March 18th, 2007
Good catch over at LiberalOasis.com:
Fox News Sunday’s Chris Wallace said today:
“We asked Attorney General Gonzales to come on today, but the White House declined our invitation.”
To repeat, Gonzales did not accept or reject his own invitation. The White House did.
If he was truly independent of the White House and its political agenda, he would control his own schedule and media appearances.
That pretty much answers the question if our attorney general is functioning as the people’s lawyer, or the president’s lawyer.
March 17th, 2007
Unlike the James Dobson religious-right variety, the thousands of New Testament witnesses that gathered in front of the White House are the type of disciples of Christ that I can support:
WASHINGTON (AP) — Thousands of Christians prayed for peace at an anti-war service Friday night at the Washington National Cathedral, kicking off a weekend of protests around the country to mark the fourth anniversary of the war in Iraq.
Afterward, participants marched with battery-operated faux candles through snow and wind toward the White House, where police began arresting protesters shortly before midnight. Protest guidelines require demonstrators to continue moving while on the White House sidewalk.
[...]
About 100 people crossed the street from Lafayette Park — where thousands of protesters were gathered — to demonstrate on the White House sidewalk late Friday. Police began cuffing them and putting them on buses to be taken for processing.
… 222 people had been arrested by Saturday morning.
[...]
“A lot of the rhetoric that we hear coming from Christians has been dominated by the religious right and has been strong advocacy for the war,” Pattison said. “That’s just not the way I read my Gospel.”
[...]
“Mr. Bush, my Christian brother, we do need a surge in troops. We need a surge in the nonviolent army of the Lord,” he said. “We need a surge in conscience and a surge in activism and a surge in truth-telling.”
March 16th, 2007
Chris Bowers, of MyDD.com, has put together a nice list describing the characteristics of the Democratic Party establishment aristocrats that sold us out to conservative republicans over the past 20+ years. The characteristics of the Democratic Party establishment aristocrats are:
- Views primaries against incumbents as “purges,” especially when they come from the left. All Democratic Party officeholders should receive their party’s nomination by right of possession.
- Thinks the war in Iraq was managed badly, but ultimately wasn’t a bad idea.
- After reading one too many Mark Penn polls, makes up imaginary friends like the Baileys as the gold standard for the average American voter.
- Constantly argues that we should end the circular firing squad and focus our efforts at Republicans, while simultaneously triangulating against left-wing strawmen at the same time.
- Believes in concepts like the “radical middle,” or that American is fundamentally a moderate country, even though most people who consider themselves moderates are actually just low information voters and non-ideological.
- Considers Fox News to be a conservative, but still legitimate, news outlet. Will gladly go on Fox News to reach out to new voters.
- Believes cutting the defense budget is political suicide, and should not even be discussed lest Democrats look weak.
- Finds GLBT issues to unbelievably radioactive, and tries to steer the most cautious course possible in this area.
- In terms of cults of personality, hates Howard Dean and joined the efforts to derail his presidential campaign / try and push him out of the DNC; loves Joe Lieberman and decried the efforts to try and knock him off; is interested in Michael Bloomberg’s potential presidential run and subscribes to his newsletter.
- Thinks that the blogosphere, You Tube, MoveOn and other netroots developments are fundamentally negative for the Democratic Party. Such institutions are filled with a new generation of dirty fucking hippies who will lead the Democratic Party over the cliff of unelectablility due to our ignorance, foul mouths and unwavering adherence to a far-left ideology.
- Thinks that dissenting from the great, all-powerful left makes you a rebellious, cool “outsider.”
- Considers the conservative rise in elected power from 1978-2006 to be a natural result of the country turning to the right and which can be countered by turning to the right ourselves. Does not believe that the massive conservative political machinery constructed over the past few decades played a major role, or that progressive political machinery must be constructed to counter it.
- Thinks that all options must remain on the table against Iran, including the use of nuclear weapons, because threatening a pre-emptive nuclear strike against a relatively powerless country you are not at war with makes you look tough on national security issues rather than absolutely insane.
- Argued for censuring Bill Clinton as a political necessity despite his 60%+ approval rating, and against censuring George Bush, Jr. as a political necessity, despite his 35% approval rating.
- Considers those who oppose completely unregulated trade to simply be rubes, even if they are also part of the “radical middle” that must be courted at all costs.
- Speaking to the Democratic rank and file, rather than to swing voters, is fundamentally a waste of resources.
- Running a fifty state strategy and spending money on field or internet instead of only and ever focusing on TV ads in swing districts is a waste of resources.
- Even though he lost an open seat in an overwhelmingly Democratic year, believes that Harold Ford Jr. is the model for the future of the Democratic Party.
- Won’t read this post, or catch The Simpson’s reference in the Michael Bloomberg joke above.
March 15th, 2007
When will the long national nightmare that republicans and the Bush administration have wrought be over? It is now clear that Karl Rove, Bush’s closest political advisor, is right in the middle of the latest Bush White House scandal:
"New emails show conclusively that Karl Rove was in the middle of this mess from the beginning. It is now imperative that he testify before Congress and give all the details of his involvement both in the proposal to fire the 93 U.S. Attorneys in the beginning of George Bush’s second term, and his involvement in the firing of the individual eight U.S. Attorneys who were fired throughout 2006. If the White House prevents Karl Rove from testifying, it will be thumbing its nose at the American people and at the rule of law. The reason it’s so imperative that people testify under oath is that every time new information comes out, it proves that the White House was not telling the truth in their previous statements. Statements from those involved have proved to be false, false, false, time after time after time."
-U.S. Senator Charles E. Schumer
You can see one of the emails incriminating Rove here.
March 15th, 2007
Not surprisingly media watchdog groups find that the elite news media continues to favor the conservative view point, often allowing conservative voices to dominate the public airwaves:
OUR KEY FINDINGS:
- Despite previous network claims that a conservative advantage existed on the Sunday shows simply because Republicans controlled Congress and the White House, only one show, ABC’s This Week, has been roughly balanced between both sides overall since the congressional majority switched hands in the 2006 midterm elections.
- Since the 2006 midterm elections, NBC’s Meet the Press and CBS’ Face the Nation have provided less balance between Republican and Democratic officials than Fox Broadcasting Co.’s Fox News Sunday despite the fact that Fox News Sunday remains the most unbalanced broadcast overall both before and after the election.
- During the 109th Congress (2005 and 2006), Republicans and conservatives held the advantage on every show, in every category measured. All four shows interviewed more Republicans and conservatives than Democrats and progressives overall, interviewed more Republican elected and administration officials than Democratic officials, hosted more conservative journalists than progressive journalists, held more panels that tilted right than tilted left, and gave more solo interviews to Republicans and conservatives.
Now that Congress has switched hands, one would reasonably expect Democrats and progressives to be represented at least as often as Republicans and conservatives on the Sunday shows. Yet our findings for the months since the midterm elections show that the networks have barely changed their practices.
