Fox is not news
We all know that FOX is a joke as far as serious journalism goes, but this is ridiculous. I guess they don’t even try and pretend anymore.
FOX asserted that there are no written rules against distorting news in the media. They argued that, under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on public airwaves.
On a side note… I highly recommend reading up on the bovine growth hormone. It’s nasty stuff.
07.27.07
Hillary and the occupation of Iraq
WTF??
The following is from an episode of NPR’s “All Things Considered.” Ted Koppel says:
A Duty to Mislead: Politics and the Iraq War“… I ran into an old source who held a senior position at the Pentagon until his retirement. He occasionally briefs Clinton on the situation in the Gulf. She told him that if she were elected President, and then re-elected four years, she would still expect U.S. troops to be in Iraq at the end of her second term. We’re talking about a shade less than 10 years from now.
I happen to think she’s absolutely right, and what’s more I’m sure there are several other Democratic Presidential candidates who agree with that assessment, that U.S. troops will be in Iraq for another decade, at least, even if every candidate is sounding as though the pullout would be immediate and total. When, oh when is that deadly serious issue ever going to become the topic of an equally serious and candid discussion? When, in other words, will we get the brutal truth, in place of vapid and misleading campaign applause lines?”
A good diary from The Booman Tribune
Big Bird Loves Paccione?
In a rather unusual stunt coming out of the Paccione campaign, A volunteer was apparently sent to Musgrave’s district office wearing a Big Bird costume. I guess this has something to do with highlighting the point that Musgrave voted to cut funding to PBS. Ok? This is pretty warped…
Via Colorado Pols:
Ya know, when I see something like this, I think maybe I’ve been staring at a computer too long. Sadly, this was not a case of electronic hypnosis.
07.24.07
Gonzales is an ignorant asshole
Ya, I know, people can go on and on about Gonzales and how everyone wants him gone except Bush (and his puppetmaster). But, I thought this exchange between Gonzales and Senator Specter during today’s Senate Judiciary Committee deserved a post because Gonzales’ hubristic effrontry is astounding:
Via Kos:
S: How can you get approval from sedated Ashcroft?
G: Can I continue?
S: No, answer my question.
G: Obviously there was concern about Ashcroft’s condition. There are no rules governing when Ashcroft decides he is well enough.
S: He had given us AG duties.
G: We knew he was ill…
S: Not making progress. Moving on. Do you think constitution govt can survive if Pres has unilateral authority to reject congress inquiries for Exec Privilege and prevent prosecution of claim?
G: Ongoing matter, I am recused, I cannot answer.
S: I am asking about constitutional law.
G: You are talking about an on-going issue.
S: No. Answer.
G: I won’t answer – it is ongoing controversy and I am recused.
Leahy: Calls for decorum (room is protesting).
S: Won’t pursue. This is hopeless. You are not just AG, you are a lawyer. This is a fundamental issues separate from USA resignations. Other subject. Do you have a conflict regarding the firing of US AGs?
G: Yes.
S: Do you have a conflict of interest about Miers?
G: Yes. I won’t answer.
S: Let’s find one you will answer. How about death penalty case? Charlton contacted your office and said case was not appropriate for dp. Testimony that AG spent 5-10 minutes on the issue…is this accurate?
G: I have no specific recollection of this case. But we have a detailed process for capital case review.
S: I am not interested in that. I want an answer to my question. You don’t remember a case regarding a man’s execution?
G: I have no recollection of the conversation.
S: Do you disagree with the testimony?
G: I can’t agree or disagree.
CNN/YouTube Democratic Debate
Last night’s debate was a riot. I missed the last half hour or so because I was a little… um… distracted (perhaps vodka was involved? *hiccup*) but this was definetely one of the best debates I’ve seen. Questions were submitted via YouTube, and played for the candidates during the debate.
Chris Dodd’s campaign kept a “talk clock,” recording how long each candidate spoke. This is by no means a new idea, however it is always fun to look at the results:
And… without further ado… I give you ProTem’s Debate Analysis!! WOO!!!
Clinton – Hillary did a decent job last night. Her answers, as always, were very thought through, appropriate and smart. The only problem was I was so distracted by her AWFUL coral-colored jacket that I couldn’t concentrate on anything else (except maybe my booze). In the end, Clinton did nothing impressive. She was the same cold, calculating woman we’ve seen over and over. *yawn*
Obama – Obama pulled through a little more this time. In past debates we’ve seen him be uncharismatic and dull, not what a candidate with a personality-cult following should be showing. However, last night he had a little more sparkle to his eye. He even made a clever quip about not being able to catch a taxi in Manhattan. Perhaps if his wife accompanied him on stage he would perform better. People like his wife…
Edwards – I won’t lie… Edwards is my guy. But I really thought he did well, perhaps even won the debate (if there is such a thing). He really made me want to stand up and cheer a couple of times. It is just exciting to hear someone talk about things that REALLY need to be dealt with (aka poverty and healthcare) when no one else is really going to make the effort to get the issue out in front.
Biden – I don’t normally agree with this guy, however there was a question on Darfur and whether or not the U.S. should commit troops to the effort there. Biden was the only one to proclaim “YES” on this issue. He felt very strongly that the U.S. could relieve those people of the genocide going on, and I agree with him.
Richardson – Ok, Bill was probably the dullest candidate out there. Usually he is good for a couple well done answers, but last night he just stank. He had nothing new to say, and what he did say was just boring and unimaginitive. I love ya Bill, being from a western state and all, but you really gotta do better than this. At least pump up your entertainment value…
Kucinich – This guy frequently makes me smile. As much as he says things that need to be said, and things that make sense for our country, the poor man doesn’t have a chance in hell to get the nomination. He’s creepy. But as far as his performance in the debate goes, I thought he did well, ya know, for Kucinich. That’s really all I have to say.
Dodd – Aside from Dodd’s humerous interuptions attempting to shed light on the fact that that none of the minor candidates were getting any face time, Dodd was unimpressive. The thing I appreciate most, however, is his mentioning a national sales tax, which I was thoroughly briefed on by my good friend. Well, at least I can say I learned something 
Gravel – Fuck me this guy rocks. Gravel makes any of these debates worth watching. He’s insane. It’s like watching a trainwreck. Case in point. That is all.
07.19.07
Fox Poll: Hillary v. Rudy on Iraq
The new Fox News Poll that was released today is very interesting. A couple notes:
- Most people believe that Hillary (45%) will do a better job handling Iraq than Rudy (40%). Interesting, considering Rudy is basing his campaign on national security issues. Frankly, I’m not suprised this issue polled this way, seeing as how Hillary holds the same opinion of a majority of Americans – to get out of Iraq. Rudy still clings to Bush’s surge and is supported by an ever-dwindling number of Americans.
- Probably more interesting here is John McCain, who is more vocal than anyone in his support of the surge, polls higher than Rudy on this question. Hmmm…
- … and congratulations to our president, whose popularity rating jumped to a stellar 32%. GO BUSHIE!!! WOO!!!
Michael Duffy makes me laugh
I read this blog over at The Washington Monthly… Kevin Drum just rocks this guy over at the Times:
LEAVING IRAQ….Michael Duffy of Time makes me bang my head on the wall:
What’s needed is not the sloganeering of certain politicians but a clear-eyed, multifaceted policy. That would involve making plain to the Iraqi government our intention to pull back, followed by an orderly withdrawal of about half the 160,000 troops currently in Iraq by the middle of 2008. A force of 50,000 to 100,000 troops would dig in for a longer stay.
….[The Levin-Reed Amendment calls] on the Administration to begin withdrawing the bulk of U.S. troops within 120 days and leave an unstated number behind to go after terrorists and protect the U.S. embassy in Baghdad….But even if Congress approved Levin-Reed, military logistics experts say it would take far longer than 120 days to redeploy even half of U.S. forces. The reality is that it’s difficult to get out fast….
For starters, I’m going to ignore Duffy’s self-congratulatory suggestion that his split-the-difference arm waving is self-evidently a “clear-eyed, multifaceted policy.” Honest. I’m just going to ignore it. See? Ignoring it. Ignoring it. Ignoring it.
OK then. Riddle me this. How is it that Duffy can correctly state that Levin-Reed requires withdrawal to begin within 120 days and then, two sentences later, imply that Levin-Reed requires withdrawal to be finished within 120 days? WTF?
But really, it’s even worse. It’s true that the current text of Levin-Reed requires all but a residual force to leave Iraq by April 2008. But Duffy knows perfectly well that if Republicans were seriously willing to discuss withdrawal, Democrats would change that date in a heartbeat based on military counsel. Duffy knows this. No Democrat wants to withdraw any faster than military planners say is safe. So why does he imply otherwise?
A better piece would have simply told the truth: nobody is in favor of a “reckless U.S. departure.” Everyone agrees that withdrawal needs to be handled prudently and safely. That would have taken a paragraph or two, and then Duffy could have devoted the rest of the article to the real issue: whether we should (a) withdraw completely or (b) withdraw partially and leave 75,000 troops in Iraq forever. As it is, he dismisses total withdrawal in a couple of sentences, despite the fact that plenty of experts think it’s a perfectly feasible option, and mentions none of the drawbacks of his favored policy of partial withdrawal. It’s practically a hymn to an idea that’s almost certainly unsustainable, unnecessary, and counterproductive. Nice job, Time.
07.16.07
Reid may pull an all-nighter
Some political manuevering at its best, a la Harry Reid… God I love this shit!
Forcing his Republican colleagues to put up or shut up on the notion of an up-or-down vote, Senate Majority leader Harry Reid (D-NV) just moments ago announced that he will immediately file a cloture motion on the Reed-Levin troop redeployment bill and, if Republicans follow through with a filibuster, will place the Senate in a prolonged all-night session Tuesday to force a true continuation of debate.“Now, Republicans are using a filibuster to block us from even voting on an amendment that could bring the war to a responsible end,” said Reid. “They are protecting the President rather than protecting our troops. They are denying us an up or down – yes or no – vote on the most important issue our country faces.”
The Reed-Levin amendment to the Department of Defense (DoD) Authorization Bill requires George W. Bush to “commence the reduction of the number of United States forces in Iraq not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act” and mandates a withdrawal of most combat forces by April 30, 2008.
The legislation, S.AMDT.2087, has bipartisan support and is cosponsored by Gordon Smith (R-OR), Chuck Hagel (R-NE) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME).
In making this move (based on my understanding of Senate rules), Reid is invoking the provisions of Rule 22 (Precedence of Motions) of the Standing Rules of the Senate, which provides, at the Majority Leader’s discretion, up to 30 hours of debate if a filibuster is initiated — as the Republicans will most certainly do, knowing that Reed-Levin may very well have the 51 votes needed for passage.
Sixty votes are needed to achieve cloture (end debate) and move legislation to a full, deciding vote.
Reid will be using the provision of Rule 22 that allows for up to 30 hours of continuous debate once it’s made clear — in this case, by Republicans trying to avoid an up-or-down vote on Reed-Levin — that there is a desire to continue debating the issue.
In other words, the Majority Leader is saying “You want to debate? We’ll stay all night and debate.”
“I would like to inform the Republican leadership and all my colleagues that we have no intention of backing down,” said Reid this afternoon. “If Republicans do not allow a vote on Levin/Reed today or tomorrow, we will work straight through the night on Tuesday. The American people deserve an open and honest debate on this war, and they deserve an up or down vote on this amendment to end it.”
Reid could hold the Senate in continuous session overnight Tuesday and into midday Wednesday unless Republicans agree to a simple-majority vote on Reed-Levin.
Senate Democrats will then be prepared to take to the floor and speak all night and, if their Republican colleagues do not remain in the chamber, invoke ongoing quorum calls and other procedural maneuvers to force GOP members back to the Senate floor.
With the whole specter of cots being dragged into Senate cloakrooms and the pure theatrics involved, I’m hopeful this will shine a white-hot spotlight on the Senate’s Republican leadership and show Americans how the GOP doesn’t truly support helping troops and their families at home or extricating them from pointless involvement in the Iraqi civil war.
And I’m sure more than one Democratic Senator will remind the public that Republicans screamed at the top of their lungs last year when it came to getting up-or-down votes on Bush’s right-wing judicial nominees, but expressing the sentiments of most Americans and protecting America’s troops gets no such treatment from them.
Said Reid today: “We don’t have to mark time, waiting for the President to wake up one morning with a revelation. And we can choose that new path right now.”
