Gannongate: A Few Thoughts, A Few Questions

I thought…

…that Bush was the best man to keep America safe, that he was the “Security President.”

So why is he so resolutely uninterested in getting to the bottom of how an unproven journalist was able to secure himself a pass to get access into White House Press Briefings with a fake name?

I thought…

…that the GOP was tough on crime. When he was running for president against Al Gore, then-Governor of Texas Bush bragged about his successes in prosecuting crime. There were 100 executions in Texas under his governorship, and he

told the Fraternal Order of Police he would be the candidate of “tough love.” “The men and women in uniform understand that if you break the law, there will be a consequence. In order to have a safe country, we’re going to stand by the men and women who wear the uniform.”

He also, at least as recently as ’98, advocated strengthening both the penalties and sentences for sex offenders.

So why is there no outrage from the White House about a flesh peddler infiltrating the Press Corps? Prostitution is illegal in D.C., which would make Jeff Gannon a sex offender. Will there be no consequence for his criminal behavior?

I thought…

…that the GOP was the party of moral values, including strengthening families and protecting marriages by ridding our country of the radical homosexual agenda that seeks to pervert the minds of our children? President Bush promised to avidly pursue a pro-family and anti-gay agenda that included bringing a Federal Marriage Amendment to ban gay marriage before the Congress.

So why is there so little outrage from the White House that a homosexual prostitute infiltrated the Press Corps? Why are liberals, who support gay rights, being accused by GOP media shills of making this about Gannon’s sexuality, when clearly it is in conflict with the administration’s espoused moral values, not ours?

I thought…

…that President Bush didn’t want taxpayer money used to promote administration policies.

"I expect my Cabinet secretaries to make sure that that practice doesn't go forward," he said at a White House news conference.

So why isn’t the White House interested in pursuing the main source of Jeff Gannon’s income, which is not immediately clear? Do the President and his Cabinet secretaries not want to make sure that Gannon hasn’t been receiving payments similar to that received by Armstrong Williams, Maggie Gallagher, and Michael McManus?

I thought…

…that George Bush and Dick Cheney were men of integrity, who were meant to bring a new era of accountability to the White House. I thought they were men of strength.

So why are they cowering like pussies and issuing canned platitudes about this whole fucking mess through their spokespeople instead of demanding within their own ranks a rigorous investigation into what really happened here?

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

The Village

Okay, I just (finally) saw The Village, and I don't understand what everyone was sniping about. I thought it was brilliant. (Despite having discerned the "twist" literally during the opening scene of the film.)

M. Night Shyamalan's films are parables; they're never about what's happening on the screen, but what lies underneath. One is more beautiful than the next.

If this had been his first film, it would have been declared a triumph. It's unfortunate that The Sixth Sense was so easily mistaken for a simple ghost story.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

What a Tosser

Where can I find someone who will pay me to write articles outlining all the idiotic ideas I come up with when I'm high?

(And, by the way, if Tossy McWankerton wasn't high when he devised this asinine notion, then somebody please take away his keyboard.)

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Hmm.

Read this.

I don't think it's totally mind-blowing, but it might spark some interesting discussion among the many wise and opinionated folks who cruise these waters.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Rhetorically Speaking

I know it's technically meant to serve as a rhetorical device, but this question from the San Francisco Chronicle editorial, Who is Jeff Gannon?, is actually worth pondering:

It's hard to say which is worse: That the White House had no idea who it was allowing to be within shouting distance of the president -- or that it knew exactly who Jeff Gannon was and why he was there.

It's an interesting question, because I think people's assumptions of what the answer is drives their level of interest in the story, and the angle they tend to focus (or not focus) on. I think the latter is worse, but that’s probably only because I don’t remotely believe the former is possible. I suppose in empirical terms, the former would be worse, though.

Thoughts?

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Boil, Boil, Toil, and Trouble

Juan Cole (link via The Alternate Brain):

Al-Hayat has a long interview with an "informed Iraqi source" who is close to US officials in Iraq. He maintains that the US officials there were astounded that the United Iraqi Alliance did so well, and that they felt helpless and resigned as the process unfolded. He says that they are now asking privately if the US shed so much blood and treasure in Iraq to help fundamentalist Shiite allies of Iran take over Baghdad.

How foolish to be surprised by the success of the Iran-allied UIA. What a fundamental lack of understanding of Iraqi politics it exposes. Not the politics of the deposed tyrant, Saddam, but the politics of the people, which were always simmering under their leader’s inflexibly restrictive tyranny, which kept them from boiling, for good or ill.

Now they boil. We did that. And we’ve no right to be astounded by the outcome.

Fixer comments:

Tell me who, aside from the Repub true believers, had any doubt this was going to happen? … It's more and more apparent that the Bush administration was played for fools, by Chalabi, by Iran, and by the Shi'ites in Iraq. Worst of all, they played themselves, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy that could only end in failure.

Our swindled leadership in turn conned the media, who also let themselves get played for fools, by Bush administration assurances, by their cooked intelligence, by their somber presentation to the UN, delivered by the man most trusted among their ranks. And then the media turned to the task of swindling the American people, more than half of us when this folly began, who dutifully bought the snake oil to heal the wound left festering since 9/11.

Like the dog in a house where abuse bleeds down from the top, exacted and passed on to the next in line, to the one just slightly weaker, we have watched dad hitting mom, and mom slapping the oldest, and the oldest pinching the youngest, who’s now started kicking us each time he lashes out about his own mistreatment. The Bush administration will not learn integrity from this massive sucker-punch. They will continue to pass on the bill of goods to the media, who will pass it on to (the majority of) the electorate, because we’re the last stop on this chain of deceit and treachery.

They best remember, though, that even the most obedient dog will eventually bite a vicious master.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Baseball Post #1

Guh. Jose Canseco is an ass.

(I’m going to try to keep the baseball posts to a dull roar, hence the numbering system, which will force me to monitor obsession creep. However, if the Cubs do extremely well or extremely poorly—or especially if they do extremely well until it really matters, and then they fucking choke, which is of course the most likely scenario—things might get a little out of control.)

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

The Blade Strikes Again

If I wasn’t clear enough before about how loathsome my new governor is, let me reiterate--Republican Indiana Mitch Daniels is a douchebag and a half:

Gov. Mitch Daniels proudly displays a samurai sword in his office, a remnant of the days when President Bush nicknamed him "The Blade" for his prowess in cutting taxes and federal spending.

Oh, excuse me. “The Blade” is a douchebag and a half.

Indiana has a $645 million deficit. In Northwest Indiana, where I live, many white-collar professionals commute into Chicago each day, because there simply aren’t enough jobs to accommodate everyone. It used to be all about the steel mills; then in the 80s, they all tanked, and the NWI job market did, too. I remember sitting in my second grade class, talking about jobs, and each of us had to go around the room and say what our parents did for a living. The most popular occupation was “laid off.” Many of those guys are still laid off; there has been little to come take the place of the jobs that were lost at the once-thriving mills.

Good jobs are still scarce, but in the past few years, property taxes have continued to increase to try to make up for the lost revenue from the now-defunct mills. The ones that survived aren’t nearly the powerhouse employers and revenue generators they used to be. The vast rural middle of the state hasn’t fared much better. There are counties in the state with double-digit unemployment. And so our state economy is in the toilet.

The Blade’s proposed solution is a one-year, one percentage point tax increase on those making more than $100,000. But that’s not all.

It also calls for freezing education funding and reining in soaring Medicaid costs.

The Blade says his temporary tax increase will eradicate Indiana’s deficit in one year. But clearly, Hoosier education and healthcare will have to suffer, too (neither of which can afford to). And that’s why The Blade is a really little more than a dull butter knife. He’s willing to sacrifice even necessary increases in funding for education and healthcare in order to keep his tax hike on the wealthiest in the state palatable.

And you know what? They’re still pissed off, anyway.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Reason #1,325,462 You Should Be Reading the Dark Wraith

Because it’s probably the only place you’ll find nerdy economic types this witty:

Dark Wraith blogged...

[D]idn't you notice that the CNN article told us what bond prices DID on Wednesday (that's today) as a result of the CPI numbers? That article had a dateline that would not have been able to say what the bond market did for the day because the trading day hadn't started, yet! CNN was telling us that bond prices recovered as a result of the uneventful CPI numbers, and that's about what they should do (absent other issues that might come up through the day), but CNN couldn't report this as fact before it happens.

As I said, I need to upgrade to the market tickers that CNN uses.

The Dark Wraith prepares to know the road ahead.


Mr. Shakes blogged...

It looks as though someone at CNN is due the Nobel prize in Phyics.

It is especially worrying that South Korea have decided to reallocate some dollars. Of all the greenback gluttons I would have thought they were the most under our thumb.


Anonymous blogged...

No, I didn't note that. I have read or heard so many market summary news accounts over my life that I guess I've gotten inattentive. You are of course quite correct. It makes absolutely no sense for them to write a market summary news account before the trading day has even begun!

- oddjob


Dark Wraith blogged...

Good afternoon, Mr. Shakes, and welcome back to the Economic Policy Wonk Factory.

Given that South Korea has abandoned the good ol' Hew Hess of Hay (to do a bit of L'Il Abner), I should probably say something about South Korea's new daddy.

Yes, indeed, I certainly should.

Or I could let you tell me what's going on behind the little lady moving out of Uncle Sam's house of dollars.

Could it be Europe and that hunky euro strutting down the economic street of the 21st Century?

Could it be Japan and its older but tried-and-true yen?

Could it be China and the underappreciated, self-deprecating yuan?

Or... or... could it be... gasp... a... a... market basket of currencies?!

The ssssslut!

Say it ain't so.

The Dark Wraith awaits some speculation.


Mr. Shakes blogged...

I don't think it's the Yuan, or any of the other dollar pegged currencies (Yen included) that have set little Miss Korea's heart aflutter. If she is becoming nervous about her relationship with the dollar, then why would she pin her hopes on currencies that are equally out of equilibrium, only in the other direction?

No sir. My money's on Mr. Euro. He may not be as sexy as Uncle Sam, but he's a cosmopolitan young chap, loved by over 200 million thrifty Europeans.

In other words, he offers interest rates that actually give a positive real return, and is backed by a diverse array of powerful economies. As such, he represents the first real alternative to the dollar as a global currency since WWII, and has arrived just as the U.S. is busy spending the dollar into oblivion.

The Big Bad Euro is here to stay, and Miss. Korea won't be the last to fall for his manly charms. Why, I hear even Mother Russia has been eyeing the young blade with more than matronly affection.

If the stampede for the exits is not too quick, we may just about get out of this with a whole skin. But I ask myself - who wants to be last in a burning whore house?


Anonymous blogged...

Well no one wants to be last of course, but what do you do if you're the madam??

- oddjob


Mr. Shakes blogged...

lol. I dunno. Grab the money box and head for the hills?


Dark Wraith blogged...

And the sad part is that little Pryomaniac Georgie could have been kicked out by the American Electorate bouncer; but Georgie got to the good stuff anyway with his neo-con matches, and here we are, standing around cooking marshmellows on the front lawn.

Did anyone remember to grab the cat on the way out?

The Dark Wraith calls the fire department.

[Whaddaya MEAN, 'the number's been disconnected due to budget cuts'?!]

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Bloggrrls

Well, hell.

I really wasn’t going to bother responding the Kevin Drum’s truly stupid missive about the dearth of women in the political blogosphere, but I’ve read a bunch of other responses to it, and none of them have ultimately satisfied me. So off I go. To recap:

There aren't any institutional barriers in the traditional sense of the word, which means either (a) there are fewer female political bloggers and thus fewer in the top 30, or (b) there are plenty of women who blog about politics but they don't get a lot of traffic or links from high-traffic male bloggers.

My guess is that it's a bit of both, and the proximate reason is that men are more comfortable with the food fight nature of opinion writing — both writing it and reading it. Since I don't wish to suffer the fate of Larry Summers I'll refrain from speculating on deep causes — it might be social, cultural, genetic, or Martian mind rays for all I know — but I imagine that the fundamental viciousness and self aggrandizement inherent in opinion writing turns off a lot of women.

So let me get this straight. In the same breath that he says he won’t speculate on “deep causes,” he surmises that the reason we don’t find as many women in the top 30 blogs is because women are turned off by viciousness and self-aggrandizement. I’m not sure exactly what it would take for something to qualify as a “deep cause” by Drum’s definition, if not a presumed aversion to something, anything, on the basis of one’s gender. If women are somehow innately indisposed toward those traits, that sounds like a pretty “deep”—or insurmountable—issue to me. (And let’s take note, shall we, that Drum was trying to refrain from such speculation to avoid suffering the fate of Larry Summers, by which I assume he meant being called out as a sexist, as opposed to the fate of actually being a sexist, with which Drum seems rather comfortable.)

Clearly, without properly recognizing it, he has also identified viciousness and self-aggrandizement as male traits, proving, if nothing else, he’s never met me. Such gender-specific associations for aggressive characteristics is still so resoundingly unchallenged that even brilliant Lefty men tend to fall victim to the mentality. I am reminded of the usually always-on-target James Wolcott’s assertion that

[t]orture is also the invention and production of men. Women may take part (though I imagine it rare, and under duress) but only men could devise the intricate and cruel tortures and torture devices that have been inflicted over the centuries. Only they would draw up the blueprints for machines and procedures to exact the maximum amount of pain and humiliation just shy of death.

(For a great rebuttal to this, see Looking at the Stars’ Angels of the torture chamber.)

Woman can be just as horrible as men, as they can be just as brilliant...and just as vicious and self-aggrandizing. Suggesting, as Drum also does, that

the blogosphere, which ought to be an ideal training ground for finding new voices in nontraditional places, is far more vitriolic than any op-ed page in the country, even the Wall Street Journal's, and therefore probably turns off women far more than it attracts them...

is suggestive of an idealization of women that perpetuates inequality. There are many women who are not so delicate as to be intimdated by a good fight. That said, there is still a question to be asked as to why the disparity exists. Ezra notes:

the question isn't whether or not there are hundreds, even thousands, of excellent female political bloggers -- there are! -- it's why there seem to be quite a few fewer female political bloggers than men. It's a proportionality thing. Often, the answer is that we're only looking at the top ranks, which is a pretty closed club (true, though it's not out of some desire by Drum and Josh to keep out the estrogen-producing riff-raff). So last time this happened, I checked that. I clicked all around the TTLB ecosystem and went to 10 blogs in a row here, 10 there, at all levels of popularity. The numbers stayed heavily male. So my sense is that despite the scores of excellent female political bloggers, there are more male bloggers. Meryl Yourish points to a recent Pew Study that found 57% of bloggers are men. That alone is a large difference and, while I haven't seen data on this, I think the difference is larger when the sample is restricted to political blogs. But even if you're unwilling to grant that, we've still got a 14% difference there. The real question, I think, is what accounts for the differential.

I think that’s a pretty fair assessment, and it manages to raise the question in a way that makes no assumptions about the “intrinsic nature of woman” to answer it. A rigorous methodology for discerning the realities of the situation is likely elusive, however, as blogrolling (for example) is completely subjective; it would be impossible to accurately account for exclusions if they were based on gender, when the excuse of poor content is just as likely, and empirically impossible to measure. It is, after all, a matter of opinion.

In any case, the discussions of any predispositions toward political blogging that are allegedly unique to women aren’t useful. You just piss us off, and in the process, usually make yourself look like an ass.

Now go put me on your blogroll, bitch.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Yella-Bellied

How Bush and his merry band of draft-dodging miscreants came to be seen as strong, steady, or courageous continues to escape me. Spiegel Online reports (link via RawStory.com):

During his trip to Germany on Wednesday, the main highlight of George W. Bush's trip was meant to be a "town hall"-style meeting with average Germans. But with the German government unwilling to permit a scripted event with questions approved in advance, the White House has quietly put the event on ice.

[…]

Neither the White House nor the German Foreign Ministry has offered any official explanation, but Foreign Ministry sources say the town hall meeting has been nixed for scheduling reasons -- a typical development for a visit like this with many ideas but very little time. That, at least, is the diplomats' line. Behind the scenes, there appears to be another explanation: the White House got cold feet. Bush's strategists felt an uncontrolled encounter with the German public would be too unpredictable.

Again we must note the difference between strength and power; Bush may have the power to control his environment, to tame it into something weak and deferential, but he lacks strength. It takes a strong man to face his detractors and address their criticisms; what bravery is there in avoidance of the same? Such pusillanimous evasion is indicative of nothing but cowardice and insecurity, neither of which are attributes I am particularly proud to see exhibited by my president.

It’s always easier being part of the firing squad than the poor bastard facing them, but if you’re tough enough to take your nation to war, you ought to be tough enough to stand on either side of the line, cowboy.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

And He's "Not a Crook," Either...

As part and parcel of the administration’s refusal to admit or attribute to its loyalists any culpability for anything that has gone less than splendidly for the past four years and counting, one of their collective habits that drives me the most nuts is the refutation of accountability by obvious statements about what the president is not. It’s one of their most trusted methods to deflect questions about the veracity of whatever shit they’re spouting at the moment, and it’s completely infuriating, in no small part because the media seems to accept as an excuse for spewing nonsense the obvious acknowledgement that the president is not an accountant / a teacher / a retired person / whatever.

So it was with some joy that I found this collection of quotes at Dystropoppygus, which I now share with you:

Originally posted on Thursday, July 15, 2004, the following assertions were collected from public statements made by George W. Bush and his official spokesmen since 1997. (from Harper's Magazine, May 2004)

The President of the United States is not a fact-checker.
I’m not a statistician.
I’m not a numbers-cruncher.
I’m not one of these bean counters.
I’m not very analytical.
I’m not a precision guy.
The President is not a micromanager.
I’m not a member of the legislative branch.
The President is not a rubber stamp for the Congress.
I’m not a censor-guy.
I’m not a lawyer.
I’m not a doctor.
The President is not an economist.
I’m not a stockbroker or a stock-picker.
I’m not a forecaster.
I’m not a predictor.
I’m not a pollster, a poll-reader guy.
I’m not a very good prognosticator of elections.
I’m not a committee chairman.
I’m not of the Washington scene.
I’m not a lonely person.
I’m not a poet.
I’m not a very good novelist.
I’m not a textbook player.
I’m not an emailer.
I’m not a very long-winded person.
I’m not a very formal guy.
I am not a revengeful person.
I’m not an Iraqi citizen.
I’m not a divider.
I am not a unilateralist.
I’m not a tree, I’m a Bush.

Rest assured, however, he still is a total dickhead.


Flyboy.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

"Did You Put Him There?"

There’s an excellent piece in the Chicago Tribune today about Gannongate (link via AMERICAblog). Written by Charlie Madigan, who has been writing about politics since before I was born and is a guy who’s genuinely worth listening to, the column is enlightening about just how preposterous the White House’s facile claims regarding Jeff Gannon are.

What did the White House know and when did it know it on the question of the kinky bald guy with the stinky Web sites who got to pose as a "daily pass" reporter in the White House press corps?

He got to help the White House wiggle out of unpleasant moments by asking questions worthy of a doofus, which drew the attention of the blogosphere, which shifted into "high proctology" mode in a recent hot pursuit of the caper.

Bingo, another media incident explodes.

Well, good for the bloggers.

But there's one problem left, and that is the big question: Did the White House knowingly plant this lap doof in the press corps or, as indicated in many White House comments, was it just something that happened over time despite lots of scrutiny that led them to conclude he was legit, sort of?

[…]

The question is what the White House knew and when?

Based on my own experience with the Bush people, I have some discomfort about what I have heard so far, lots of little comments about things being checked out and how confusing it is to keep the media straight (whoops! my Freudian slip) in these hectic days of websites and blogging.

Why the doubts?

Because I have dealt with these people.

They are the most diligent people on earth when it comes to finding out where genuine reporters are and what they are doing.

Here is my story about that.

During the campaign last year, I made an attempt to get a ticket as a normal person, not as a reporter writing the Gleaner, to a Bush rally in Holland, Mich. I made exactly one call to an old guy at the local Republican committee to cop a ticket.

Before you knew it, local Republicans, regional Republicans and National Republicans were all over me. No! You can't go as a normal person. You must go as a reporter and sit where the reporters sit.

You may not ramble around.

Well, what fun is that?

I made a half-hearted attempt to follow the rules, got my credentials and went to the event outside of Holland. Once I cleared security, I dashed off to freedom to ask a guy in a funny hat what he was up to.

It took less than two minutes for a woman in a nice blue suit to rush up to me with some "security" in tow and announce I couldn't do that, that I had to sit in the press section and stay there.

Since the "press" wasn't even going to arrive for another two hours, I thought that would be kind of limiting, so I respectfully said, "No @#$%#$ way in hell."

They held a meeting and affixed a tour guide to my side, a nice young woman who turned out to be a good interview because of the details of her life and why they made her think like a Republican.

Soon, she was withdrawn, probably for being too communicative, and was replaced by a fat guy who spent the entire event following me around and asking me if I was "getting what I needed."

That, I thought, was a very personal question.

Think about it this way. The Bush people were so efficient and focused they could reach all the way out to Holland, Mich. and try to put a choke collar on an innocent Rambling Gleaner.

Given that, can there be any doubt about what they knew about the ringer sitting in the middle of the press room for the briefings just about every day?

I don't think so.

Time to come clean.

Did you put him there?

Madigan’s point about this particular administration’s diligence in making damn well sure they know who’s writing about them and what they’re saying is, of course, what we all understood to be true in our guts; nothing about the Machiavellian strategizing of the Rove-led Bush machine suggests that it could be otherwise. Still, there’s something quite satisfying about hearing it from someone who’s in the position to know, not just through rumor or instinct, but from personal experience.

And it begs the question…who is going to demand that the White House answer for this inconsistency? Who’s going to have the balls to challenge their paltry (and transparent) excuses?

If no one makes them answer the tough questions, then we might as well rename the entire media “Jeff Gannon.”

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Bush Channels Paula Cole

PsoTD on the (lost) art of diplomacy:

Can President Bush make the slightest effort to internationalize his language in diplomacy? Can he try to display some sort of local awareness? Does he know that the simple turn of a phrase can turn people of another land towards you rather than away from you?

John F. Kennedy: Ich bin ein Berliner.

George W. Bush: I'm looking for a good cowboy. (Yesterday, in Belgium)

There's an easy difference to notice: Kennedy tried to lead by defining himself. Bush tries to lead by defining others. That pretty much explains our diplomatic messes at this point.

True, Kennedy ended up declaring himself a doughnut (Ich bin Berliner being the correct translation for which he was grasping), but it really was the thought that counted.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

I Keep Telling You Dick Durbin Rules...

Raw Story is reporting that Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL) is circulating the following letter, appealing to other Senators to join him in demanding an investigation into Jeff Gannon:

Dear Mr. President,

At a press conference in the White House on January 26, you stated that “there needs to be a nice, independent relationship between the White House and the press.” In that same press conference, you called on a reporter then known as Jeff Gannon, who worked for an organization called Talon News.

Since that time, the public has learned that the real name of that reporter is James Dale Guckert, not Jeff Gannon, and that he had regular access to the White House press facilities for more than a year. We have also learned that the questions he posed at White House press briefings and the stories he filed for Talon News frequently mirrored Republican Party talking points, that Talon News is a news organization in name only and that it has apparently close connections to the Republican party.

Given the unprecedented level of security in Washington since 9/11, it is troubling that that a non-journalist using a false name and working for a sham news organization could have gained regular access to the White House for such an extended period of time.

Another reason the Gannon/Guckert affair is disturbing is because of what we have recently learned about apparent efforts by some in your Administration to try to “buy” favorable news coverage. These other efforts include paying news personalities Armstrong Williams and Maggie Gallagher large sums of money to promote your Administration’s education and marriage initiatives, and using tax payer dollars to produce video news releases promoting the new prescription drug benefit for Medicare beneficiaries and other policies the Administration regards as accomplishments. A recent report by the General Accountability Office called such video news releases illegal uses of public funds. More recently, we have heard troubling reports that Social Security Administration officials may be using public funds and pressuring public employees to promote your goal of privatizing Social
Security.

As you know, concerns that government officials may be trying to deceive the public by manipulating the media can be extremely corrosive to public trust. For that reason, we respectfully request that you order an immediate and thorough investigation into the Gannon/Guckert matter. How is it possible that a man using a fake name, with dubious journalism credentials, was able to clear the White House’s extensive security screening process and gain such close access to you and your staff for such an extended period of time? Have there been other, similar breaches of security and journalism standards?

We appreciate your prompt attention to this important matter. We urge you to order a full inquiry so that the American people know the facts.

I rule.

This is excellent news. The pressure is on. Now contact your senators and make sure they keep it on!

Here are my letters:

Dear Senator Bayh:

First of all I would like to thank you for all the great work you have done on behalf of Hoosiers. As a liberal constituent, you have made me proud, especially lately.

I respectfully request that you support Senator Dick Durbin's request for an investigation into Jeff Gannon, namely how he was able to continually obtain a daily pass for over two years without submitting to the rigorous background checks normally required of those in his position.

I have become increasingly alarmed at this administration's willingness to use the media as their personal propaganda tool, and I truly hope you will tenaciously pursue the truth behind this issue. Either we have had an egregious security breach,
or this was another example of the administration's willingness to subvert the role of the media.

Thank you for the opportunity to share my thoughts. I am glad to call you my Senator, sir.

Sincerely,
Me

Dear Senator Lugar:

I am a Democratic constituent from the state of Indiana, and although you and I disagree on some policy issues, I have always found you to be a good man and believed you have the best interests of Indiana and the United States at heart.

With this in mind, I respectfully request that you support any request for an investigation into Jeff Gannon, namely how he was able to continually obtain a daily pass for over two years without submitting to the rigorous background checks normally required of those in his position. I do not believe that this is a partisan issue, but instead an issue that should concern us all. Whether there has been an egregious security breach, or whether someone in the administration has acted unethically, we need to get to the bottom of what went wrong.

Thank you for the opportunity to share my thoughts, sir.

Sincerely,
Me

(Writing about this topic sure is tricky when I am forced to sound respectful and avoid profanity.)

Feel free to steal them wholesale if you’re feeling lazy.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Is He Still Talking?

So the Pope says that homosexual marriages are part of "a new ideology of evil.”

Somebody’s jealous!

"It is legitimate and necessary to ask oneself if this is not perhaps part of a new ideology of evil, perhaps more insidious and hidden, which attempts to pit human rights against the family and against man," he writes.

As opposed to the insidious and open attempts by the church to pit human rights against humankind. You know, like denying women the same right as men to do things, like, um, be pope, for example, or denying men who become priests the right to have a family because the church wanted to be the sole beneficiaries of any inheritance men of the cloth might leave behind when they went on to meet their maker. Or is it instead as opposed to the insidious and hidden ring of pedophiles the Catholic church has been protecting at the expense of altar boys for generations?

The heathens among us might suggest that it is legitimate and necessary to ask ourselves if those are not perhaps part of an old ideology of evil that has twisted the words of a man who intended good for humankind, so as to enslave the masses to the voracious whims and insatiable appetites of a religious elite that indoctrinates its patrons through intimidation and mandatory self-denial.

Bite me, old man.

And when you’re done chomping on my juicy bum, you can get in your popemobile and drive into the twenty-first century, where people who give a shit about other people refuse to be beholden to your culture of fabricated good and evil, delineated by distinctions that are predicated not on whether what one does has an ill effect on others, but whether it undermines the fearmongering upon which you depend to keep your ignorant adherents putting their tithes in your precious baskets every week.

See ya when you get here, you pompous old bigot.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

To Forgive, Divine

Mahablog has a great post today that questions Dems’ insistence on relegating our losing presidential candidates to obscurity, which—as those of you who have been around awhile (especially since just after the election) already know—is one of my particular bailiwicks and a favorite topic to engage, in no small part because it’s important that we stop doing it.

The aforementioned post says, in part:

I'm not sure when it became expected for the loser of a presidential contest to fade into the woodwork. Nixon, after all, lost to Kennedy in 1960 but won against Humphrey in 1968. Adlai Stevenson remained a leader of the Democrats after he lost to Eisenhower in 1952, and people still respected him after he lost to Eisenhower again in 1958. More recently, John McCain refused to evaporate after loosing the 2000 nomination to Bush. And there's nothing at all wrong with that.

Seems to me that a person good enough to be a serious contender for the White House must have a lot to contribute to public life even if he loses. We shouldn't just wad him up and toss him into the trash, especially after an election as close as last year's was.

As I’ve addressed before, I will never understand why we abandoned Al Gore like so much rubbish after he committed the horrendous error of winning the popular vote. It drives me fucking nuts.

We often talk about our need to mount an effective opposition, but we immediately turn our noses up at the person who’s in the best place to do it as soon as he fails to deliver the White House back into our desperate little hands. I know there are a great number of people, including people I respect and admire very much, who basically chalk Kerry up as a guy who had his chance and blew it, and I have to disagree. I won’t argue that he was the perfect candidate, but I also can’t abide by the notion that winning is all we want (or should expect) from our presidential candidates. If we believed in him enough to vote for him to lead the country for the next four years, then he ought to be good enough to throw our support behind as an opposition leader for the next four years.

We could really learn from Britain on this one. If our guy loses, we don't need to effectively excommunicate him; we need to stand behind him in what is essentially a shadow administration. Imagine what a different tenor there would have been during the first 4 years if, instead of the dull hum that emanated from the gaping void in leadership, we raised a collective voice as we stood firmly behind Al Gore, who, every time Bush made an egregious error, gave a press conference saying why it was wrong and what he would have done differently, with every Dem available showing up in the media with the same talking points.

We can't just pop our (figure)head up every four years; consistency is what we lack. Part of effective branding is brand awareness, a large part of which is simply keeping in front of people's eyes.

And consistently exiling our "losers"—the people who are most unlikely to make the same mistakes—is just bad investing. You want a candidate who will never make the same mistakes Kerry did? I guarantee ya…Kerry wouldn’t.

My point is not to give Kerry some kind of endorsement; even though I supported him with every ounce of my being during his campaign, and felt no urge to cannibalize him after he lost—he didn’t disappoint me nearly as much as the American electorate did—I am more interested in the larger goal of becoming a cohesive party with a comprehensive opposition rooted in our party identity. Constantly cruising for a liberal messiah like a shark for its next meal has left us as dead in the eyes as the beast in question.

We let ourselves down when we care more for the quick win than our long-term objectives. And more importantly, we lose our voice. Not something we should let go of so lightly when the roar from the other side is deafening.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Are You Reassured?

I know I am:

President Bush said Tuesday that it is "simply ridiculous" to assume that the United States has plans to attack Iran over its alleged nuclear weapons program.

"This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous. Having said that, all options are on the table," Bush said after discussing the issue with European allies.

Actually, that’s not reassurance I’m feeling as much as…whiplash.

But hey, if he says we’re not going to attack Iran, then I believe him. It’s not as if he’s ever lied to us.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Gettin’ Hip on the Judiciary, Part II

Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III

Wilkinson sits, with Luttig, on the most conservative of the 12 federal appellate courts, and although he is described as a moderate conservative in most areas, and is, in all honesty, the least objectionable in the bunch, he still holds some views that I find in conflict with some very basic progressive objectives.

Two positions in particular caught my attention. First is Wilkinson’s views on abortion, which lean beyond what I would consider moderately conservative, as evidenced by his vote to uphold a state law granting parental notification when teenage daughters sought abortions. While in a perfect world, that law might make sense, we do not live in a perfect world, but instead one where fathers have been known to rape their daughters, and mothers known to kill their daughters for being pregnant. Anyone who supports compelled parental notification laws shows a fundamental disregard for the sometimes ugly realities of the world in which we live, and thereby disqualifies him- or herself from a place on the nation’s highest court.

Wilkinson also believes

that “affirmative action in a time of great growth of minority populations is creating ethnic separation rather than bringing America's peoples together as citizens.”

On its face, such an assertion is not necessarily objectionable; I have heard passionate arguments from liberals who stand to benefit from affirmative action that, in its current form, its divisiveness is more pronounced than its successes. However, delving deeper into Wilkinson’s thoughts on the matter unearths this little gem:

"We are discarding the melting pot for a cultural mosaic which aims not to promote the common bond of American citizenship but to accentuate the distinctiveness of racial and ethnic experience," Wilkinson said in a 1999 Richmond speech on the subject [of affirmative action].

Gets a bit dodgy there, doesn’t it? Cultural mosaic isn’t exactly a term that has negative connotations for a progressive, but clearly Wilkinson doesn’t share the sentiment. Instead he sees celebrating a rainbow of cultural and ethnic diversity as analogous to undermining the “common bond of American citizenship.” Of course, I share a common bond of citizenship with Pam (not to mention a similarly wicked sense of humor), which doesn’t seem beholden to or subverted by or in any way relevant to our differing backgrounds and experiences. So what does Wilkinson really mean? It seems that the “common bond of American citizenship” is little more than creative shorthand for “the dominant culture,” which is in turn shorthand for “white, straight, men,” whose culture is being victimized (or, more accurately, its dominance being diluted) by acknowledging diversity at the expense of their cultural primacy. In men like Wilkinson’s version of the melting pot, everyone melts and melts and melts until our uniqueness melts away and we’re all just like them.

Finally, Wilkinson shows up as the author of a decision giving the government broad authority to hold U.S. citizens as enemy combatants without constitutional protections, a ruling later overturned by the Supreme Court. Superb.


Judge J. Michael Luttig

Wilkinson’s compatriot at the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, has served as a law clerk for Antonin Scalia and worked on behalf of the first Bush administration to help secure Clarence Thomas’ appointment to the Supreme Court, which probably tells you all you need to know about him, but I’ll give you a little more grist for the mill. Via LifeNews.com (emphasis mine):

Luttig is widely considered one of Bush's top judicial prospects, especially given his young age, 50, and his ability to shape the direction of the court for years to come. He is considered the most conservative judge on one of the most conservative appeals courts in the nation.

Bear in mind, that’s a source that likes him. At TomPaine.com, Luttig is described as the “most aggressively conservative member” of “the nation’s most aggressively conservative federal court of appeals.”

His record on abortion rights is appalling, and I could give you a slew of other cases demonstrative of his being a conservative ideologue (including his penchant for reversing subordinate colleagues on abortion cases at the behest of state authorities). However, this seems to sum it up perfectly and succinctly:

Asserting that Congress overreached its constitutional power, Luttig wrote the recent opinion striking down the federal Violence Against Women Act.

Thanks.

And although this has absolutely nothing to do with his abilities or suitability, and I freely admit I include it for no other reason than it irks me, Luttig is described as

ideologically self-conscious but not an egghead. This is an important consideration: George W. Bush reputedly disdains bookish intellectuals. Luttig is sufficiently smart to be a justice but sufficiently regular to be a good ol' boy. One can easily imagine the genial, politically well-connected Luttig getting along just great in an hour-long interview with President W.

Blech.


Judge Samuel A. Alito

Okay, I’m mucho busy at work today, and I’m also running out of steam, so I’ll make Alito quick.

One line, in fact:

Alito so closely emulates Scalia that he has earned the nickname "Scalito."

If that doesn’t make your blood run cold, then nothing will.


In all seriousness, this is a really overlooked issue on the Left. I know it’s dry and not very sexy, but look—part of the reason we’re in the mess we’re in is because conservatives have been paying attention to the judiciary for decades now. They have law schools specifically designed to churn out conservative lawyers who are mentored into the judiciary. Meanwhile, we pay no attention, and wonder how the hell all this crazy shit is happening all over the country.

You know I never ask this, but please link to these posts if you’ve got a blog of your own, and encourage others to do the same. We’ve got to start paying attention to this issue. Waiting for a slew of ideologues to be paraded in front of Congress and hoping the Dems will have balls to filibuster isn’t enough. We’ve got to know what’s going on locally, on the state level, in the regional courts…long before these guys get to be possible SCOTUS nominees. We’ve got to inform ourselves, and we’ve got to care.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Gettin’ Hip on the Judiciary, Part I

The NY Times reports today that ailing Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist will likely be replaced by June, if not before. The most probable chain of events will be the elevation of an existing SCOTUS Justice to Chief Justice (Scalia? – ugh), with nominees put forward to then fill that vacancy.

Included on the list [of potential nominees] are Judges Michael W. McConnell of the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, John G. Roberts of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and J. Harvie Wilkinson III and J. Michael Luttig, both of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Another possible candidate is Judge Samuel A. Alito of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, who sits in Newark.

By no means is this a complete list, but it’s as good a place as any to start educating ourselves about the possible additions to the Supreme Court. As a side note, I found a lot more information in favor of these judges on conservative sites than opposing them on liberal sites, making this post that much more important. Lefty blogs are all but MIA when it comes to vetting judicial nominees, particularly on the lower courts. If we don’t like the direction this country is headed, we ought to be taking as keen an interest in the judiciary as the Right does—and has been for some time now.


Judge Michael W. McConnell

McConnell is a particular dangerous chap to our side of the aisle, both because he is extremely ideologically conservative, and because he has considerable support. If you’ve ever cared about any progressive cause, care as much about making sure this guy doesn’t get on the bench. So extreme is he in his opposition to the advancement of civil rights, that he actually supports backwards movement, having supported attempts to limit congressional authority to protect civil rights and argued for weakening both statutory and constitutional protections against race-, gender-, and sexual orientation-based discrimination.

His disregard, and in fact contempt, for key civil rights principles is readily apparent upon examination of his judicial résumé:

In response to the Supreme Court’s 8-1 decision against Bob Jones University, which found, in response to the university’s racially discriminatory policies, that the IRS was allowed to deny tax-exempt status, McConnell wrote a pointed criticism, saying that the Court failed to allow the university’s religious claims to trump civil rights protections. (Yes, you read that right—he believes religious beliefs should trump civil rights.) Specifically, he claimed that the “racial doctrines” of should have been “tolerated” because they were “church teachings,” and cited the decision as an “egregious example” of the Court’s failure to “intervene to protect religious freedom from the heavy hand of government.” McConnell has also extended this notion to include religious schools that accept government-funded vouchers, which, in his estimation, should be allowed to racially discriminate during their admissions processes, provided the discrimination is rooted in religious beliefs.

His reaction to the specific aforementioned case is only one among a number of frighteningly small-minded critiques of various decisions favoring the rights of women and minorities. (For further examples, see also Griggs v. Duke Power Co. and Roberts v. United States Jaycees.) On abortion rights, he is, as you would expect, no better. He has repeatedly expressed his disdain for the Court’s decision on Roe v. Wade, which he has called “an embarrassment,” of “questionable legitimacy,” and a “grave legal error.” Additionally, he opposes the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act, on the basis that, in his interpretation, it is unconstitutional. Via CivilRights.org:

In a recent article, he expressed admiration for a district court judge who refused to apply FACE because the defendants did not act with “bad purpose,” an element not found in the statute. McConnell’s statements of admiration for the “judicial nullification” of a federal statute that he does not agree with speaks volumes about his inability to fairly and impartially apply a range of civil rights statutes that may conflict with his views.

These are just a few brief examples of why progressives must aggressively oppose a nomination of Judge McConnell to the Supreme Court. The examples from which to draw, however, were seemingly endless.


Judge John C. Roberts

Roberts has quite a significant history in trying to undermine abortion rights, including, under the first Bush administration, co-authoring a Supreme Court brief as Deputy Solicitor General for Rust v. Sullivan which argued for the government’s ability to prohibit doctors in federally-funded family planning programs from discussing abortions with their patients.

Among Roberts’ other writings can be found articles in support of a more expansive reading of the Contracts and Taking clauses of the Constitution, holding positions that would restrict Congress’ means for environmental protection.

In addition to his judicial résumé, Roberts also has interesting political qualifications. He has been a political appointee under both Regan and the first Bush administration and is a member of the Republican National Lawyers Association.

End of Part One. I’ll be back later with Wilkinson, Luttig, and Alito.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!