Before Republicans get too upset about a tiny number of George Bush's judges not getting a confirmation vote perhaps they should look at the record of judges appointed by President Al Gore.
What judges, you might ask. Exactly. In 2000, despite what one reads in the papers, Al Gore won the presidency of the United States, it's just that activists judges, and a compliant senate, took it away from him.
Going into Florida, which by all accounts was basically a tie, Gore lead Bush by around 500,000 votes overall and by a count of 267-245 in the electoral college. It was only by throwing out hundreds of thousands of votes in Florida were the Republicans able to rewrite the election.
As a result Bush got to appoint 218 judges and had 208 confirmed, which is quite a record of compliance by the Democrats. And President Gore, well he got to appoint 0 judges and 0 were confirmed.
So before Sen. Bill Frist, Mitch McConnell and Sam Brownback complain too much about what the Democrats have done, they need to look at their own action. Since Bush had no moral right to appoint judges, the fact that he got ANY approved is an accomplishment.
What the Democrats should have done is to not recognize the election, nor allow any hearings on judges. Unfortunately the Democrats listened to Republicans mantra of "Act like an American, not like a Republican" and tried to work for the common good.
Look what good it did them.
Thursday, May 19, 2005
Monday, May 16, 2005
White House outrage little more than CYA
In an amazing, but predictable, turn of events, the Bush administration is criticizing the publication of questionable information because it could lead people to action and result in deaths.
No, the White House didn't decide to be honest about falsifying the reasons they went to war in Iraq. No, it was about Newsweek magazine formally retracting a story published last week that said U.S. interrogators of Muslim prisoners at Guantanamo Bay desecrated the Koran, according to USA Today.
"The report had serious consequences. People have lost their lives," White House Spokesman Scott McClellan said.
Again, McClellan wasn't talking about the questionable information the White House put out that led to war in Iraq and the deaths of more than 1,500 Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis. No, apparently that kind of falsification is OK.
Instead he was talking about Newsweek issuing a retraction of the story that sparked deadly riots in Afghanistan and other countries.
However, the problem is that just as the GOP Schiavo memo was true, the desecration allegations may be accurate as this was not the first time that charges that US soldiers had desecrated a Koran during interrogations at Guantanamo Bay. The Daily Kos reported that several sources, including the Philadelphia Inquirer, had earlier reported such abuse.
Also blaming Newsweek may be attempt to divert Muslim anger. Originally the US government originally said that the riots were not caused by the Newsweek report. The chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff says a report from Afghanistan suggests that rioting in Jalalabad on May 11 was not necessarily connected to press reports that the Quran might have been desecrated in the presence of Muslim prisoners held in U.S. custody at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
So in the end the White House actions may be little more than an attempt to cover their ass over behavior the world finds appalling.
No, the White House didn't decide to be honest about falsifying the reasons they went to war in Iraq. No, it was about Newsweek magazine formally retracting a story published last week that said U.S. interrogators of Muslim prisoners at Guantanamo Bay desecrated the Koran, according to USA Today.
"The report had serious consequences. People have lost their lives," White House Spokesman Scott McClellan said.
Again, McClellan wasn't talking about the questionable information the White House put out that led to war in Iraq and the deaths of more than 1,500 Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis. No, apparently that kind of falsification is OK.
Instead he was talking about Newsweek issuing a retraction of the story that sparked deadly riots in Afghanistan and other countries.
However, the problem is that just as the GOP Schiavo memo was true, the desecration allegations may be accurate as this was not the first time that charges that US soldiers had desecrated a Koran during interrogations at Guantanamo Bay. The Daily Kos reported that several sources, including the Philadelphia Inquirer, had earlier reported such abuse.
Also blaming Newsweek may be attempt to divert Muslim anger. Originally the US government originally said that the riots were not caused by the Newsweek report. The chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff says a report from Afghanistan suggests that rioting in Jalalabad on May 11 was not necessarily connected to press reports that the Quran might have been desecrated in the presence of Muslim prisoners held in U.S. custody at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
So in the end the White House actions may be little more than an attempt to cover their ass over behavior the world finds appalling.
Sunday, May 15, 2005
Who is the most dishonest of them all?
A few days after the
"You see, this war came to us, not the other way around," the Australian Broadcasting Company quoted Rice as lying to Iraqi government leaders.
This after CNN reported that 89 Democratic members of the U.S. Congress last week sent George Bush a letter asking for explanation about the secret British memo that said "intelligence and facts were being fixed" to support the
The White House had not yet responded to queries about the congressional letter, which was released on May 6, but perhaps Rice's statement was the response.
CNN showed Rice making the statement but a Google search of the phrase shows only Radio
After all they have the image of the administration to keep up. Now if John Kerry had made such a stupid statement the airwaves would have been full of criticisms by both Republicans and media.
Welcome to the world of new media.
Thursday, May 12, 2005
John Bolton - We Can Do Better
On Wednesday, by a 10-8 vote, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee forwarded the nomination of John Bolton to the full Senate for review, although Sen. George Voinovich of Ohio said there were better candidates.
"This United States can do better than John Bolton," Voinovich said, according to ABC News. He also called Bolton "the poster child of what someone in the diplomatic corps should not be." He said Bolton would be fired if he was in the private sector.
So it's come down to this, the United States may have as one of its top diplomats someone who would be fired in the private sector. (And I thought that the GOP praised the private sector for these types of decisions.)
ABC News reported that Voinovich told reporters he would vote against Bolton in the full Senate. Will Bolton win eventual confirmation? "I have every faith in my colleagues. No one really is excited about him. We'll see what happens," he said.
For all the GOP's complaints about filibustering appointments, Bolton will get a vote, which is more than what could be said for William Weld, former Republican Governor of Massachusetts appointed by President Bill Clinton as Ambassador to Mexico but who was never even allowed a committee hearing by Sen. Jesse Helms. Weld eventually withdrew his nomination.
Bolton got more than a hearing, he got a vote, and now will go to the full senate where his prospects are uncertain. Voinovich said he hoped the full Senate, where Republicans hold a 55-45 majority, would reject the nomination.
"This United States can do better than John Bolton," Voinovich said, according to ABC News. He also called Bolton "the poster child of what someone in the diplomatic corps should not be." He said Bolton would be fired if he was in the private sector.
So it's come down to this, the United States may have as one of its top diplomats someone who would be fired in the private sector. (And I thought that the GOP praised the private sector for these types of decisions.)
ABC News reported that Voinovich told reporters he would vote against Bolton in the full Senate. Will Bolton win eventual confirmation? "I have every faith in my colleagues. No one really is excited about him. We'll see what happens," he said.
For all the GOP's complaints about filibustering appointments, Bolton will get a vote, which is more than what could be said for William Weld, former Republican Governor of Massachusetts appointed by President Bill Clinton as Ambassador to Mexico but who was never even allowed a committee hearing by Sen. Jesse Helms. Weld eventually withdrew his nomination.
Bolton got more than a hearing, he got a vote, and now will go to the full senate where his prospects are uncertain. Voinovich said he hoped the full Senate, where Republicans hold a 55-45 majority, would reject the nomination.
"What message are we sending to the world community?" Voinovich asked.
Perhaps "Who cares what you think"?
Wednesday, May 11, 2005
Laura Bush: Truth Teller
First Lady Laura Bush's performance at the White House Correspondents' Association dinner on April 30 earned her rave reviews (Laura Bush big hit at press corps dinner) from most quarters but few people have taken the time to understand why she was such a hit.
I am a desperate housewife. I mean, if those women on that show think they're desperate, they oughta be with George
Well the whole country lives with the consequences of George and there are a lot of desperate people out here, possibly enough to elect John Kerry President last November, but that's another story. For many of us, Laura was only stating what many of us feel.
But George and I are complete opposites - I'm quiet, he's talkative, I'm introverted, he's extroverted, I can pronounce nuclear...
One has to wonder if that was an inside joke. In the Jib Jab pre-election cartoon, one the lines the John Kerry character said to Bush was "You can't say nuclear - that really scares me."
George's answer to any problem at the ranch is to cut it down with a chainsaw, which I think is why he and Cheney and Rumsfeld get along so well.
Recently the UK was rocked by the release of a pre-Iraq war memo that said "Britain and America had to "create" conditions to justify a war." Maybe that's another example of Bush's chainsaw behavior she was referring to.
"George, if you really want to end tyranny in the world, you're going to have to stay up later."
Perhaps that's been the problem with Russia, Moscow is eight hours ahead of the US so Bush is never awake when the Russians are so it's difficult to get around to talking to Putin regarding democracy.
Laura was a hit alright, she hit a bullseye in describing her husband.
I am a desperate housewife. I mean, if those women on that show think they're desperate, they oughta be with George
Well the whole country lives with the consequences of George and there are a lot of desperate people out here, possibly enough to elect John Kerry President last November, but that's another story. For many of us, Laura was only stating what many of us feel.
But George and I are complete opposites - I'm quiet, he's talkative, I'm introverted, he's extroverted, I can pronounce nuclear...
One has to wonder if that was an inside joke. In the Jib Jab pre-election cartoon, one the lines the John Kerry character said to Bush was "You can't say nuclear - that really scares me."
George's answer to any problem at the ranch is to cut it down with a chainsaw, which I think is why he and Cheney and Rumsfeld get along so well.
Recently the UK was rocked by the release of a pre-Iraq war memo that said "Britain and America had to "create" conditions to justify a war." Maybe that's another example of Bush's chainsaw behavior she was referring to.
"George, if you really want to end tyranny in the world, you're going to have to stay up later."
Perhaps that's been the problem with Russia, Moscow is eight hours ahead of the US so Bush is never awake when the Russians are so it's difficult to get around to talking to Putin regarding democracy.
Laura was a hit alright, she hit a bullseye in describing her husband.
Tuesday, May 10, 2005
Turning PBS into GOPTV
Dissatisfied with control over the White House, the U.S. House of Representatives, Senate, and Supreme Court, talk radio and most cable news programs, the Republican Party has set its site on the lone holdout of moderate expression, the Public Broadcasting Service.
As the NewYork Times pointed out on May 1, the Republican chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is aggressively pressing public television to correct what he and other conservatives consider liberal bias, prompting some public broadcasting leaders - including the chief executive of PBS - to object that his actions pose a threat to editorial independence.
Long a symbol of liberal propaganda to the right for uncovering stories that the right would prefer not be told, chairman Kenneth Y. Tomlinson is putting the squeeze on the few liberal programs on television. Without the knowledge of his board, the chairman, Kenneth Y. Tomlinson, contracted last year with an outside consultant to keep track of the guests' political leanings on one program, "Now With Bill Moyers" and encouraged corporation and public broadcasting officials to broadcast "The Journal Editorial Report," whose host, Paul Gigot, is editor of the conservative editorial page of The Wall Street Journal.
While this might seem small, what Tomlinson is doing is putting a microscope on a program that includes guests from all political persuasions while placing the extremist Wall Street Journal editorial board under the same microscope.
Should anyone really be surprised? No. But the questions is what should be done. Jonathan Chait of the Los Angeles Times suggests Cut the strings of government funding before right-wingers can destroy public broadcasting pointing out that while Newt Gingrich sought to slash or eliminate programs he considered wasteful, Bush turns those programs into arms of his political machine.
While many people think of Bush as an idiot, perhaps he is a genius, actually an evil genius. Bush takes a program like PBS and gives people the choice - either it will be run his way or get rid of it. So in order to save PBS it will have survive in the marketplace, not sustained like defense contractors with public money.
Yet there already are a number of cable networks that offer children's programming and nature shows, just few that offer real, in-depth analysis of the news, although anyone who watched PBS' Once Upon A Time in Arkansas investigation into whitewater must have thought it a FOX News production.
While those on the right may be drawn to support networks running questionable stories about Christmas under siege or trashing American war heroes, those on the left may not be as willing to support investigative stories on stolen elections or politicians shirking their military duties. So at the end of the day the right has figured out another way to get their message out, now it will be at the public expense.
As the NewYork Times pointed out on May 1, the Republican chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is aggressively pressing public television to correct what he and other conservatives consider liberal bias, prompting some public broadcasting leaders - including the chief executive of PBS - to object that his actions pose a threat to editorial independence.
Long a symbol of liberal propaganda to the right for uncovering stories that the right would prefer not be told, chairman Kenneth Y. Tomlinson is putting the squeeze on the few liberal programs on television. Without the knowledge of his board, the chairman, Kenneth Y. Tomlinson, contracted last year with an outside consultant to keep track of the guests' political leanings on one program, "Now With Bill Moyers" and encouraged corporation and public broadcasting officials to broadcast "The Journal Editorial Report," whose host, Paul Gigot, is editor of the conservative editorial page of The Wall Street Journal.
While this might seem small, what Tomlinson is doing is putting a microscope on a program that includes guests from all political persuasions while placing the extremist Wall Street Journal editorial board under the same microscope.
Should anyone really be surprised? No. But the questions is what should be done. Jonathan Chait of the Los Angeles Times suggests Cut the strings of government funding before right-wingers can destroy public broadcasting pointing out that while Newt Gingrich sought to slash or eliminate programs he considered wasteful, Bush turns those programs into arms of his political machine.
While many people think of Bush as an idiot, perhaps he is a genius, actually an evil genius. Bush takes a program like PBS and gives people the choice - either it will be run his way or get rid of it. So in order to save PBS it will have survive in the marketplace, not sustained like defense contractors with public money.
Yet there already are a number of cable networks that offer children's programming and nature shows, just few that offer real, in-depth analysis of the news, although anyone who watched PBS' Once Upon A Time in Arkansas investigation into whitewater must have thought it a FOX News production.
While those on the right may be drawn to support networks running questionable stories about Christmas under siege or trashing American war heroes, those on the left may not be as willing to support investigative stories on stolen elections or politicians shirking their military duties. So at the end of the day the right has figured out another way to get their message out, now it will be at the public expense.
Tuesday, May 03, 2005
Bush's Trillion Dollar Tax Increase
One of the points George Bush makes about the Social Security System is that the trust fund to which Americans have paid $1.5 trillion into over the past 20 plus years is basically empty, spent by a series of mostly Republican Presidents.
Yet by making that claim Bush is treating the $429 Billion collected in his first three fiscal years and the $963 billion expected to be collected in the coming five fiscal years as tax receipts that don't have to be paid back, which in effect makes it a Trillion Dollar tax increase.
During Bush's first three years in office the administration has racked up $1,571 trillion in deficits (compared to $1.4 trillion in eight years for Clinton, $1.5 trillion in four years for Bush I and $1.9 trillion in eight years for Reagan).
While the Bureau of the Public Debt shows the annual deficit for the Bush Administration to range from $420 in 2002 to $595 Billion in 2004, the White House uses the excess Social Security receipts to bring the figure to a more "manageable" $413 Billion.
If Social Security wasn't running a surplus then the government would be forced to sell Treasury notes to fund the deficit, which would be required to be paid back. Instead the Social Security trust fund annually covers a large part of the deficit spending.
The Social Security Trust Fund was set up for the government to eventually pay back what it borrows but when Bush says "there is no "trust fund,'" one has to ask whether he is indicating the government will default on those obligations?
Get it? If there's no surplus then the government has to really borrow money which it really has to pay back. But with the surplus it can take the money and run by saying it's gone In effect, by operating this way, Bush was able to enact a $145 billion tax increase in 2004 and $429 billion over his presidency.
Apparently Bush is the one with "fuzzy math." The only question is, is anyone listening?
Yet by making that claim Bush is treating the $429 Billion collected in his first three fiscal years and the $963 billion expected to be collected in the coming five fiscal years as tax receipts that don't have to be paid back, which in effect makes it a Trillion Dollar tax increase.
During Bush's first three years in office the administration has racked up $1,571 trillion in deficits (compared to $1.4 trillion in eight years for Clinton, $1.5 trillion in four years for Bush I and $1.9 trillion in eight years for Reagan).
While the Bureau of the Public Debt shows the annual deficit for the Bush Administration to range from $420 in 2002 to $595 Billion in 2004, the White House uses the excess Social Security receipts to bring the figure to a more "manageable" $413 Billion.
If Social Security wasn't running a surplus then the government would be forced to sell Treasury notes to fund the deficit, which would be required to be paid back. Instead the Social Security trust fund annually covers a large part of the deficit spending.
The Social Security Trust Fund was set up for the government to eventually pay back what it borrows but when Bush says "there is no "trust fund,'" one has to ask whether he is indicating the government will default on those obligations?
Get it? If there's no surplus then the government has to really borrow money which it really has to pay back. But with the surplus it can take the money and run by saying it's gone In effect, by operating this way, Bush was able to enact a $145 billion tax increase in 2004 and $429 billion over his presidency.
Apparently Bush is the one with "fuzzy math." The only question is, is anyone listening?
Tuesday, April 26, 2005
Did Kerry win afterall?
Last year, in response to the 2000 presidential election debacle, Sen. John Kerry and John Edwards promised supporters that they would work to count every vote and make sure every vote counts.
On election day, early exit polls seemed to indicate that was happening and that Kerry/Edwards would be elected. However later in the day, in several key battleground states, the exit polls were said be wrong, leading to a victory for George Bush.
To many there was always a question of "how could the exit polls be so wrong?" Now there is a study by the US Counts Votes that shows that possibly the polls weren't wrong. In Monday's Washington Post, Terry Neal writes that the USCV study "suggests the early exit polls that showed Kerry beating Bush may have been accurate after all."
While very exciting, reading the charts in the back of the study it appears that if the exit polls were correct, Kerry would have picked up votes in many states but only Iowa (7 electoral college votes), New Mexico (5) and Nevada (5) clearly voted for Kerry rather than Bush. If Kerry had received those three states, the 17 electoral vote change would meant a 269-269 tie rather than a 286-252 Bush win.
That leaves Ohio, for which the study showed two exit polls, an early one showing Kerry winning 52.1% to 47.9% and a late one showing Bushing winning 50.9% - 48.6%. Florida had three exit poll results and while the race was basically even Kerry was not ahead in any of the exit polls.
So was Ohio accurately counted? In 2000 the media tried to determine that regarding Florida and perhaps came up with a mixed result. (Although assuming Florida was basically a tie, how does the guy who otherwise was in second place in both the electoral college and popular vote end up President?)
If Kerry had only won Iowa, Nevada and New Mexico, the election would have gone to the House of Representatives. Could Kerry have won in the House? Maybe not since the GOP has the majority, but maybe Ohio would have been examined closer, eliminating the need for the House vote.
One comment heard a lot last fall was something along the line of "whoever wins I hope it's not close." While there might not have been a conspiracy, individually many voting officials may have repeatedly gave Bush the benefit of the doubt, increasing his vote total. After all, didn't this kind of behavior take place in Florida in 2000? (Did Florida Secrtary of State Katherine Harris do anything that hurt Bush?)
Kerry may well have won Iowa, Nevada, New Mexico AND Ohio, which would have been a 289-249 win, and based on what the Bush people believe, this would have been quite a mandate. That also might have meant the GOP lost the Presidential election four times in a row.
On election day, early exit polls seemed to indicate that was happening and that Kerry/Edwards would be elected. However later in the day, in several key battleground states, the exit polls were said be wrong, leading to a victory for George Bush.
To many there was always a question of "how could the exit polls be so wrong?" Now there is a study by the US Counts Votes that shows that possibly the polls weren't wrong. In Monday's Washington Post, Terry Neal writes that the USCV study "suggests the early exit polls that showed Kerry beating Bush may have been accurate after all."
While very exciting, reading the charts in the back of the study it appears that if the exit polls were correct, Kerry would have picked up votes in many states but only Iowa (7 electoral college votes), New Mexico (5) and Nevada (5) clearly voted for Kerry rather than Bush. If Kerry had received those three states, the 17 electoral vote change would meant a 269-269 tie rather than a 286-252 Bush win.
That leaves Ohio, for which the study showed two exit polls, an early one showing Kerry winning 52.1% to 47.9% and a late one showing Bushing winning 50.9% - 48.6%. Florida had three exit poll results and while the race was basically even Kerry was not ahead in any of the exit polls.
So was Ohio accurately counted? In 2000 the media tried to determine that regarding Florida and perhaps came up with a mixed result. (Although assuming Florida was basically a tie, how does the guy who otherwise was in second place in both the electoral college and popular vote end up President?)
If Kerry had only won Iowa, Nevada and New Mexico, the election would have gone to the House of Representatives. Could Kerry have won in the House? Maybe not since the GOP has the majority, but maybe Ohio would have been examined closer, eliminating the need for the House vote.
One comment heard a lot last fall was something along the line of "whoever wins I hope it's not close." While there might not have been a conspiracy, individually many voting officials may have repeatedly gave Bush the benefit of the doubt, increasing his vote total. After all, didn't this kind of behavior take place in Florida in 2000? (Did Florida Secrtary of State Katherine Harris do anything that hurt Bush?)
Kerry may well have won Iowa, Nevada, New Mexico AND Ohio, which would have been a 289-249 win, and based on what the Bush people believe, this would have been quite a mandate. That also might have meant the GOP lost the Presidential election four times in a row.
Friday, April 22, 2005
GOP(H)'s new name
In effort to keep up with the times and their actions it has been suggested that the Republican Party change its name from the Grand Old Party to the Grand Old Party of Hypocrites.
After using their minions to pummel Sen. John Kerry last fall with questionable accusations that apparently had a small, but effective, impact on the voting public (enough to win Ohio, Iowa, and New Mexico) the GOPH is now upset that the Democrats and turned the table on them and may have a a small, but effective, impact on the Foreign Relations Committee (enough to change votes in Ohio, Nebraska, and Rhode Island) which could send John Bolton's nomination down to defeat.
Of course, the GOPH would say that the situations are very different, and they probably are. For example, most of the Swift Vets accusations have proven untrue, yet on Bolton most of the accusations have not been disproved. (For extra hypocrisy credit, read White House press secretary Scott McClellan's refusal to disprove the allegations, only saying that they are "unsubstantiated allegations." Probably just a bunch of Democrats complaining, I'm sure.
On Friday, the Washington Post reported that former secretary of state Colin L. Powell has weighed in on the matter.
"On two occasions, he has let it be known that the Bolton nomination is a bad one, to put it mildly," a Democratic congressional aide said.
In addition, the Los Angeles Times reported that A former U.S. ambassador to South Korea said yesterday that John R. Bolton, President Bush's choice for U.N. ambassador, might have misled the Senate Foreign Relations Committee about a provocative and controversial 2003 speech on North Korea.
One might wonder why the White House is sticking by Bolton and why they would want him around. But considering the cast of characters at the White House (Bush, Cheney, Rice), Bolton is just another crybaby who believes in the mantra "it's my way or the highway." The idea that one is working for the general good is unimaginable to these people.
After using their minions to pummel Sen. John Kerry last fall with questionable accusations that apparently had a small, but effective, impact on the voting public (enough to win Ohio, Iowa, and New Mexico) the GOPH is now upset that the Democrats and turned the table on them and may have a a small, but effective, impact on the Foreign Relations Committee (enough to change votes in Ohio, Nebraska, and Rhode Island) which could send John Bolton's nomination down to defeat.
Of course, the GOPH would say that the situations are very different, and they probably are. For example, most of the Swift Vets accusations have proven untrue, yet on Bolton most of the accusations have not been disproved. (For extra hypocrisy credit, read White House press secretary Scott McClellan's refusal to disprove the allegations, only saying that they are "unsubstantiated allegations." Probably just a bunch of Democrats complaining, I'm sure.
On Friday, the Washington Post reported that former secretary of state Colin L. Powell has weighed in on the matter.
"On two occasions, he has let it be known that the Bolton nomination is a bad one, to put it mildly," a Democratic congressional aide said.
In addition, the Los Angeles Times reported that A former U.S. ambassador to South Korea said yesterday that John R. Bolton, President Bush's choice for U.N. ambassador, might have misled the Senate Foreign Relations Committee about a provocative and controversial 2003 speech on North Korea.
One might wonder why the White House is sticking by Bolton and why they would want him around. But considering the cast of characters at the White House (Bush, Cheney, Rice), Bolton is just another crybaby who believes in the mantra "it's my way or the highway." The idea that one is working for the general good is unimaginable to these people.
Thursday, April 21, 2005
Character assassination is wrong, unless we're doing it
In two episodes this week, the White House and GOP House leadership decried the attacking of members of their party by Democrats, which is ironic considering they, and their minions, had no problem doing so during the 2004 election.
The ultimate expression of hypocrisy was made by House Majority Leader Tom DeLay who complained "Democrats have made clear that their only agenda is the politics of personal destruction and the criminalization of politics.
Last fall E.J. Dionne Jr. pointed out the ridiculousness of this argument when DeLay first made it, noting the origins of the comment. "We must stop the politics of personal destruction," [President Bill] Clinton said in December 1998 after the House impeachment vote that DeLay had rammed through.
One could say what's good for the goose is good for the gander but apparently the GOP does not agree. The White House, stung by the fact a Republican member of Congress found both his conscious and backbone at the same time and threatened to not support the nomination of John Bolton for U.N. Ambassador, found it necessary to have spokesman Scott McClellan proclaim that the allegations are "trumped-up" and part of an "ugly" campaign to destroy Bolton's character.
Ohio Republican Sen. George Voinovich set the delay in the vote on Bolton in motion after listening to a long presentation by Democrats regarding problems with Bolton. Too often Bush has succeeded because his supporters had closed their minds to differing information. Unable to apply earplugs and blinders to the GOP committee members, the Republicans, who outnumbered Democrats 10-8, looked at the possibility of a 9-9 vote, or even worse 7-11 if both Sen. Lincoln Chafee and Sen. Chuck Hagel joined together to vote their conscience.
Perhaps the GOP is worried that at long last, given enough information, Americans will say enough is enough and turn against the GOP.
The ultimate expression of hypocrisy was made by House Majority Leader Tom DeLay who complained "Democrats have made clear that their only agenda is the politics of personal destruction and the criminalization of politics.
Last fall E.J. Dionne Jr. pointed out the ridiculousness of this argument when DeLay first made it, noting the origins of the comment. "We must stop the politics of personal destruction," [President Bill] Clinton said in December 1998 after the House impeachment vote that DeLay had rammed through.
One could say what's good for the goose is good for the gander but apparently the GOP does not agree. The White House, stung by the fact a Republican member of Congress found both his conscious and backbone at the same time and threatened to not support the nomination of John Bolton for U.N. Ambassador, found it necessary to have spokesman Scott McClellan proclaim that the allegations are "trumped-up" and part of an "ugly" campaign to destroy Bolton's character.
Ohio Republican Sen. George Voinovich set the delay in the vote on Bolton in motion after listening to a long presentation by Democrats regarding problems with Bolton. Too often Bush has succeeded because his supporters had closed their minds to differing information. Unable to apply earplugs and blinders to the GOP committee members, the Republicans, who outnumbered Democrats 10-8, looked at the possibility of a 9-9 vote, or even worse 7-11 if both Sen. Lincoln Chafee and Sen. Chuck Hagel joined together to vote their conscience.
Perhaps the GOP is worried that at long last, given enough information, Americans will say enough is enough and turn against the GOP.
Tuesday, April 19, 2005
Don't treat us like we treat you
Following years of crushing politicians and others for sport, the news media has now found itself getting a dose of its own medicine, and it doesn't like it.
On Monday Howard Kurtz's column (When Blogs Bite Back) was a collection of news media mainly complaining about the email they receive regarding their work. Granted it is a lot easier to send a nasty email than a letter, or write a blog, but has the world changed that much or is it just easier to scream today?
If the public's reaction has become nastier, the increasingly caustic nature of online criticism is the result of the Rushification or Coulterization of the Internet. Rush, Coulter and others have attacked politicians and others and today many bloggers are merely following the example of Hate Radio, except their target is now the media.
And now Time magazine has chosen Coulter to be its poster girl for this week's issue. Too often the punditocracy thinks its neat to feature people like Coulter and Limbaugh, no matter the damage they are doing to the public discourse. And people like Kurtz, after promoting Limbaugh (He's so mainstream that those right-wingers Tom Brokaw and Tim Russert had him on their Election Night coverage) don't understand why there's a problem.
So when will Michael Moore become a fixture as a election night commentator on the major networks?
If reporters don’t like being questioned by bloggers perhaps they should stop giving them so much ammunition. From the Post’s John Harris “Mr. Bush Catches a Washington Break,” to Jane Hall’s Columbia Journalism Review article showing how the press trashed Al Gore in 2000, to Mark Halperin’s criticism that the press shouldn’t ARTIFICALLY hold both campaigns equally accountable, to Dan Fromkin recent criticism of the press pool questions of Bush on Air Force One, readers are left with the impression that even journalists think there’s something wrong with today’s coverage.
Everyone is going to occasionally make factual mistakes. But the bigger problem is the approach one takes to the story, who is quoted, who is not, what stories are covered and which aren’t.
Now there’s no need for ugliness in reviewing this but the blogosphere is a reflection of today’s political environment, which in large part was created by another new media – talk radio.
On Monday Howard Kurtz's column (When Blogs Bite Back) was a collection of news media mainly complaining about the email they receive regarding their work. Granted it is a lot easier to send a nasty email than a letter, or write a blog, but has the world changed that much or is it just easier to scream today?
If the public's reaction has become nastier, the increasingly caustic nature of online criticism is the result of the Rushification or Coulterization of the Internet. Rush, Coulter and others have attacked politicians and others and today many bloggers are merely following the example of Hate Radio, except their target is now the media.
And now Time magazine has chosen Coulter to be its poster girl for this week's issue. Too often the punditocracy thinks its neat to feature people like Coulter and Limbaugh, no matter the damage they are doing to the public discourse. And people like Kurtz, after promoting Limbaugh (He's so mainstream that those right-wingers Tom Brokaw and Tim Russert had him on their Election Night coverage) don't understand why there's a problem.
So when will Michael Moore become a fixture as a election night commentator on the major networks?
If reporters don’t like being questioned by bloggers perhaps they should stop giving them so much ammunition. From the Post’s John Harris “Mr. Bush Catches a Washington Break,” to Jane Hall’s Columbia Journalism Review article showing how the press trashed Al Gore in 2000, to Mark Halperin’s criticism that the press shouldn’t ARTIFICALLY hold both campaigns equally accountable, to Dan Fromkin recent criticism of the press pool questions of Bush on Air Force One, readers are left with the impression that even journalists think there’s something wrong with today’s coverage.
Everyone is going to occasionally make factual mistakes. But the bigger problem is the approach one takes to the story, who is quoted, who is not, what stories are covered and which aren’t.
Now there’s no need for ugliness in reviewing this but the blogosphere is a reflection of today’s political environment, which in large part was created by another new media – talk radio.
Friday, April 15, 2005
Beware of the Tax Day Lies
There's an old line about "Beware, the Tax Man Cometh." Actually a better line might be "Beware, the Press Cometh with Tax Misrepresentations. Expect a series of stories on the AMT and high taxes, but little on things like Republican policies make taxes so high, are those paying the most in taxes get the largest share of income and so forth.
So to help everyone out, return to 2004 for Elephant Lies week-long look at the U.S. tax situation. The following are only snippet. For more, read the full version:
April 12 - In the April issue of SmartMoney (a Wall Street Journal publication) several families taxes are reviewed, such as the family from Missouri who under the AMT will pay 15.7% of their 182,300 adjusted gross income to the feds. Another family makes $90,000 finds themselves paying 9.2%. How are these people paying these amounts? Numerous exemptions bring their level well below the 21.4% paid by the top 10% of Americans (those making over $92,000 in 2001)
April 13 - The Tax Foundation shows that the top 25% saw their tax payments increase from 17.5% to 18% of income from 1984 to 2001, yet that group's share of overall income went from 57.5% to 65.2%. So for a small increase in taxes they got a huge increase in the overall share of U.S. income.
April 14 - What many people don't understand is that different parts of income are taxed at different levels. People understand that there are different tax rates on different income levels (10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, 33%, 35%), but conservatives have deceived the public into thinking that if they earn over a certain amount ALL of their income will be taxed at the higher level. In reality, different parts of a person's income are taxed at the different levels. For example, for singles, currently taxable income (AGI minus deductions) up to $7,000 is taxed at 10%, income from $7,001 to $28,400 is taxed at 15%, and so forth. For a complete listing of rates see Yahoo's tax center.
April 15 - When Reagan took office the national debt was around $930 billion dollars. When he left it was $2.6 TRILLION, a 280% increase. For comparison, the debt was around $4 trillion when Bill Clinton took office and around $5.6 when he left, a 40% increase over eight years. Today the debt is $7.1 trillion, a $1.5 trillion increase in THREE years. Most of the increase during Clinton's term was left over from Bush I, which was a hangover from Reagan. In Clinton's final THREE years the debt only increased by $260 billion or 4.8%.
So to help everyone out, return to 2004 for Elephant Lies week-long look at the U.S. tax situation. The following are only snippet. For more, read the full version:
April 12 - In the April issue of SmartMoney (a Wall Street Journal publication) several families taxes are reviewed, such as the family from Missouri who under the AMT will pay 15.7% of their 182,300 adjusted gross income to the feds. Another family makes $90,000 finds themselves paying 9.2%. How are these people paying these amounts? Numerous exemptions bring their level well below the 21.4% paid by the top 10% of Americans (those making over $92,000 in 2001)
April 13 - The Tax Foundation shows that the top 25% saw their tax payments increase from 17.5% to 18% of income from 1984 to 2001, yet that group's share of overall income went from 57.5% to 65.2%. So for a small increase in taxes they got a huge increase in the overall share of U.S. income.
April 14 - What many people don't understand is that different parts of income are taxed at different levels. People understand that there are different tax rates on different income levels (10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, 33%, 35%), but conservatives have deceived the public into thinking that if they earn over a certain amount ALL of their income will be taxed at the higher level. In reality, different parts of a person's income are taxed at the different levels. For example, for singles, currently taxable income (AGI minus deductions) up to $7,000 is taxed at 10%, income from $7,001 to $28,400 is taxed at 15%, and so forth. For a complete listing of rates see Yahoo's tax center.
April 15 - When Reagan took office the national debt was around $930 billion dollars. When he left it was $2.6 TRILLION, a 280% increase. For comparison, the debt was around $4 trillion when Bill Clinton took office and around $5.6 when he left, a 40% increase over eight years. Today the debt is $7.1 trillion, a $1.5 trillion increase in THREE years. Most of the increase during Clinton's term was left over from Bush I, which was a hangover from Reagan. In Clinton's final THREE years the debt only increased by $260 billion or 4.8%.
Thursday, April 14, 2005
No Respect
If anyone wonders why the Mainstream Media is suffering from a loss of respect, one only has to look at the actions of the White House typists during a recent meeting with George Bush on Air Force One.
Among the questions posed by the press in the 47 minute interview, which revolved heavily around the recent funeral for Pope John Paul II, were: What are your plans this weekend? Had you ever been to a Latin mass before; I imagine you've been to an English mass? Did he (Pope) speak English? What has it been like spending time with the former Presidents for three days?
To be fair, among the seven invited to ask questions was Bill Sammon from the Washington Times, best known for his hatchet job reporting on Al Gore's 2000 Presidential campaign. However the rest of the group included representatives of the Associated Press, Reuters, Bloomberg, Newsweek, NBC and ABC.
While the interview got a lot of positive spin and there were a few semi-tough questions, at least one press observer, Dan Froomkin of the Washington Post, figured out the typists missed the boat.
Entirely missing, by contrast, were any questions about whether he thinks it's okay to eject dissenters from his public events, or what his exit strategy is for Iraq, or what effect the latest reports on flawed intelligence have on his doctrine of preemptive war -- or even why, at the pope's funeral, he wouldn't shake hands with his adversaries.
There are some signs that Bush may chat with the press more in his second term. But why not? Apparently he doesn't have to worry about the White House lap dogs asking tough questions.
Among the questions posed by the press in the 47 minute interview, which revolved heavily around the recent funeral for Pope John Paul II, were: What are your plans this weekend? Had you ever been to a Latin mass before; I imagine you've been to an English mass? Did he (Pope) speak English? What has it been like spending time with the former Presidents for three days?
To be fair, among the seven invited to ask questions was Bill Sammon from the Washington Times, best known for his hatchet job reporting on Al Gore's 2000 Presidential campaign. However the rest of the group included representatives of the Associated Press, Reuters, Bloomberg, Newsweek, NBC and ABC.
While the interview got a lot of positive spin and there were a few semi-tough questions, at least one press observer, Dan Froomkin of the Washington Post, figured out the typists missed the boat.
Entirely missing, by contrast, were any questions about whether he thinks it's okay to eject dissenters from his public events, or what his exit strategy is for Iraq, or what effect the latest reports on flawed intelligence have on his doctrine of preemptive war -- or even why, at the pope's funeral, he wouldn't shake hands with his adversaries.
There are some signs that Bush may chat with the press more in his second term. But why not? Apparently he doesn't have to worry about the White House lap dogs asking tough questions.
Wednesday, April 13, 2005
Who Cares What You Think
With the nomination John Bolton to be the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, George W. Bush has decided to tell America and the world that he doesn't care what they think.
How else could one explain Bush's actions? After the numerous investigations into the problems with America's intelligence community and how wrong they were on Iraq, why would one nominate an individual who attempted to bully intelligence analysts?
The idea that Bush must be thinking "Screw you" comes to mind.
Possibly Bush doesn't appreciate being shown that he ginned up a war in Iraq on fake evidence. His defenders say the world is better off without Saddam. That's true but will anyone believe the U.S. when confronting Iran or North Korea. Countries that poise an ACTUAL danger to the world.
During the confirmation hearings, Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said Mr. Bolton's record would undercut any American attempt to warn the United Nations of Iran's or North Korea's suspected weapons programs.
And it's not like the administration should be surprised by any of this. According to the New York Times, Committee Chairman Senator Richard G. Lugar of Indiana, told Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice not to nominate Bolton as deputy secretary of state because he could not be confirmed.
But now, if Sen. Lincoln Chaffee rolls over and votes to approve Mr. Bolton, can the world take him or the U.S. government seriously? Perhaps the best the U.S. can hope for is that the world will investigate what he says and determine what is believable. The worst case is they automatically disbelieve everything we say.
Screw You America & The World.
How else could one explain Bush's actions? After the numerous investigations into the problems with America's intelligence community and how wrong they were on Iraq, why would one nominate an individual who attempted to bully intelligence analysts?
The idea that Bush must be thinking "Screw you" comes to mind.
Possibly Bush doesn't appreciate being shown that he ginned up a war in Iraq on fake evidence. His defenders say the world is better off without Saddam. That's true but will anyone believe the U.S. when confronting Iran or North Korea. Countries that poise an ACTUAL danger to the world.
During the confirmation hearings, Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said Mr. Bolton's record would undercut any American attempt to warn the United Nations of Iran's or North Korea's suspected weapons programs.
And it's not like the administration should be surprised by any of this. According to the New York Times, Committee Chairman Senator Richard G. Lugar of Indiana, told Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice not to nominate Bolton as deputy secretary of state because he could not be confirmed.
But now, if Sen. Lincoln Chaffee rolls over and votes to approve Mr. Bolton, can the world take him or the U.S. government seriously? Perhaps the best the U.S. can hope for is that the world will investigate what he says and determine what is believable. The worst case is they automatically disbelieve everything we say.
Screw You America & The World.
Thursday, April 07, 2005
If the Schiavo memo was authentic...
In a blow to right wing bloggers, the legal counsel to Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.) admitted yesterday that he was the author of a memo citing the political advantage to Republicans of intervening in the case of Terri Schiavo, according to the Washington Post.
Rightwing bloggers questioned the authenticity of the memo, comparing it to the unauthenticated CBS documents about Bush's National Guard service.
In attempting to limit the potential harm the GOP memo could do, bloggers attacked the media, questioning whether the memo was authentic, how many people saw it, and so forth.
When it first appeared, Cliff Kincaid of the conservative Accuracy in Media wrote The memo may have been written by some Republican somewhere. But there's no independent evidence at this point that it was authorized by a Republican Senator or written by a top Republican staffer.
The Right now can narrowly claim it wasn't authorized or written by a top staffer as Sen. Martinez wasn't a big fish. However, isn't the real question, just like with the Bush memos, whether there a bigger story waiting to be found?
Kincaid asked the right question - Didn't we learn anything from Memogate? In Memogate bloggers and the media only examined the authenticity of the memo, not whether the overall story was accurate. This time the bloggers attacked the memo (which turned out to be authentic) AND also the story, which may have been more of a molehill rather than a mountain.
Why not look at both on the SUBJECT of the CBS story? The memo was only a part of the story. Perhaps no one really wants to admit that if the Schiavo memo was authentic then maybe there was more to the claims of Bush not completing his military duty.
Rightwing bloggers questioned the authenticity of the memo, comparing it to the unauthenticated CBS documents about Bush's National Guard service.
In attempting to limit the potential harm the GOP memo could do, bloggers attacked the media, questioning whether the memo was authentic, how many people saw it, and so forth.
When it first appeared, Cliff Kincaid of the conservative Accuracy in Media wrote The memo may have been written by some Republican somewhere. But there's no independent evidence at this point that it was authorized by a Republican Senator or written by a top Republican staffer.
The Right now can narrowly claim it wasn't authorized or written by a top staffer as Sen. Martinez wasn't a big fish. However, isn't the real question, just like with the Bush memos, whether there a bigger story waiting to be found?
Kincaid asked the right question - Didn't we learn anything from Memogate? In Memogate bloggers and the media only examined the authenticity of the memo, not whether the overall story was accurate. This time the bloggers attacked the memo (which turned out to be authentic) AND also the story, which may have been more of a molehill rather than a mountain.
Why not look at both on the SUBJECT of the CBS story? The memo was only a part of the story. Perhaps no one really wants to admit that if the Schiavo memo was authentic then maybe there was more to the claims of Bush not completing his military duty.
Tuesday, April 05, 2005
I Shave
I seem to recall an old Doonesbury cartoon from the Nixon era where a member of the media asks the an administration official what he does after looking in the mirror and thinking of all the lies he will be tell.
"I shave," said the character.
One has to wonder if that is a daily occurrence on the Right. A recent controversy is the blogger's attempt to prove that a memo supposedly given to Republican senators by an unknown group was faked and probably the result of Democrats.
Fred Barnes of the Standard told the Washington Post that the reporting of the memo was unfair but not unsurprising, since "the press is much tougher on Republicans." The sound you just heard may have been Al Gore, unmercifully and unfairly targeted by the media in 2000, falling out of his chair in shock.
Right. Excuse me but the reason Bush was able to limit his loss in the 2000 Presidential election to only a half million votes was the media's dishonest "War On Gore." If Florida was counted fairly, Gore wins not only the popular vote, but also the electoral college, 292 to 246, a significant win. To believe the media played no role in influencing Al Gore's vote total is to suspend belief, which is what many on the Right do on a daily basis.
Those on the right believe they are looking at another memogate like they had with Dan Rather. And I'm sure they are hoping for the same outcome. You know, investigate whether the media should have checked if a memo was legit, not whether the story was legit.
Afterall what's the story? In the CBS's case was it that Bush might have shirked his military obligation or that there was a questionable memo that alleged Bush shirked his duty? Hmm, lets see. There is one common ideal (investigate whether there is truth to the story), or check and see if the documents are accurate? Why not both?
"I shave," said the character.
One has to wonder if that is a daily occurrence on the Right. A recent controversy is the blogger's attempt to prove that a memo supposedly given to Republican senators by an unknown group was faked and probably the result of Democrats.
Fred Barnes of the Standard told the Washington Post that the reporting of the memo was unfair but not unsurprising, since "the press is much tougher on Republicans." The sound you just heard may have been Al Gore, unmercifully and unfairly targeted by the media in 2000, falling out of his chair in shock.
Right. Excuse me but the reason Bush was able to limit his loss in the 2000 Presidential election to only a half million votes was the media's dishonest "War On Gore." If Florida was counted fairly, Gore wins not only the popular vote, but also the electoral college, 292 to 246, a significant win. To believe the media played no role in influencing Al Gore's vote total is to suspend belief, which is what many on the Right do on a daily basis.
Those on the right believe they are looking at another memogate like they had with Dan Rather. And I'm sure they are hoping for the same outcome. You know, investigate whether the media should have checked if a memo was legit, not whether the story was legit.
Afterall what's the story? In the CBS's case was it that Bush might have shirked his military obligation or that there was a questionable memo that alleged Bush shirked his duty? Hmm, lets see. There is one common ideal (investigate whether there is truth to the story), or check and see if the documents are accurate? Why not both?
Sunday, April 03, 2005
Where is the Outrage in America?
During the 1996 presidential election Sen. Bob Dole used to ask "Where is the outrage in America?" because he didn't think voters we getting upset enough about minor issues like Al Gore going to a Buddhist temple and some staffer reviewing FBI files.
After the recent release of the intelligence report one really has to ask "Where is the outrage in America?" But perhaps the bigger question should be "Who Gets Held to Account?"
On a recent on-line chat in the Washington Post, intelligence reporter Dana Priest responded to a question asking if anyone would be held responsible
Dana Priest: Well, President Bush gave George Tenet the Medal of Freedom. And the voters gave President Bush another term. SecDef Rumsfeld is in perfect standing with the president. His deputy is moving on to head the World Bank. The head of the other large intel agency, the National Security Agency (does eavesdropping) is becoming Negroponte's deputy. That leaves only the worker bees.
Surely, one might think, someone higher will be held accountable. Don't bet on it. Mark Silva wrote in the Chicago Tribune: "Bush has long refused to assign specific blame for intelligence failures to himself or top aides. What is not clear is whether Americans will accept this in the face of this latest, unusually scathing report.
But how can anyone blame Bush if he was everyone was united in giving him bad news so there must not have been any dissenting views. Um, well that's not how things went.
Dafna Linzer and Barton Gellman wrote in The Washington Post that it's not like no one spoke up. "Up until the days before U.S. troops entered Iraqi territory that March, the intelligence community was inundated with evidence that undermined virtually all charges it had made against Iraq, the report said."
Dole's had another good question that fits much more today than in 1996 - When will the voters start to focus?
When indeed.
After the recent release of the intelligence report one really has to ask "Where is the outrage in America?" But perhaps the bigger question should be "Who Gets Held to Account?"
On a recent on-line chat in the Washington Post, intelligence reporter Dana Priest responded to a question asking if anyone would be held responsible
Dana Priest: Well, President Bush gave George Tenet the Medal of Freedom. And the voters gave President Bush another term. SecDef Rumsfeld is in perfect standing with the president. His deputy is moving on to head the World Bank. The head of the other large intel agency, the National Security Agency (does eavesdropping) is becoming Negroponte's deputy. That leaves only the worker bees.
Surely, one might think, someone higher will be held accountable. Don't bet on it. Mark Silva wrote in the Chicago Tribune: "Bush has long refused to assign specific blame for intelligence failures to himself or top aides. What is not clear is whether Americans will accept this in the face of this latest, unusually scathing report.
But how can anyone blame Bush if he was everyone was united in giving him bad news so there must not have been any dissenting views. Um, well that's not how things went.
Dafna Linzer and Barton Gellman wrote in The Washington Post that it's not like no one spoke up. "Up until the days before U.S. troops entered Iraqi territory that March, the intelligence community was inundated with evidence that undermined virtually all charges it had made against Iraq, the report said."
Dole's had another good question that fits much more today than in 1996 - When will the voters start to focus?
When indeed.
Thursday, March 24, 2005
They really don't get it
Last week must have been defend the media week at the Washington Post. In addition to Dana Milbank's piece saying the media plays fair, on March 15 media critic Howard Kurtz, in John Kerry, Media Critic, continued the fantasy. After reading the piece you come away believing that they really don't get it.
Kurtz said Major news organizations tried--not hard enough, in my view--to fact-check the charges and countercharges by both sides. Sometimes journalists were slow--as on the Swift Boat charges--to undertake this work. Most networks aired the candidates' attack ads with only a minimum of truth-squadding. The bogus Kerry Intern rumor spread like wildfire. But there was at least an attempt to hold both sides accountable.
...Hold both sides accountable. Again with the moral equivalence. No respectable news organization would continually equate murder with jaywalking, however in politics its more than acceptable. As Mark Halperin of ABC News pointed out last fall that the Bush attacks on Kerry involve distortions and taking things out of context in a way that goes beyond what Kerry has done
Too many in the media believe that they can not compare candidate's actions so that a small distortion is the same as a series of blatant lies, or that as Kurtz apparently believes, Al Franken is little different than Rush Limbaugh.
Kerry pointed out that "there's a subculture and a sub-media that talks and keeps things going for entertainment purposes rather than for the flow of information. And that has a profound impact and undermines what we call the mainstream media of the country. And so the decision-making ability of the American electorate has been profoundly impacted as a consequence of that."
The Daily Howler recently pointed out that this subculture results in two Americas, that Cable viewers live in one America, newspaper readers in another. And that's the problem. People like Kurtz look at the print media and pronouce fairness abounds. The rest of us look at cable TV and are unsurprised that, as Kerry said, 77 percent of the people who voted for him [Bush] believed that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11.
Kerry said the problem was that the media didn't act as an arbitrator of what was accurate, i.e. examining the issues and point out the facts and also who was lying. The press at times attempted to say what was accurate, but it was beyond them to investigate the dishonest statements on cable. And they wonder why many have lost respect for the media.
They just don't get it.
Kurtz said Major news organizations tried--not hard enough, in my view--to fact-check the charges and countercharges by both sides. Sometimes journalists were slow--as on the Swift Boat charges--to undertake this work. Most networks aired the candidates' attack ads with only a minimum of truth-squadding. The bogus Kerry Intern rumor spread like wildfire. But there was at least an attempt to hold both sides accountable.
...Hold both sides accountable. Again with the moral equivalence. No respectable news organization would continually equate murder with jaywalking, however in politics its more than acceptable. As Mark Halperin of ABC News pointed out last fall that the Bush attacks on Kerry involve distortions and taking things out of context in a way that goes beyond what Kerry has done
Too many in the media believe that they can not compare candidate's actions so that a small distortion is the same as a series of blatant lies, or that as Kurtz apparently believes, Al Franken is little different than Rush Limbaugh.
Kerry pointed out that "there's a subculture and a sub-media that talks and keeps things going for entertainment purposes rather than for the flow of information. And that has a profound impact and undermines what we call the mainstream media of the country. And so the decision-making ability of the American electorate has been profoundly impacted as a consequence of that."
The Daily Howler recently pointed out that this subculture results in two Americas, that Cable viewers live in one America, newspaper readers in another. And that's the problem. People like Kurtz look at the print media and pronouce fairness abounds. The rest of us look at cable TV and are unsurprised that, as Kerry said, 77 percent of the people who voted for him [Bush] believed that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11.
Kerry said the problem was that the media didn't act as an arbitrator of what was accurate, i.e. examining the issues and point out the facts and also who was lying. The press at times attempted to say what was accurate, but it was beyond them to investigate the dishonest statements on cable. And they wonder why many have lost respect for the media.
They just don't get it.
Tuesday, March 22, 2005
They just don't get it
When Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis ran for president in 1988 against the first George Bush, he appeared on Nightline and after an unimpressive response, host Ted Koppel said "I still don't think you get it."
Anyone reading Dana Milbank's March 20th column, My Bias for Mainstream News, which tried to explain how the mainstream media is fair, probably came away thinking "I still don't think you get it."
Just look at what Milbank wrote: Partisans on the left and right have formed cottage industries devoted to discrediting what they dismissively call the "mainstream media" -- the networks, daily newspapers and newsmagazines. Their goal: to steer readers and viewers toward ideologically driven outlets that will confirm their own views and protect them from disagreeable facts.
Perhaps on the right but not on the left. Rather than pushing people away from the MSM, the left's goal has been to shine a light on mistakes on mistakes in hopes that this would help improve the reporting by the mainstream media.
Milbank mentions a survey conducted before the 2004 election that found that 72 percent of Bush's supporters believed that, at the time of the U.S. invasion, Iraq had stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction and that 75 percent believed that Iraq either gave al Qaeda "substantial support" or was directly involved in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
Milbank did point out that It's fine to argue about the merits of the Iraq war, but these views are just plain wrong. However he loses it when he writes Many on the left harbor their own fantasies that they consider fact -- about how Bush knew of 9/11 in advance, or how he was coached during one of the presidential debates via a transmitter between his shoulder blades.
The problem is there are few on the left who truly believe those exact claims. Many may be cynics and believe there is truth to these claims. For example, some might believe, based on the Aug. 6 PDB, Bush might have listened enough to be aware that a memo that says Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the US, meant that there could be a terrorist strike in the US in the near future. Does that mean all on the left believe that Bush knew in advance of 9/11 or just that he and Rice knew that Bin Laden would try to strike the US?
To compare 75 percent of Bush supporters believed in the Iraq - al Qaeda connection to an unknown percent having cynical views on 9/11 attacks is ridiculous. To often the press falls victim to this moral equivalence comparison. Last fall ABC News' political director Mark Halperin tried to buck the trend, writing in an internal memo that although both President Bush and Sen. John Kerry distorted the truth, the Bush team went way beyond what Kerry did.
As such, "though both sides need to be held accountable, it doesn't mean we reflexively and artificially hold both sides equally' accountable when the facts don't warrant that."
It's too bad Milbank didn't get the memo. Anyone reading, watching or listening to right wing rants comes to the conclusion that they are much more over the edge. Unfortunately too many in the media have swallowed the idea that they shouldn't differentiate between political murder and political jaywalking. To them it's all the same.
Apparently they just don't get it.
Anyone reading Dana Milbank's March 20th column, My Bias for Mainstream News, which tried to explain how the mainstream media is fair, probably came away thinking "I still don't think you get it."
Just look at what Milbank wrote: Partisans on the left and right have formed cottage industries devoted to discrediting what they dismissively call the "mainstream media" -- the networks, daily newspapers and newsmagazines. Their goal: to steer readers and viewers toward ideologically driven outlets that will confirm their own views and protect them from disagreeable facts.
Perhaps on the right but not on the left. Rather than pushing people away from the MSM, the left's goal has been to shine a light on mistakes on mistakes in hopes that this would help improve the reporting by the mainstream media.
Milbank mentions a survey conducted before the 2004 election that found that 72 percent of Bush's supporters believed that, at the time of the U.S. invasion, Iraq had stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction and that 75 percent believed that Iraq either gave al Qaeda "substantial support" or was directly involved in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
Milbank did point out that It's fine to argue about the merits of the Iraq war, but these views are just plain wrong. However he loses it when he writes Many on the left harbor their own fantasies that they consider fact -- about how Bush knew of 9/11 in advance, or how he was coached during one of the presidential debates via a transmitter between his shoulder blades.
The problem is there are few on the left who truly believe those exact claims. Many may be cynics and believe there is truth to these claims. For example, some might believe, based on the Aug. 6 PDB, Bush might have listened enough to be aware that a memo that says Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the US, meant that there could be a terrorist strike in the US in the near future. Does that mean all on the left believe that Bush knew in advance of 9/11 or just that he and Rice knew that Bin Laden would try to strike the US?
To compare 75 percent of Bush supporters believed in the Iraq - al Qaeda connection to an unknown percent having cynical views on 9/11 attacks is ridiculous. To often the press falls victim to this moral equivalence comparison. Last fall ABC News' political director Mark Halperin tried to buck the trend, writing in an internal memo that although both President Bush and Sen. John Kerry distorted the truth, the Bush team went way beyond what Kerry did.
As such, "though both sides need to be held accountable, it doesn't mean we reflexively and artificially hold both sides equally' accountable when the facts don't warrant that."
It's too bad Milbank didn't get the memo. Anyone reading, watching or listening to right wing rants comes to the conclusion that they are much more over the edge. Unfortunately too many in the media have swallowed the idea that they shouldn't differentiate between political murder and political jaywalking. To them it's all the same.
Apparently they just don't get it.
Thursday, March 10, 2005
Where Did that News Scoop Go? To the MSM's Memory Hole
In a recent National Review column, Jonah Goldberg asked whatever happened to the story on the massive cache of explosives that American forces failed to secure after the fall of Saddam Hussein. Goldberg sniffs that "in the final week of the presidential campaign it was The Most Important Story on Earth."
Goldberg notes that The (New York) Times has not run a single story about the al-Qaqaa story since November 1. Nada, bupkis, zilch. So what happened to the story?
Well, the answer is pretty damn simple. Kerry lost the election and that meant the media could go back to its On Bended Knee mode, i.e. not caring about issues. No longer did the media feel obligated to give a half-hearted effort to look into allegations about the Bush administration. No, it was back to typing up administration press releases.
And since the MSM has an attention span of about 30 seconds, Goldberg knew he could regurgitate this story to feed the GOP's daily "Outrage Machine." Knowing he wouldn't be challenged, Goldberg complains that the Times "first broadside" didn't mention that The weapons might have been removed before the invasion.
No, perhaps it wasn't mentioned in the "first broadside." But what Goldberg CONVENIENTLY neglects to mention is that video taken by KSTP of St Paul, Minnesota in mid-April 2003 SUPPORTED the Times' report that the tons of explosives missing from a munitions installation in Iraq were looted AFTER the US invasion and occupation of Iraq.
As the AP reported, A videotape shot by a Minnesota television crew traveling with United States troops in Iraq when they first opened the bunkers at the Al-Qaqaa munitions base nine days after the fall of Saddam Hussein shows what appeared to be high explosives still in barrels and bearing the markings of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
But look at Goldberg's column. Is there any mention of what KSTP found. Of course not!
And oh, by the way, Goldberg isn't the only one wondering what happened. to the story. But questions posed on this issue to the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz Media Backtalk go unanswered. Why? Perhaps rather than being an indication that the Times got the story wrong, the more likely answer is that the MSM doesn't want to upset the Bush administration.
Afterall, remember how Houston Chronicle reporter Bennett Roth was chastised by the administration for asking a question press secretary Ari Fleischer deemed off limits. As Ari put told Roth, it was "noted in the building that I had asked the question." Vice-president Dick Cheney took the strategy one step further and banned New York Times reporters from travelling with him during the campaign.
Perhaps Goldberg, satisfied the press won't actually look into the story, now gets to bash the MSM and he makes it look like the MSM picks on conservatives rather than the truth, which is that most of the time the MSM is a faithful GOP soldier.
Goldberg notes that The (New York) Times has not run a single story about the al-Qaqaa story since November 1. Nada, bupkis, zilch. So what happened to the story?
Well, the answer is pretty damn simple. Kerry lost the election and that meant the media could go back to its On Bended Knee mode, i.e. not caring about issues. No longer did the media feel obligated to give a half-hearted effort to look into allegations about the Bush administration. No, it was back to typing up administration press releases.
And since the MSM has an attention span of about 30 seconds, Goldberg knew he could regurgitate this story to feed the GOP's daily "Outrage Machine." Knowing he wouldn't be challenged, Goldberg complains that the Times "first broadside" didn't mention that The weapons might have been removed before the invasion.
No, perhaps it wasn't mentioned in the "first broadside." But what Goldberg CONVENIENTLY neglects to mention is that video taken by KSTP of St Paul, Minnesota in mid-April 2003 SUPPORTED the Times' report that the tons of explosives missing from a munitions installation in Iraq were looted AFTER the US invasion and occupation of Iraq.
As the AP reported, A videotape shot by a Minnesota television crew traveling with United States troops in Iraq when they first opened the bunkers at the Al-Qaqaa munitions base nine days after the fall of Saddam Hussein shows what appeared to be high explosives still in barrels and bearing the markings of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
But look at Goldberg's column. Is there any mention of what KSTP found. Of course not!
And oh, by the way, Goldberg isn't the only one wondering what happened. to the story. But questions posed on this issue to the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz Media Backtalk go unanswered. Why? Perhaps rather than being an indication that the Times got the story wrong, the more likely answer is that the MSM doesn't want to upset the Bush administration.
Afterall, remember how Houston Chronicle reporter Bennett Roth was chastised by the administration for asking a question press secretary Ari Fleischer deemed off limits. As Ari put told Roth, it was "noted in the building that I had asked the question." Vice-president Dick Cheney took the strategy one step further and banned New York Times reporters from travelling with him during the campaign.
Perhaps Goldberg, satisfied the press won't actually look into the story, now gets to bash the MSM and he makes it look like the MSM picks on conservatives rather than the truth, which is that most of the time the MSM is a faithful GOP soldier.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)