people in his government, perhaps the public should be more interested in using the power they have at the ballot box to put good people in government.

Free Speech Scares White House

One of the ironic, or hypocritical, aspects to the Bush administration's profession of love for liberty, freedom, and democracy overseas is how much they apparently despise it when it takes place in the United States.

The recent decision to attempt to silence, or counteract, former military personnel over the administration's failed Iraq policy is only the latest example of an administration that came to power by short circuiting democracy and has worked to curb freedoms over the past five years.

In the past, when a Democrat such as John Kerry would criticize the administration over Iraq, they would face attacks on their patriotism and intelligence, such as Zell Miller did in a truly disgusting and dishonest speech at the Republican Convention in 2004.

But today the administration is faced with a growing chorus of criticism from former military officers, some of whom served in Iraq and saw first hand the folly of implementing a plan by people who didn't understand the situation and didn't care to understand the situation.

Retired Army Maj. Gen. John Batiste, who commanded the 1st Infantry Division in Iraq in 2004-2005, said he believes that the administration's handling of the Iraq war has violated fundamental military principles, such as unity of command and unity of effort.

A number of people have pointed out the comparison with Vietnam when the military kept quiet and saw a war disintegrate. Apparently not wanting that to happen again, several retired officers are speaking out.

Maybe they believe that if more people like John Kerry had spoken up during the Vietnam War, fewer Americans would have died. And that prospects probably scares the Administration. Just imagine if someone in the media were to put 2 and 2 together and figure that out then Kerry's Vietnam criticism could be viewed in a whole new light and his current views would also gain credibility.

And who wants to be in office when everyone knows the other guy would be a better president. Nearly half the country figured that out long ago, the worry for the White House is that more than half might now have figured it out. Look what a recent poll found out:

Unhappiness with Bush is so pervasive that 49 percent of registered voters say they would vote for Massachusetts Senator John Kerry if the 2004 presidential election were held today, to 39 percent who say they would vote for the president.

The End to Charmed Political Lives?

With the announcement by former House Minority Leader Tom DeLay that he would not seek reelection, apparently the charmed life of a number of Republicans is coming to an end.

DeLay, according to the Washington Post, will step down from the House rather than face a reelection fight that appears increasingly unwinnable. This, only a few days after a former top aide plead guilty and apparently decided to cooperate with investigators.

In the Senate, Majority Leader Bill Frist already had decided to not seek reelection and apparently is looking forward to not being in the Senate. In an article in the New York Times, Frist said that he loved being leader but that he would find it liberating to leave.

Apparently Frist feels that in the Senate people aren't getting the proper view of him. "The real Bill Frist, they don't really see," whined Frist, who wants to run for President in 2008. Oh what a shame. I mean if people were to get an realistic view of Senators then John Kerry would be President and John Edwards would be Vice President.

At the top of the charmed food chain is George Bush and he is already prevented from seeking another term, although he actually only won one term as President so you have to wonder if he might go to the Supreme Court and argue to be allowed to win a second term.

Instead Bush apparently is going down in flames with approval ratings in the '30s and even military men criticizing his administration. In remarks Sunday on NBC, General Anthony Zinni of the U.S. Marine Corps, a former commander of the Central Command who retired in 2000, said that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld should be held accountable and should resign for tactical mistakes in Iraq.

With an election approximately seven months away, and prospects of a Republican loss growing larger everyday, one might think Bush would decide to clean house. But that would involve admitting his house is dirty and that is something he is unlikely to do.

In the past Bush, DeLay and Frist survived by changing the storyline and attacking others but at this point it is difficult for people to look away from the mess in Washington, meaning the charmed life for the three and their groupies may be about over.

What Report? Oh That Report

Faced with declining poll numbers and a public that has grown suspicious the administration has decided to attack the messenger, or the media, which is always a crowd pleasing activities among the red staters.

While some might think that the more than 2,000 Americans deaths since the start of hostilities in Iraq is important, apparently a bigger issue with whether the media is accurately reporting what's going on in Iraq or are just a bunch of negative nellies.

But leave it to the press to do a poor job of defending themselves. In the Sunday's Washington Post Ombudsman column (unbelievably titled The Post and the Whole Picture in Iraq), and a Monday column (A Turning Point In Iraq) by Post media critic Howard Kurtz, the issue of whether the media was being too tough on the administration was reviewed.

There were laundry lists of examples but after thorough review, well very little was decided. It's just too bad there isn't a neutral party to review of the situation in Iraq to tell us if things are better or worse off than people believe.

Oh wait, there is such a report! Last week Keith Olbermann on Countdown reviewed a U.S. State Department report titled Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, which Olbermann pointed out had been released at a news conference earlier this month, with Secretary of State Rice herself delivering the opening remarks, the 23 pages on Iraq stating unequivocally that even a highly selective inventory of the terrorist attacks in that country during the last year could barely begin to catalog all the violence.

Quote, 'Bombings, executions, killings, kidnappings, shootings, and intimidation were a daily occurrence throughout all regions and sectors of society. A illustrative list of those attacks, even a highly selective one, could scarcely reflect the broad dimension of the violence,' the report also stating that the attacks were being waged by any number of people, not just insurgents, for any number of reasons.

So basically things are horrible over in Iraq and if the State Department is to be believed, perhaps even worse than the picture the media is painting.

So why is the media reporting on a study that shows that their reporting probably skewed? Who knows. Perhaps they don't want the public to know how bad it really is over there.

Crybaby Conservatives

Not satisfied with control of all three branches of government, talk radio, and business, conservatives' complaints have lead them into a featured role on the mainstream media.

Apparently some in the media haven't' been following the GOP script over the past few year and have ventured into digging into stories and reporting facts as opposed to a what's presented on the All-Spin Zone, also know as Fox News.

Unlike the 2000 Presidential election when, like good little boys, as the American Prospect recently wrote, "the MSM deputized itself judge, jury, and executioner for [Al] Gore's 2000 presidential campaign, spinning each day's events to portray the stolid, capable vice president as a wild exaggerator, ideological chameleon, and total, unforgivable bore.

Lately, like a Rip Van Winkle who awoke from a conservative spell, the media have been rising off their knees and questioning the administration. Knowing this day would come, conservatives have been complaining for years about lack of representation in the MSM, hoping they could infiltrate and overtake this habit of looking for the truth.

So in effort to balance well-reported, thoughtful work (which, if anything supports conservatives more than liberals) the Post knuckled under and opened its website to a Republican operative and not surprisingly he immediately act like as a traditional conservative, complaining about how conservatives are treated well and how they don't get enough respect.

Unknowingly, Red America gave an inside glimpse of itself and its supporters when it attempted to criticize a Toronto Star story on sociology study that explained that said Remember the whiny, insecure kid in nursery school, the one who always thought everyone was out to get him, and was always running to the teacher with complaints? Chances are he grew up to be a conservative.

Well, duh! Just look at George Bush. He loses the 2000 election but like a spoiled baby he gets his way and the White House. And just as a spoiled baby grows up to be a spoiled brat, Bush now demands he get his way, whether or not it's good for the country.

Perhaps the country could hire the SuperNanny to straighten out Baby Bush, but instead just as parents can only look forward to when their spoiled brat leaves home, America will be left to count the days until the Crybaby in Chief leaves office.

Update - It's worse than it sounds! Joe Conason of Salon and the Howard Kurtz of the Post give the full story.

Don't You Dare Do to Us What We Did to You

Apparently conservatives have come up with a plan to rally conservatives around the failed "p"residency of George Bush. Basically it involves criticizing Democrats for considering "censuring" Bush.

While there is a little talk of impeachment, Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feinfold is pushing a motion to censure Bush over wiretapping. As the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz pointed out "most Democrats believe Bush probably did break the law in approving warrantless eavesdropping" but the resolution "is scary to most senators with D."

Why? Because Republicans can use their TV and radio talk shows (Ok, they aren't owned by the GOP but they might as well be) to stir up their voters by claiming things like censure motions and impeachment are political ploys and only hurt the country. Brian Jones, a Republican spokesman said "This is raw partisan politics."

Right, and like the Clinton investigations weren't? Apparently investigations into a person's private life are not partisan politics but an examination of whether a president acted illegally is partisan politics.

If that seems confusing it would be simpler to understand the the GOP position is basically it's always OK to investigate Democrats and never OK to investigate Republicans.

So Now Book Smarts Are OK?

After a presidential campaign spent criticizing Sen. John Kerry and Democrats for sophisticated and nuance responses to issues, all of sudden with the uproar over the ports deal, administration apologists have discovered the need for sophisticated, or "book smarts."

On Hardball Wednesday night, conservative columnist Kate O'Beirne said the problem with the Dubai port deal was that those investigating the deal were actually hindered by their sophisticated understanding of how ports operate, i.e. they were too smart to deal with the issue.

At the end of the day, and after a thorough investigation, perhaps the port deal is a good one. After all one has to think that if Bush's political underlings weren't involved, perhaps the deal was actually determined on its merits.

And former President Bill Clinton is working with Dubai on how to promote the deal so one has to think that if people using the often maligned book smarts are in favor of the deal then there must be something to it.

Or maybe not, but we may not know yet. Democrats, who for years have tried to govern and run for elections based on book smarts rather than on emotion have gotten beaten at the ballot box, might be excused for raising questions based on the appearance of a deal.

Conservatives, on the other hand made their living belittling book smarts and science on many issues and so for them to all of sudden use book smarts as the answer is hypocritical. But it's not a surprise as few have said the governing conservatives have principles.

In an excellent column describing the differences the between the current White House resident and the last President, Newsweek's Howard Fineman pointed out that the Administration will take 45 days to review and explain the deal but Bush probably won't be able to explain it to the public.

Especially not now that the Washington Post is reporting an investigation into a second Dubai firm set to take over precision components used in aircraft and tanks.

As Fineman put it Suddenly, it's a complicated, gray world out there: the kind that a Bill Clinton would feel at home in, and could explain.

You know, someone with book smarts.

The Fear Monster Bites Back

Karl Rove must be burning the midnight oil these days. After years of burnishing the image of George Bush as the person who would protect Americans, recent events in Iraq and in Washington must be causing Rove to come up with a new playbook to replace the Fear and Security one he has used too long.

In mid-January Rove outlined his "view" of the differences between Republicans and Democrats saying "At the core, we are dealing with two parties that have fundamentally different views on national security," Rove said. "Republicans have a post-9/11 worldview and many Democrats have a pre-9/11 worldview. That doesn't make them unpatriotic -- not at all. But it does make them wrong -- deeply and profoundly and consistently wrong."

Despite this comment being ridiculous to start with (Democrats were the one who helped push for the Department of Homeland Security while Bush and the GOP took the U.S. into a war that has destabilized the Middle East), Rove's comments were more about appearance rather than reality.

Rove probably knew he was being dishonest but his goal was to outline how the GOP would portray itself and Democrats, not how they actually were. And based on history he had every reason to be confident. Afterall, despite numerous news reports that showed that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 the average the average viewer of FOX News was significantly more likely to have misperceptions than someone who got their news from NPR.

The problem for Democrats is that too often people believe what they want to believe, which was the company line the GOP was pushing, rather than reality.

Today the tables have turned as events based on reality and appearance are taking over the news. With Iraq moving toward civil war and the news that the administration is proposing a UAE government firm take over major operations at six U.S. ports, more Americans are starting to question the Administration.

As Pat Buchanan said on the recent McLaughlin Group "When Bubba in Mississippi woke up and found out Arab sheiks are taking control of our eastern ports, it was all over for Bush."

For those who wanted to take a thoughtful and nuanced approach to the port deal, perhaps it was fine, but after being bludgeoned for years for acting based on thinking rather than emotions is it any wonder why Democrats are opposing Bush on this, and they may have a good case. One can only image the ad Karl Rove would have made against a President John Kerry if he had done EXACTLY what Bush had done.

So the problem for the Bushies is how to talk about security without having people think about the disaster in Iraq and Arabs running our ports. The old conservative line "be afraid, be very afraid" has come back bite the administration.

Heck of a job Bushie!

Trip Outside the Bubble

George Bush stepped out of his protective bubble on Tuesday and found out reality and his view of reality don't always match up and that he and his programs are not popular.

In retaliation, expect the wing nuts to mount a full scale attack on those who pointed out the king has no clothes, basically saying that a funeral was no place to speak the truth, no matter how relevant or appropriate the criticisms were.

Bush was at the funeral of Coretta Scott King in Atlanta where other past presidents and religious leaders paid tribute to the live of Mrs. King and her late husband. During the tribute, the Washington Post pointed out that former President Jimmy Carter delivered some of the most pointed comments, noting that Martin Luther King Jr. had been "the target of secret government wiretapping and other surveillance" in his day. The remark raised the issue of a controversial eavesdropping program that President Bush authorized to combat terrorism but that some critics have charged violates U.S. law.

Conservatives complained that was inappropriate comments for a funeral, yet Bush had no problem, as the Post pointed out, recalling the threats and bombings aimed at intimidating her husband, and the rifle shot in Memphis that ultimately ended his life.

Apparently it is OK to talk about some of the troubles that Dr. and Mrs. King faced, just not the ones that are relevant today and raise questions about the current administration.

So as a result expect conservatives to make the point that dissent is tolerated, just not anywhere where people are paying attention, such as a public funeral. Also expect a lot of comparison about the funeral of Sen. Paul Wellstone in 2002 and how Democrats acted poorly. But also expect a lot of lies. As Al Franken pointed out, conservatives made mountains out of ant hills in 2002 and turned that funeral into political opportunity, leading to the election of Republican Norm Coleman to replace Wellstone.

This time the only question is who conservatives will retaliate against for speaking the truth.

State of the Union Address

The State of the Union address George Bush should have given...

My fellow Americans. I come to you with distressing news. The state of our Union is not good. Your government, under my direction, has utterly failed you in almost all areas.

You are being governed by a culture, not of life, but of corruption. That corruption, and a general lack of interest in policies we don't believe in, has led you to be less safe today because my administration has encouraged our enemies and alienated our allies.

And for many of you the future does not look promising. My party, the Republican Party, which has controlled all branches of government for the past few years, lacks the discipline to control spending without doing so on the backs of the poor. As a result we turned a budget surplus into long-term record deficits.

In addition, my fellow Republicans are in the middle of what many have called one of the biggest corruption scandals in many years. While I and others have dishonestly tried to say that Democrats were equally involved, in reality Democrats saw their contributions decline among the involved tribes once my fellow Republican Jack Abramoff got involved. Luckily for me that is a point the media has for the most part ignored.

Another area we have ignored has been Afghanistan. More than four years ago Osama Bin Laden organized an attack against this great country. Our reaction was to pursue a half-hearted commitment to finding him in Afghanistan and instead went after Saddam Hussein to finish what my father and his cronies would not.

Instead of pursuing a strategy to "Finish Afghanistan First," we needlessly involved ourselves in a war that might have been avoided. Our occupation has enraged people throughout the world and destroyed a once-in-a-lifetime reservoir of goodwill afforded to us after 9/11.

But we didn't forget 9/11. Domestically we turned 9/11 into a political opportunity, as a way to question the patriotism of those who dared to question us. In this area I can stand here tonight and say we were very successful. Through a dishonest and distasteful campaign I was able to get a tiny majority of voters to support me and my radical agenda.

Another election is only 10 months away and I can assure you that while we may forgotten, or never learned the lessons of 9/11, we will not forget how to use 9/11 to overcome our inherent weaknesses.

You see if votes were counted accurately and completely in 2000 I would have never been President. It was only through the efforts of members of my party and justices on the Supreme Court that we were able to overcome the will of the people.

Tonight I am pleased to say we have another soldier to help us in future battles with the approval of Justice Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. I can't tell you how good it made me feel to hear his views opposing the one-man, one-vote principle.

For those of you who believe our callous, dishonest and uncaring actions will hurt us in November, remember we have spent the last decade working to ensure that elections turn out in our favor.

Even though our reaction to Katrina, our bungling of the budget surplus, our damaging of the environment and any number of other failures might enrage voters, until talk radio raises these subjects we won't have to worry.

We don't care because we don't have to. Thank you.

New Feature - Really Bad Cartoons

If no-talent partisan conservatives can get their inaccurate and questionable cartoons run by the main stream media, why can't a no talent liberal get the the same treatment. In a new feature, Really Bad Cartoons will follow the lead of the right, except be truthful.

They Just Don't Get It

It took a near riot by disgruntled readers of the Washington Post but Deborah Howell, the Post's Ombudsman, finally admitted she made a mistake in saying that Jack Abramoff contributed to both parties. Unfortunately apparently neither she nor the paper understood why it took a near riot for the newspaper to respond.

Instead the Post should have seen this coming. Howell had made a series of errors and questionable statements in previous columns, raising readers hackles, but when readers complained to anyone at the Post who would listen, they were told they should give her a chance.

The problems started in December when she criticized Dan Froomkin's White House Briefing column, calling it highly opinionated and liberal. The resulting tussle was played out on media blogs but Hit-and-Run Howell never addressed it again.

Next up she apparently didn't like, or responded to conservative critics of a Post story that the poor were overly reprented in the military because of a lack of other economic opportunties. In The Whole Story on Military Recruiting she accepted the Pentagon's and Rand Corp claim that the data in the story, part of which supplied by the National Priorities Project, was based on only 20 counties and so 'the data are clearly not representative.' The NPP said "Ms. Howell was told repeatedly and in no uncertain terms that the people she spoke with were wrong, that the NPP analysis was based on the entire population of recruits, not just a sample."

Next up on Howell's Hit Parade was A Few New Year's Resolutions, where she said "The liberals seem to expect The Post to be the house organ of Moveon.org." This is a standard conservative talking point, more fully examined previously.

To date, the only error she has addmited was her comment in Getting the Story on Abramoff that Abramoff "had made substantial campaign contributions to both major parties."

But she didn't take back her statement that Post articles had said "that a number of Democrats, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) and Sen. Byron Dorgan (N.D.), have gotten Abramoff campaign money."

Apparently she could admit to one mistake. But the bigger mistake was hers and Post missing the point the bigger point, that as Bloomberg pointed out, that Abramoff's tribal clients gave money to Democrats after he began representing them, but in smaller percentages than in the past.

So, shouldn't the story have been "Abramoff helped cut tribal donations to Democrats."

Worst American President

Watching the current administration in action is similar to sitting at an intersection watching an impending car crash. You see it coming, you know it's going to happen but there is nothing you can do but watch.

Occasionally someone raises up and says "can't we stop this thing" or "this person should lose their license." Unfortunately it doesn't happen much. In politics that event happened the other day when New York Sen. Hillary Clinton pointed out that the Bush administration will go down as "one of the worst" in U.S. history.

One only has to look at Bush's accomplishments: turning a surplus into a deficit, turning the world against the U.S. (no easy task when after September 11 even the French said we are all Americans), and helped game the electoral system.

However what most people will hear about the speech is that Sen. Clinton said Republican leaders have run the House "like a plantation. " Of course those on the Right were appalled and immediately criticized Clinton, conveniently forgetting that in 1994 former GOP House Speaker Newt Gingrich, shortly before Republicans won a majority in the House, said Democrats "think it's their job to run the plantation" and that "it shocks them that I'm actually willing to lead the slave rebellion."

But hypocrisy is nothing new for those on the right. On Tuesday, presidential spokesman Scott McClellan called Al Gore (winner of the 2000 Presidential election) a hypocrite because Gore said that Bush broke the law by letting the National Security Agency monitor e-mails and phone calls to and from the United States without approval from a special federal court.

McClellan claimed the Clinton-Gore administration had engaged in warrantless physical searches, but what he didn't say was that at the searches in 1993 the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act required warrants for electronic surveillance for intelligence purposes, but did not cover physical searches. The law was changed to cover physical searches in 1995 under legislation that Clinton supported and signed.

See if McClellan had told the truth, he couldn't have called Gore a hypocrite. And knowing that the press would most likely bury the technical aspects (i.e. facts) of the story, this left him free to lie with little reaction.

All in a day's work for staff of the Worst American President.

GOP: Don't Worry Be Happy

With all the talk about the current Republican scandals, a continual series of books by former adminstration officials who served in Iraq complaining about how the administration didn't know what it was doing, one might think that the GOP would be worried about the upcoming election.

Apparently not. According to blog reports, a number of right wing bloggers met with RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman and party strategists earlier this month and message they passed on was that there was no need to worry, that conservative's efforts to prevent the public from voting them out of office, no matter how bad they acted, has been successful. Basically, the system has been rigged.

Oh of course they didn't say that in so many words. Apparently they couched it in terms that in comparison to 1994 when the GOP took over Congress, this year there are a limited number of GOP retirements expected; there are almost no districts to be contested that were decided by less than 5% in 2004; and there are few districts that went for Kerry but voted for a GOP representative.

So despite news reports that Americans are leaning sharply toward wanting Democrats to take control of Congress those Americans will have to settle for continued Republican rule. This should come as no surprise. In 2000 the GOP figured out to lose the presidential election but gain the White House. In 2008 they are working on getting fewer votes but retaining the House of Representatives.

So apparently the word to the GOPers worried about losing power because of excesses and corruption: Don't Worry, Be Happy.

Washington Typists

One of the criticisms of the Mainstream Media (MSM) is that too often it eagerly serves as a foil for conservatives, pretending to debate their talking points but instead ending up in a role similar to that of the Washington Generals vs the Harlem Globetrotters.

In their role, members of the MSM (or perhaps the Washington Typists) discuss or disseminate talking points developed by conservatives, bringing them onto the national stage and giving them legitimacy, but never challenging them enough to show their fallacies.

A potential new member of the Typists may be Deborah Howell, the new ombudsman of the Washington Post, who on Sunday attempted to show Post is fair because both conservatives and liberals have problems with the Post, saying conservatives forget the Post was tough on Clinton and The liberals seem to expect The Post to be the house organ of Moveon.org.

(Note to Howell, no, conservatives have not forgot the Post's questionable coverage of Clinton, they just expect the media NOT to investigate Bush with the same gusto they went after Clinton.)

The problem with Howell's cheap shot about Moveon.org is that it is merely a repetition of a conservative talking point that liberals want a third party, such as Moveon.org to direct the news decisions of the media.

No, what liberals want is for the media to do their jobs. Liberals want media coverage to be accurate and complete but get upset when it is incomplete, inaccurate or pointedly conservative. Conservatives, on the other hand, EXPECT media coverage to support conservative views and are upset when it does not. If you have any doubt of this, consider the supposed media of choice for conservatives (FOX News) and liberals (NPR) and which is more accurate.

And while Ms. Howell thought she was disparaging liberals, the sad thing is that Moveon.org is now working to help the media with a campaign to reverse the Tribune Company's staff cuts at some of their papers (i.e. help keep more journalist reporting).

A few members of the media do go against the grain and outline problems liberals have identified, such as John Harris of the Washington Post saying in 2001 that Bush was getting break from the media, to Mark Halperin of ABC News in 2004 and Ken Silverstein of the Los Angeles Times saying the media attempts of an artificial balance of coverage of the two parties was poor reporting because balance isn't always fair.

So while the appointed media protectors may question the motives of liberals regarding the type of journalism they would like to see, what the protectors don't understand is that while they are ridiculing liberals about their views of the media, their own coworkers are providing ammunition to refute their arguments. So while the Howell's of the world are calling us crazy, their co-workers are saying 'maybe so but that doesn't mean they are wrong."

Gaming the election system

It should come as no surprise that a judge nominated by George W. Bush to the U.S. Supreme Court may hold views that question a fundamental principle of democracy in America today - one man, one vote.

As reported in the Washington Post, in 1985, when Samuel Alito Jr. was applying for a political appointment in the Reagan administration, he wrote that he disagreed with decisions by the Warren Court in the 1960s involving "reapportionment." Those rulings required electoral districts to have equal populations and helped ensure greater representation of urban minorities.

Previous to the 1962 Baker vs. Carr case, some states either didn't reapportion or did it by geography, resulting in disparities in representation. A column in the New York Times pointed out that prior to the ruling at the time, legislative districts had wildly unequal numbers of people, and representatives from underpopulated rural districts controlled many state legislatures. In Maryland, 14 percent of the voters could elect a majority of the State Senate, and 25 percent could elect a majority of the State House.

While pinheads at the Wall Street Journal snidely criticize people like Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware for questioning Alito's view while representing a state that has the same representation as California in the Senate. Apparently the Journal forgot that the Senate was set up that way and that the House of Representatives was supposed to be the house of the people.

To mollify Democrats, Alito apparently has put out the word that he now views one man one vote as a bedrock principle. Great, he may not believe in it, but he accepts it, for now.

The potential bigger historical issue is if Alito is claiming he just wrote what he wrote in 1985 because he was trying to get a job in the Reagan justice Department. So what does that say about the Reagan Justice Department? That they were a bunch of crackpots and that applicants had to spout the crackpot company line to get hired?

Apparently Alito's defense may be that was just trying to impress the crazies at Justice and so today he is saying "hey, I wasn't that crazy." What a comfort. In reality, once confirmed Alito will have the opportunity to do whatever he wishes, which, like Bush vs. Gore, may come back to haunt America.