A: An olive parka complete with fur-trimmed hood and embroidered name of wearer, knit ski cap, and brown, lace-up hiking boots.
“An Ass Goes to Auschwitz”
The whole story is here.
Q: If utter disrespect had a wardrobe, what would it be?
Friday Cat Blogging
These pictures were taken last night with my camera phone. They are as murky as my brain feels by Friday afternoon, so it seemed appropriate to post them, especially since I couldn't find the charger to my digital camera.
What Jim would look like at the bottom of the ocean.
Olivia doing her acrobatic routine.
Matilda scratched me for no good reason, so her punishment is one week of obscurity.
No on Gonzo
In order to join the contingent of bloggers who believe Alberto Gonzales isn’t fit to be Attorney General, I need to post an opposition statement. I’ve registered my contempt for him on numerous occasions, but there’s no one particular post that pulls all my thoughts into one place.
So here it is:
(I’d give credit, but I don’t know who originally created the image.)
Unhappy Meals
The Island of Balta reports that some wounded soldiers recuperating at Walter Reed are being required to pay for their own meals. Balta comments:
These people are sent into a hell hole that their government told them is necessary, and while they're stuck in a hospital after being wounded (sometimes quite seriously), our government is again trying to make some of them pay for their own meals. What kind of message can this send? Oh yeah, this war is clearly necessary, but we just can't afford to pay for your meals. Hey, we need to cut taxes!This is categorically reprehensible. As if it weren’t bad enough that the soldiers convalescing at Walter Reed have to ask for phone cards to call their loved ones thousands of miles away, now they (not all, but some) are being told they have to pay for their own food. How many phone cards and meals might the $240,00 paid to Armstrong Williams, or the $21,500 paid to Maggie Gallagher, or the $10,000 paid to Michael McManus have bought? How many phone cards and meals might the money spent on NINE GODDAMNED INAUGURAL BALLS have bought?
Can anyone, anywhere give me a genuine reason why the U.S. military should charge wounded Iraq war veterans for their own meals? I don't care if they're receiving outpatient treatment, I don't care what the excuse is, if they're living at a hospital taking care of wounded soldiers, there is no reason they should have to pay for their own meals.
Mr. Furious recently mentioned speaking to someone who voted for Bush solely for the great tax breaks he keeps giving her. Well, you parsimonious bitch, and all the greedy assholes like you, how does it feel to know you keep getting richer by taking the food out of soldiers’ mouths? Support the troops, do you? Get stuffed, you stingy cunts.
Simon's Pitch
Simon Rosenberg wants to be your DNC Chair. You can find his plan here.
I have no real comment on his plan; it looks good enough. I'm still just a Deaniac at heart, though.
As an aside, one thing that's cool about the race for DNC Chair is that at least we know a Democrat will win, which makes a refreshing change. :-)
Let Freedom Ring
Brilliant at Breakfast points us a Kos diary about the author’s experience participating in an episode of Nightline that was rife with overt and covert censorship. It’s truly chilling. Read it and see if you don’t come away thinking that maybe things are even worse than you thought, if that’s possible.
And Digby has more on our “free” society (referencing this article):
Yeah, it's some kind of a wonderful free society when female interrogators are used as dominatrix whores to humiliate a bunch of unlucky putzes who were sold for 5 grand by an Afghan warlord who's still laughing his ass off at how easy it was to get rid of his hated brother-in-law.What country do I live in? I don’t even recognize it anymore.
Friday Blogrollin’ (Thursday Night Edition)
Got a few extras this week, but I would never get everyone added who deserved it if I stuck to only one or two each Friday…
First up: The Dark Wraith, who I hope won’t be offended if I call a pal and whose musings I first came to appreciate during some late night nattering at AMERICAblog, before either of us had our own pads in the blogoshere. No need to link to any post in particular—go read anything. When the Dark Wraith has spoken, it’s worth listening to.
Next Stop: T Rex’s Guide to Life. Even though we’ve established the name refers to the dinosaur, and not the eminently cool band, I’d still like to think we’re both Children of the Revolution. Again, lots of posts would do, although this is a recent favorite.
Destination: Poetic Leanings. Aside from my instant affinity for the name of his blog, Scott posts lots of great stuff. Funny, insightful, and informative.
Off we go to Me4President, which is authored by another chap called Scott, whose humor and idealism I so appreciate (in comments here and on his own blog), especially when I’m feeling old and cranky. This and this will introduce you nicely.
And last but not least: 42, which is, of course, the answer to everything in the universe, and who can argue with that? This is a good one. (I guess especially if you live in St. Paul, but I don’t, and I could still totally relate).
Off you go, then. Lots of reading to do!
Butch Cassidy and the Last Chance Kid
Triple Trouble!
From Salon:
One day after President Bush ordered his Cabinet secretaries to stop hiring commentators to help promote administration initiatives, and one day after the second high-profile conservative pundit was found to be on the federal payroll, a third embarrassing hire has emerged. Salon has confirmed that Michael McManus, a marriage advocate whose syndicated column, "Ethics & Religion," appears in 50 newspapers, was hired as a subcontractor by the Department of Health and Human Services to foster a Bush-approved marriage initiative. McManus championed the plan in his columns without disclosing to readers he was being paid to help it succeed.Hmm. Is it me, or are there no lengths of unethical behavior to which this administration is willing to go…until they get caught? See, the problem is, Mr. Horn, that preventing the HHS from “hiring any outside expert or consultant who has any working affiliation with the media” shouldn’t need a new policy, because hiring outside experts or consultants who have working affiliations with the media is indicative of an attempt to buy endorsements of policies, as those endorsements might not otherwise be forthcoming, and that’s called propaganda, and there’s already a federal statute prohibiting it.
Responding to the latest revelation, Dr. Wade Horn, assistant secretary for children and families at HHS, announced Thursday that HHS would institute a new policy that forbids the agency from hiring any outside expert or consultant who has any working affiliation with the media. "I needed to draw this bright line," Horn tells Salon. "The policy is being implemented and we're moving forward."
Horn says McManus, who could not be reached for comment, was paid approximately $10,000 for his work as a subcontractor to the Lewin Group, a health care consultancy hired by HHS to implement the Community Healthy Marriage Initiative, which encourages communities to combat divorce through education and counseling.Huh. Well, here’s another problem, Mr. Horn: I would bet everything in my right pocket that you couldn’t produce a liberal scholar who would generate the kind of advocatory material you sought on behalf of promoting marriage, particularly as this administration has inextricably linked “marriage promotion” to discrimination against gays and lesbians. But hey, if you can produce one, then you’ve just won yourself a Post-It note and a Band-Aid, you lucky dog.
[…]
[O]ne HHS critic says another dynamic has led to the controversy, and a blurring of ethical and journalistic lines: Horn and HHS are hiring advocates -- not scholars -- from the pro-marriage movement. "They're ideological sympathizers who propagandize," says Tim Casey, attorney for Legal Momentum, a women's rights organization. He describes McManus as being a member of the "extreme religious right."
Horn denies the charge: "It's not true that we have just been selectively working with conservatives." According to news accounts, the administration seeks to spend $1.5 billion promoting marriage through marriage-enrichment courses, counseling and public-awareness campaigns.
Let the revelations roll.
Yeesh
Dear Bush Administration:
There’s this thing called Google. You might have heard of it. It’s on the internets. It’s really helpful for finding out information about people and other stuff.
Use it.
Love,
Shakespeare’s Sister
Double Trouble
Ugh. Just when I think I can’t get more annoyed…
Check out this post at Pam’s House Blend:
USA Today: PR spending doubled under BushShe’s got more. Just have a barf bag handy when you read it.
Well, now, we're paying for a well-oiled PR machine. Bush has shelled out $88 million on contracts with public relations firms? Good god, this thing is blowing wide open. This article mentions Ketchum, the firm that paid out $240K to our friend Armstrong Williams. I guess we'll see some mini-Halliburton PR agencies that have been getting fat on the taxpayers' dollar now, and I bet they're friends of Chimpy.
The sick thing is we're at war, troops don't have what they need, programs are being cut and money is being burned on flacks. The bottom line is that Bush cannot advance a crap agenda like his without people to massage and sell the hell out of it. I want my money back.
It's So Obvious
The utterly loathsome behavior demonstrated by our president at his press conference yesterday almost defies comprehension. He made fun of seniors and responded flippantly to questions about the impending election in Iraq, a topic which requires grave concern rather than yet another example of his possibly irreparable dissociation from reality.
Perhaps his lowest moment, however, was his response to the news of the highest number of troop losses since the war started:
"Obviously any time we lose life it is a sad moment," he said.
Obviously. Such a dismissive word. What an incredible horse’s ass.
James Wolcott observed:
When Bush did address the soldiers' deaths, he said that we "weep and mourn" when Americans die, but as he was saying it his hand was flatly smacking downwards for emphasis, as if he were pounding the table during the business meeting, refusing to pay a lot for a muffler. The steady beat of his hand was at odds with the sentiments he was expressing--he didn't look or sound the least bit mournful or sombre [sic]. And why should he? Death doesn't seem to be a bringdown for him. There isn't the slightest evidence that he experiences the anguish LBJ did as casualties mounted in Vietnam.Of course not. Most president are so pedestrian as to be shocked and dismayed by such macabre news, but not Cowboy George. To him, the sadness is so obvious as to undermine its gravity, to render its expression unnecessary.
[…]
He's so cocky now that he can't even fake a semblance of sorrow after hearing news that would have made most presidents turn ashen.
More of the same detestable exhibitions of callousness and callowness from our idiot-in-chief, it struck me as so achingly, regrettably familiar. The despair for those whose loss of loved ones is exacerbated by Bush’s indifference unshakably nags me.
John at Blogenlust echoed the sentiment in a post I highly recommend:
Today I learned that one of the Marines killed in Tuesday's helicopter crash had been corresponding with a close friend. I'd actually read a few of the letters between the two, so in a small sense, I feel as though I know a bit about him despite the fact we never met and he had know idea who I was.
[…]
This is extremely upsetting for me, even as someone with no real physical connection to these guys. I can't imagine how their families, and the families of other soldiers killed in action must feel when the Commander in Chief consistently proves himself to be an insensitive prick…
I can’t imagine, either. His cavalier attitude mocks their loss, and devalues the lives given in pursuit of his dreams of empire. There’s nothing obvious about the sadness I feel. It is quite extraordinary how much sorrow I feel these days about his war, despite his best attempts to celebrate its great success.
The Unspoken Cost of Social Security Reform
You must must must must must read this article in the LA Times by Benjamin R. Barber.
A brief excerpt:
[T]he most profound cost of privatization has been wholly ignored: the systemic cost to our public way of life. By turning a public social insurance and pension policy into a private bet in which personal and private decisions determine who does well and who does badly, we do irreparable harm to our democratic "common ground." […]You cannot simply take justice out of the public realm and put it into the private realm without fundamentally weakening the democracy on which the very possibility of justice depends.That is the real crisis we face, and these are our talking points.
[…]
Privatization is a kind of reverse social contract: It dissolves the bonds that tie us together.
There Is No Crisis…But There Certainly Could Be
President Bush, in promoting his ideas for reforming Social Security, has invoked the Chilean plan, which during Pinochet’s tenure switched largely to privatization, as a model for the reforms he intends.
The problem is, Chile’s participants aren’t finding the plan particularly worthy of emulation:
Dagoberto Sáez, for example, is a 66-year-old laboratory technician here who plans, because of a recent heart attack, to retire in March. He earns just under $950 a month; his pension fund has told him that his nearly 24 years of contributions will finance a 20-year annuity paying only $315 a month.The whole article is worth reading, to see the road down which we could be headed. I guess it just goes to prove that old adage: modeling the presidency after the authoritarian government of Pinochet is kinda kooky.
"Colleagues and friends with the same pay grade who stayed in the old system, people who work right alongside me," he said, "are retiring with pensions of almost $700 a month - good until they die. I have a salary that allows me to live with dignity, and all of a sudden I am going to be plunged into poverty, all because I made the mistake of believing the promises they made to us back in 1981."
Joementum
We could look the other way if Lieberman represented, say, Utah. But does Connecticut truly deserve this neocon?Atrios:
I have a policy of neutrality for primary elections, but would make an exception in this case. I don't doubt that a legitimate primary challenger to Lieberman would garner serious netroot support. And if what I hear is true, there are serious efforts underway to draft such a person.
Like Kos, my instinct is to stay away from primary contests as much possible. But, if there's a decent CT politician who is eyeing a Senate seat there, my guess is that online fundraising wouldn't be too much of a problem.Hesiod:
Taking a cue from Kos and Atrios, I agree that the Democrats should mount a serious primary challenge to Senator Joe Lieberman in the next electoral cycle.Like Kos, Atrios, and Hesiod (just to keep the Joementum going), I think the people of Connecticut deserve better than the likes of Joe Lieberman. And I think any Dem willing to sell out the party’s principles could use a good dose of intimidation. Yes, it’s a big tent, but it’s not so big that we should let guys who ought to be on the other side of the aisle slip into Congress under our banner.
This will serve as a wakeup call for ANY wavering Democrats who think there is some electoral or political benefit to kissing the President’s nether reegions. [sic]
It doesn’t really matter if the primary challenge is successful. [Although, if it were, it’d be a cannon shot across a lot of faint-hearted Dems’ bows]. Just so long as you put the fear of Blog into ‘em, that’s all that matters.
[…]
There are no Zell Miller’s in the GOP.
Of course, you already knew what I think.
Hill of Beans
Is this for real?
Either the Bull Moose and Ezra Klein are conspiring to drive me insane, or they’ve both lost their minds. Maybe both.
Both of these normally smart fellas are suggesting that Hillary’s recent migration towards the center is both clever and admirable.
Bull Moose:
Hillary's luxury is that she doesn't have to establish her lefty bona fides.Ezra:
[…]
Hillary has shrewdly started to address the two areas that are vulnerabilities both for her and the Democratic Party - national security and values. Needless to say, she has the most acute political practitioner in America as her unpaid chief political consultant - her husband.
Hillary is making the sweet moves. If Bill's enormous charisma and obvious potential gave him the credibility to cross liberals on key policies (or symbols), Hillary's position as bugaboo of the right and liberal icon is allowing her to assume unorthodox stances on issues where progressives desperately need some creative repositioning.Let’s address this madness point by point.
Hillary's luxury is that she doesn't have to establish her lefty bona fides. I beg to differ. Hillary is currently on the fast track to eradicating any tenuous lefty bona fides she may have established for herself, by voting yes to confirm Rice and suddenly invoking God and values with such frequency that she’s giving President Bejesus a run for his tithe. And while some might see her recent comments on the need to prevent abortions as some kind of beautiful compromise between the pro-life and pro-choice positions, they do so only by ignoring that she also underscored
her views in preventing unplanned pregnancies, promoting adoption, recognizing the influence of religion in abstinence and championing what she has long called "teenage celibacy."While preventing unplanned pregnancies and promoting adoption are noble goals, no progressive in his or her right mind would endorse the religious-based abstinence programs favored over traditional sex education by this administration (an analysis of which can be found here and here—please read to see just how asinine support of these programs actually is). Endorsing celibacy as a solution to abortions is short-sighted and untenable for a myriad of reasons, not the least of which that it assumes abortion is a phenomenon unique to single women. (For more on this, read Linnet’s excellent post on the topic here.)
Hillary is far too intelligent a woman to be unaware of the dangers of abstinence-based sex ed and celibacy promotion. Her endorsement can be little more than insincere posturing to achieve the appearance of compromise, when in fact it is a straightforward sell-out of women’s well-being. Liberal bona fides my ass.
Bill's enormous charisma and obvious potential gave him the credibility to cross liberals on key policies… What gave Bill the ability to cross liberals was not, as Ezra suggests, "enormous charisma and obvious potential," but a man by the name of Ross Perot, who effectively split the vote in a way that handed him two elections.
In my election post-mortem, I wrote: We on the Left seem to have such a selective memory, and selective outrage as a result. Clinton & team realistically probably only won because Perot was a spoiler (which we never acknowledge, though we are quick to blame the spoiler Nader for our '00 loss). It's foolish to remember the latter in bitterness as an excuse for a loss, and forget the other lest we be faced with the fact that without Perot, we may have been on a losing streak since 1980 rather than 2000. It doesn't bode so well for our current leadership, when you look at it in the correct perspective. Unfortunately, looking at it in the correct perspective rarely happens. In all the post-mortem I’ve read that suggests we should look to the Clinton presidency to guide our future, nowhere have I seen the name “Perot,” and yet he was perhaps more key to that presidency than anyone on our side.
True then, true now. And Clinton is no idol of true progressives. Indeed, anyone who feels, for example, that gay rights should be of primary concern (as should anyone who calls him- or herself a liberal) finds very little for which to thank Clinton, the architect of DOMA. The example is representative of a slew of issues on which Clinton was much less a friend to liberals than to the muddy middle to which Hillary now aspires.
Hillary's position as bugaboo of the right and liberal icon is allowing her to assume unorthodox stances on issues where progressives desperately need some creative repositioning. Progressives do indeed desperately need some creative repositioning, but the solution is not running to the center; it's by repositioning progressive arguments as true American values, as opposed to the thuggish and disingenuous policies that are masquerading as them now.
Progressives have left a void in the values arena, in no small part due to our inability to simultaneously claim a moral high ground and continue to cast in the role of Lefty icon a man who committed perjury while holding the office of president. Can’t have it both ways, so we’ve decided to cede morality to the biggest collection of morally bankrupt fuckwits to ever hit the Beltway, and hold on to the shady character Clinton instead.
The answer is not to try to fill that void with disingenuous rhetoric (that, by the way, will never appease the people to whom it’s directed, anyway) meant to appeal to a crowd that actually subscribes to the Bushies’ claim that they are morally superior to progressives despite their having led us to war on false pretenses (for a start). It’s a pointless, worthless endeavor, and it does absolutely nothing to move the national debate back onto our terms.
Hillary’s not making sweet moves; she’s engaging in the worst kind of artificial politicking—that which helps no one but herself.
Stats for Thought
Although all eight of the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee voted no on Gonzales, six of them voted yes on Rice. The only two Democratic Senators who voted no on both were Teddy Kennedy and Dick Durbin. Special Balls of Steel award to the two gentlemen.
One of the Dems sitting on the Judiciary Committee who voted no on Gonzales and yes on Rice was Dianne Feinstein, much to many's shock and chagrin. Via the Middle Earth Journal, however, is an article that may help explain what dictated the dichotomy between Feinstein's votes:
Tuesday, April 22, 2003Huh. No wonder Dianne is so fond of Condi "Mushroom Cloud" Rice.
URS Corp., a San Francisco planning and engineering firm partially owned by California Sen. Dianne Feinstein's husband, landed an Army contract Monday worth up to $600 million.
[...]
EG&G works with the military, NASA, and several federal departments, according to Hoover's. The company's areas of expertise range from designing transportation infrastructure to training people to dismantle weapons of mass destruction.
When I suggested the Dems start considering WWRD, I didn't have war profiteering in mind.
Gag Me: The Official Right-on-Right Get-It-On-a-thon
Okay, I’m interrupting our regularly scheduled delivery of assorted shocking, sad, and sickening political news to have a little fun.
It all started when the Arlington Group started blackmailing Bush. In the story, which addressed the wingnuts’ disappointment that the White House isn’t discriminating against gays nearly rigorously or quickly enough, Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, ranked the level of the religious right’s discontent with the White House as an 8 out of 10.
Pam commented, “I'm wondering what it would take make them hit the apesh*t 10 level?” to which I responded, “A picture of Karl Rove and Ken Mehlman having wild monkey sex on SpongeBob SquarePants sheets.”
Pam was disturbed by that image for some reason.
But she got me back. In response to my post about Joe Lieberman’s less than stellar performance at Condi’s confirmation hearing, Pam commented, “I imagine Joe licking Condi's sensible shiny patent leather pumps and getting off on it (then feeling terribly guilty).”
This image spawned two things:
1) A dose of the dry heaves
2) The Official Right-on-Right Get-It-On-a-thon
The challenge: Come up with the most abhorrent, gut-churning imagery of two of your favorite GOP operatives in a compromising position. No extra points for ménage e trios or orgiastic shenanigans.
Bush and his Pet Goat in a bestial fling? Laura Bush and Ann Coulter in a hot lesbian love-in? Newt and Rush in a flab-slapping hayroll? No holds barred. Be imaginative, feel free to submit links to any imagery that might enhance your entry, and pass it on!
Inspirational Images:
And don’t forget who’s really packing in the GOP!
No wonder he didn’t support the assault weapons ban. Yowza!
No-Voters
In case you're wondering who were the brave baker's dozen that voted against confirming Condoleezza Rice's as Secretary of State, here they are:
Daniel Akaka, D-Hawaii
Evan Bayh, D-Indiana
Barbara Boxer, D-California
Robert Byrd, D-West Virginia
Mark Dayton, D-Minnesota
Dick Durbin, D-Illinois
Tom Harkin, D-Iowa
Jim Jeffords, I-Vermont
Ted Kennedy, D-Massachusetts
John Kerry, D-Massachusetts
Frank Lautenberg, D-New Jersey
Carl Levin, D-Michigan
Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island
Not a Republican among them. Every single Republican Senator believes that Condi's perfect for the job.
You'll notice quite a few Democrats do, too. Or, even if they don't, they voted for her anyway. (Thanks a lot, Biden.)
Here are the rest of your Dem Senators:
Baucus, Max - (D - MT)
Web Form: baucus.senate.gov/emailmax.html
Biden, Joseph - (D - DE)
E-mail: senator@biden.senate.gov
Bingaman, Jeff - (D - NM)
E-mail: senator_bingaman@bingaman.senate.gov
Cantwell, Maria - (D - WA)
Web Form: cantwell.senate.gov/contact/index.html
Carper, Thomas - (D - DE)
Web Form: carper.senate.gov/email-form.html
Clinton, Hillary - (D - NY)
Web Form: clinton.senate.gov/email_form.html
Conrad, Kent - (D - ND)
Web Form: conrad.senate.gov/webform.html
Corzine, Jon - (D - NJ)
Web Form: corzine.senate.gov/contact.cfm
Dodd, Christopher - (D - CT)
Web Form: dodd.senate.gov/webmail/
Dorgan, Byron - (D - ND)
E-mail: senator@dorgan.senate.gov
Feingold, Russell - (D - WI)
E-mail: russell_feingold@feingold.senate.gov
Feinstein, Dianne - (D - CA)
Web Form: feinstein.senate.gov/email.html
Inouye, Daniel - (D - HI)
Web Form: inouye.senate.gov/webform.html
Johnson, Tim - (D - SD)
Web Form: johnson.senate.gov/ContactPage/emailform.htm
Kohl, Herb - (D - WI)
Web Form: kohl.senate.gov/gen_contact.html
Landrieu, Mary - (D - LA)
Web Form: landrieu.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm
Leahy, Patrick - (D - VT)
E-mail: senator_leahy@leahy.senate.gov
Lieberman, Joseph - (D - CT)
Web Form: lieberman.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm?regarding=issue
Lincoln, Blanche - (D - AR)
Web Form: lincoln.senate.gov/webform.html
Mikulski, Barbara - (D - MD)
Web Form: mikulski.senate.gov/mailform.html
Murray, Patty - (D - WA)
Web Form: murray.senate.gov/email/index.cfm
Nelson, Bill - (D - FL)
Web Form: billnelson.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm#email
Nelson, Ben - (D - NE)
Web Form: bennelson.senate.gov/email.html
Obama, Barack - (D - IL)
Web Form: obama.senate.gov/contact/
Pryor, Mark - (D - AR)
Web Form: pryor.senate.gov/email_webform.htm
Reid, Harry - (D - NV)
Web Form: reid.senate.gov/email_form.cfm
Rockefeller, John - (D - WV)
E-mail: senator@rockefeller.senate.gov
Salazar, Ken - (D - CO)
Web Form: salazar.senate.gov/contactus.cfm
Sarbanes, Paul - (D - MD)
Web Form: sarbanes.senate.gov/pages/email.html
Schumer, Charles - (D - NY)
Web Form: schumer.senate.gov/webform.html
Stabenow, Debbie - (D - MI)
Web Form: stabenow.senate.gov/email.htm
Wyden, Ron - (D - OR)
Web Form: wyden.senate.gov/contact.html
Write them and let them know how much you appreciate their vote. Especially our Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid. Wow. What a great choice he was.
Pay for Play: Act Two
Howard Kurtz reports in the WaPo that Armstrong Williams wasn’t the only one on the take--quelle surprise:
In 2002, syndicated columnist Maggie Gallagher repeatedly defended President Bush's push for a $300 million initiative encouraging marriage as a way of strengthening families.Am I missing something, or is the gist of this that the administration was paying someone in the media to write a report touting the virtues of an administration program, which was then to be published through a private, third-party organization? Um, something doesn’t make sense here. Did the Justice Department give the money directly to Gallagher, or did was it granted to the NFI, who then gave it to Gallagher? It sounds like it’s the former, which seems rather odd to me. Why would a government grant be given directly to an individual to author a report on behalf of an allegedly private organization? Was Gallagher contracted to write the report by NFI independently, or was it coordinated by the administration? It reeks of the administration wanting to have a third-party piece available to prop up its marriage initiative.
[…]
But Gallagher failed to mention that she had a $21,500 contract with the Department of Health and Human Services to help promote the president's proposal. Her work under the contract, which ran from January through October 2002, included drafting a magazine article for the HHS official overseeing the initiative, writing brochures for the program and conducting a briefing for department officials.
[…]
Gallagher received an additional $20,000 from the Bush administration in 2002 and 2003 for writing a report, titled "Can Government Strengthen Marriage?", for a private organization called the National Fatherhood Initiative. That report, published last year, was funded by a Justice Department grant, said NFI spokesman Vincent DiCaro. Gallagher said she was "aware vaguely" that her work was federally funded.
"Did I violate journalistic ethics by not disclosing it?" Gallagher said yesterday. "I don't know. You tell me."
Hmm, well, according to all your jagoff compatriots who went after Kos and Jerome even though they did disclose their relationship with the Dean campaign…YES! It’ll be interesting to see what the pontificating blowhards say in defense of Ms. Gallagher, considering their positions regarding Lefty bloggers.
