« May 25, 2008 - May 31, 2008 | Main | June 8, 2008 - June 14, 2008 »
Because as relieved as I am, that it's over, I'm sad, that it's over.
Thank you, Senator Clinton, for standing up for Democratic values and Democratic principles, for advocating universal health care and workers' rights, for reminding us every day that we have come so far, and for reminding us how far we still have to go. Thank you for getting back up.
A.
Jacob, in his recap of Malestrom, which I read at least once a week:
"You're not Leoben.""I never said I was."
"I'm here to prepare you to pass through the next door. To discover what hovers in the space between life and death." At the end of the line, where enjambment sings: zero's the number of the Fool, the shape of the storm. It's the beginning and the end, depending on where you start counting. It goes around and around. This Leoben's just another messenger. Like any other Leoben, like anybody else at all. God has to wear masks because you're not prepared for a faceful of infinity, but that's not the secret. The secret is: how many masks.
Spoilers after the JUMP.
Continue reading "So All Souls Can See It: Galactica Thread" »
A friend who is moving to Chicago asked me to which newspaper should she subscribe. I had a hard time answering the question. This is why.
Is there any other industry where the universal answer to losing customers is to make the product worse?
A.
Shorter Dana: No
Q Is there any approach that the administration can take to deal with Zimbabwe, what's going on in Zimbabwe, other than condemnation?
MS. PERINO: I would -- make sure that you have a chance to look at the briefing today by Ambassador James McGee, who is our Ambassador to Zimbabwe. He did an on-the-record briefing earlier today and said that they're going to look at the full suite of diplomatic tools that they have available to them. But there's no doubt that the situation in Zimbabwe is worsening, and it was already a terrible situation.
Dana Channels Holy Joe
Q Dana, the climate change bill and the action in the Senate. What do you say to those who say that by threatening to veto this cap and trade system and with a Republican filibuster, that basically, let's just kick the can down the road for another year and postpone action on this issue?
MS. PERINO: Well, I think it would be, one, important for people to look at the fact of what really happened on this bill. This was a -- they tried to have a vote on the Boxer substitute, which is Senator Boxer's bill, that had not been fully analyzed, had not been given any economic analysis, had not been given any environmental impact analysis, and the Republicans had a beef with how the Democrat Majority Leader was treating them when it came to an agreement that they felt they had on judges. So there are parliamentary maneuvers that can be taken on both sides.
[snip]
Q What about the -- the backers of the bill said that they think they really have the strength to pass it. And they're citing this letter that both Senator Obama and Senator McCain signed, saying they would have voted for it had they been there.
MS. PERINO: I don't know if that's a clever way to try to get me to talk about '08 politics, but let's just say we did not support the bill.
How About "Crapped His Pants"? Will "Crapped His Pants" Work For You?
Q Dana, can you describe for us the President's reaction to the latest economic numbers? And does he believe that the stimulus package will be a difference-maker in terms of making this downturn short-lived?
MS. PERINO: Well, you'll hear from the President pretty soon, because at the swearing in for Steve Preston over at the Department of Housing and Urban Development I believe the President will address the housing number today.
We're obviously not happy with the unemployment number that had gone up.
Dana Don't Know!
Q We've just gotten news that the United States intends to walk away from the United Nations Human Rights Council. Are you aware of those reports? Can you confirm them?
MS. PERINO: I wasn't aware of it, but I'll refer you to the State Department for more. I think they're briefing now.
Today, at the White House, regarding relief efforts in China.
Holy Crap!™
There's no question this is a major human disaster that requires a strong response from the Chinese government, which is what they're providing, but it also responds a compassionate response from nations to whom -- that have got the blessings, good blessings of life, and that's us.
There is so much in the Salon article on Rove playing politics during the Katrina disaster it's hard to highlight it all (see post below). But another point which caught my attention (as well as Oyster's) was this one...
"Well, I have no intention of turning over my National Guard to you," Blanco said. "Anyway, the evacuation of the Superdome is now well underway and after that we will begin finishing the evacuation of the Convention Center." This was true. While the administration had bickered over politics, Blanco had expanded the size of her National Guard by accepting deployments of guardsmen from all of the other 49 states.
By federalizing her guardsmen, Blanco would have been admitting that it was the state that was unable to handle the disaster, not the federal government. The Bush administration could have argued that they had had to save the day for Blanco because she was not up to the task. However, if Blanco did not take the bait, the scheme was dead. Blanco wondered about Bush's confusion. Was he really confused or just trying to get her to sign the waiver?
It didn't matter. Not only did Blanco refuse to sign, she gave Bush a two-page letter detailing everything the state needed to cope with the disaster -- troops, buses, supplies, money, and more. It would not be until several days later, when Blanco's aides released the letter to the press and got frantic phone calls from Rove's aide Maggie Grant, that it became clear that Bush had taken the letter Blanco had personally handed to him -- and lost it. (my emphasis)
Sweet Jeebus
Chimpy elbowed his way on to American Idol.
OK! Magazine talked to "American Idol" mastermind Nigel Lythgoe. Buried in a piece about how this season's winner David Cook needs more personality was a nugget about President Bush. Idol didn't want him.
Nigel, 58, also spilled that during the planning for the second annual Idol Gives Back fundraising special, which aired in April, America's biggest TV show had a spat with no less a power than the White House!
He said that the show's producers were so disappointed with President Bush's efforts to combat the very poverty that the show was trying to relieve that they were embarrassed to have him on their TV show.
But Nigel said that Idol relented under pressure from the Pres's people, and allowed him to speak during the star-studded broadcast.
"The President is always saying 'I want to be on [Gives Back]," said the Brit.
"We didn't ask the President this year to say anything because we are all a bit embarrassed about him, and the office insisted that, because the [primary] candidates were on it, the President would like to come on and say 'thank you.'"
It was a very hot, humid day yesterday, and the animals were pretty miserable. I'm resisting turning on the air during June, trying to see if we can hold out until the 4th of July, so instead I filled up the tub a bit and let them cool off the old-fashioned way.
A.
49k Jobs Lost, Unemployment Shoots Up Half A Point
The American job market weakened again last month as employers shed 49,000 jobs, the government said on Friday, further darkening the outlook for workers as they try to cope with the housing slump and high oil prices that cut into their spending power.
The unemployment rate surged to 5.5 percent from 5 percent in April, far higher than economists had expected.
Payrolls have shrank every month this year, the worst losing streak since 2003, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Manufacturers, construction companies, and goods-producing businesses were the hardest hit, as the collapse of the housing market left several industries reeling and facing an imperative to cut costs.
The government also revised down its estimate for April to a loss of 28,000 jobs. It had originally reported that 20,000 jobs were lost that month.
(Photo: Reuters, New Orleans August 2007)
That is the title of a must read at Salon of excerpts from the book "Machiavelli's Shadow: The Rise and Fall of Karl Rove," by Paul Alexander. It focuses on the role Karl Rove played in the Katrina disaster. There is much there on the execution of Karl's plan to blame Blanco including Nagin's role in executing it. And then there is this at the end of the article...
Of all of the stories and subplots, there would be one that, in many ways, symbolized the whole of Katrina, what it revealed about the Bush administration, and how it would affect the lives of so many people. On Friday, Mary Landrieu had been with Bush and Blanco as they toured the 17th Street Canal, where, at last, major work had commenced to repair the damage that had been caused when the levee broke. "Then, on Saturday," Landrieu says, "George Stephanopoulos called and asked to do an interview with me, and I said, 'George, I'm tired of doing interviews. I have to work. And nothing you are airing is accurately showing what's going on down here.' He wanted to go to the Superdome, and I said, 'We still have people stranded on their roofs. If you want to tell the right story, I will help you tell the right story. You get a helicopter and I'll go up and I will show you what is actually happening. It's awful what's happening at the Superdome, but the reason the people can't understand the story is because the entire region is under 20 feet of water. People can't get into the Superdome to help. They can't get out. People are drowning in their homes.'
"So George and I went up in the helicopter and for three hours his jaw was dropping. Then I said, 'George, before we finish I have to show you one positive thing because I can't send you back to Washington to produce a story that shows nothing but devastation and disaster.' So I told the pilot to tack right so I can show George the 17th Street Canal and the work that was going on there. I swear as my name is Mary Landrieu I thought that what I saw with the president was still there -- people working, trucks, sandbags, everything. Then I looked down and saw one little crane. It was like someone took a knife and stabbed me through my heart. I lost it." There, in the cabin of the helicopter, as they flew above the breached canal below them, Landrieu sat devastated.
"I could not believe that the president of the United States, staged by Karl Rove himself, had come down to the city of New Orleans and basically put up a stage prop. It was like you had gone to a studio in California and filmed a movie. They put the props up and the minute we were gone they took them down. All the dump trucks were gone. All the Coast Guard people were gone. It was an empty spot with one little crane. It was the saddest thing I have ever seen in my life. At that moment I knew what was going on and I've been a changed woman ever since. It truly changed my life."
Bastards.
(h/t Adrastos)
UPDATE: In comments, it is raised why wasn't this reported. It was, but not in the detail like above. Below is the video of Landrieu's Helicopter Tour with Stephanopoulos. The one little crane moment begins at about the 2:10 mark. Landrieu refers to Bush's photo op upon seeing the one crane and she does indeed lose it saying "It's so sad George" and sat back crying, saying "one little crane." But if you recall the big story that came out of that tour was Landrieu's statement she "might likely have to punch" George Bush. (that at around the 1:50 mark). The press jumped on that....that's our press folks. Rove must have loved them for it.....who knows, given what's in the the above article, maybe he even worked them towards that.....
In the crack van the other night, watching McCain make his stupendously terrible speech, we were talking about Bob Dole's '96 White House run and how it just seemed like Dole was there to be there, someone who wouldn't embarrass the party too horribly, who had a nice story that wouldn't fuck up the overarching GOP narrative. And I said what I always say when Mr. A brings up Dole. Dole at least had Mark Helprin writing for him.
I do not need the presidency to make or refresh my soul. That false hope I will gladly leave to others. For greatness lies not in what office you hold, but on how honest you are in how you face adversity and in your willingness to stand fast in hard places.Age has its advantages.
Let me be the bridge to an America that only the unknowing call myth. Let me be the bridge to a time of tranquility, faith and confidence in action.
And to those who say it was never so, that America's not been better, I say you're wrong. And I know because I was there. And I have seen it. And I remember.
And our nation, though wounded and scathed, has outlasted revolutions, civil war, world war, racial oppression and economic catastrophe. We have fought and prevailed on almost every continent. And in almost every sea.
We have even lost. But we have lasted, and we have always come through.
And after watching McCain stumble and grump around on a platform in front of about 20 people pissed off they were missing Matlock, I thought, boy, could McCain ever use the help of a real writer like that:
If John McCain wins the Republican nomination, he will have done so not by persuading the Republican Party but by overcoming it with the help of outsiders and by feverishly endorsing the accusations of its enemies. If he loses, he will have provided the Democrats with what they will hail as proof that the GOP is an exclusionary, intolerant, narrow-minded, ruthless machine that would eat its own children rather than reform. These are betrayals, plain and simple, and betrayals by any definition are acts that are hard to square with honor.And yet he has asked to be judged by his honor, and his countrymen have responded not merely with respect but with love, love for an American pilot whose plane went down and who suffered long in captivity on our behalf and in our stead, who was defiant and principled even in the face of death, and who, far beyond that, refused his freedom on a single point of honor that no one living would have accused him of dishonoring had he not. What he did is, as it should be, part of American history. There are few better or more moving stories, anywhere, of courage, defiance, and discipline. He has won the hearts of the American people. How could he not have?
But God does not make perfect beings, and although — and perhaps because — Sen. McCain was once the font of enough honor and self-discipline for 100 ordinary men, he has faltered.
It is not honorable to trade upon one's honor, to offer it as a token, to mention it in every other breath. This is self-evident.
It is not honorable for him to treat his rivals and opponents as if they were his captors. Are they? Were they? Is the world divided so, into bands of angels following John McCain on his zigzag course as he decides what position to take on the spur of any moment, and demons mounting in their number as he condemns and disdains one group after another? The GOP, he says, "is intent on breaking me." This is true only because he is intent on breaking it, making the nomination struggle a bizarre combat between the would-be nominee and the party he seeks to represent. Of course, many people fervently agree that in a contest between Sen. McCain and the Republican Party itself, the choice is clearly Sen. McCain: They are called Democrats.
That's Helpring, on McCain's 2000 run, of course. Helprin more recently came to McCain's defense against conservative talk radio:
This and the economy threaten to throw the conservative enterprise back to where it was before Reagan and even before Buckley. Along comes John McCain, who has an 80% positive rating from the American Conservative Union but who as a truly independent soul does not fit, at the margins, some of the transient notions of what makes a conservative. Partly due to his independence and flexibility, he is the only Republican candidate who has a chance of winning, and thus preserving the core principles of conservatism, in relation to which he is unimpeachable. They are national security (in particular the strength of the military after Iraq and vis-à-vis China and a resurgent Russia), constitutionalism (as in individual vs. collective rights), and the economy (free markets vs. government industrial policy).One can agree or disagree with his peripheral positions, but political orthodoxy is political death. If the chat hosts would rather have Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, they will get Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton—how delightful to go to jail for building your house on land once visited by an exotic moth—and they will wake up to a great regret, as if in their drunkenness they had taken Shrek to bed.
But guess what? Even if as the country veers left living conservatives gnash their teeth while dead ones spin in their graves, a small class of conservatives will benefit. And who might they be? They might be those in whose milieu the display of faith is more important than either sensible judgment or the national interest; those who, as in cultures in which purity is the prime value, elevate political martyrdom, and yet who themselves are never martyred; those whose influence and coffers swell on discontent, and who find attacking a president easier and more sensational than the dreary business of defending one. They rose during the Clinton years. Perhaps they are nostalgic. It isn't worth it, however, for the rest of us.
Though if that's a defense — "eh, he's a billy goat, but he's our billy goat" — McCain might just want to put an ad up for a speechwriter on Craigslist and see what he can get.
A.
Please go read Karen's short post.
Also follow the last link of her post...it leads to another sad and tragic story, this one from Lakeview.
(h/t Suspect Device)
Dana Peroxide Refuses To To Say Whether Or Not Chimpy Hyped The Intelligence
Q Dana, maybe -- it's been a couple of hours since the Senate report came out, so I just wanted to give you a chance on camera to talk a little bit about Senate Democrats -- I know Republicans are disagreeing on the Hill -- but Senate Democrats are alleging that it's not that intelligence was wrong, but that the administration maybe exaggerated some intelligence and maybe left out some key caveats about that intelligence in the run-up to the war. And I wonder, for your reaction, especially since Scott McClellan -- it's not just Democrats, but Scott McClellan made a similar claim in his book.
MS. PERINO: Well, one, I would say that the issue of pre-war intelligence on Iraq has been thoroughly reviewed over the years by the Congress, as well as the independent WMD Commission. The majority report today is a selective view. And as you just said, the minority, the Republicans, have their own report, and I would encourage everyone to look at that as well.
[snip]
Q Senator Rockefeller also specifically said today, he used the word "catastrophe" and said that if the administration had been more careful with the intelligence, we may have been able to avoid this catastrophe, talking about the war in Iraq. How do you react to a statement like that?
MS. PERINO: Well, again, I think that the President and administration officials and the Congress were all working from the same intelligence and acting on the same information. And when the intelligence community tells you this -- gives you information, you have an obligation to look at it.
Little Scottie McClellan: Big Poo-Poo Head
Q Dana, following on that, in the release from the Senate Democrats, their message -- the first sentence says that this report confirms former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan's account of how the Bush administration led the nation to war through a propaganda campaign. What's your reaction to that?
MS. PERINO: Scott, by his very own admission, wasn't there at the time. He was the Deputy Press Secretary for Domestic Affairs. He has said, as I understand it, that looking back, even though he wasn't there, reading Bob Woodward's book, this is how he came to his conclusion.
So I think that the Senate Democrats and the Republicans took a lot of -- look, I don't know how well this report would stand up in terms of the processes. I know that the Republicans on Capitol Hill have a lot of beef with how it was taken -- how it was done.
And so, when it comes to Scott, I would just remind you that he was the Deputy Press Secretary for Domestic Affairs. He said that upon reflection, looking back at how the war was packaged -- and that's his words -- he disagrees with that. That's fine, that's his opinion. It doesn't change the fact that the information that the President has, the information he was given by the intelligence community -- he based that on the facts that he was given; he based his decisions based on the facts that he was given, and a political judgment. The fact that the intelligence turned out to be wrong on WMD does not mean that anyone purposefully lied. And that is the insinuation by some on Capitol Hill, and by a former colleague. And that's why we were so saddened and disappointed and hurt by his words.
[snip]
Q Can I follow on that? With all due respect, press secretaries are authorized to speak for a President. Scott spoke on the war issues, even before -- that happened before he was Press Secretary, just as you're speaking to the intelligence process and how it was reformed before you became Press Secretary. And I was unaware that Scott was limited to domestic affairs. I think those of us that covered him felt that we could go to him on all matter of --
MS. PERINO: Let me be a little bit more precise. The issue is, if I could just -- I'll delve a little bit more into the detail of it -- is that -- it's the question of -- and I served as the Deputy as well. I didn't sit in on national security meetings as the Deputy Press Secretary when I dealt with domestic affairs, and neither did Scott. That's my only point on that. In terms of looking back at issues of 2001 and 2002 and 2003, when intelligence was reviewed, those are the places where he wasn't. And he says that in his book and he's said it in interviews since.
Old News, Move On
Q But you understand the differences they're making, that they think that the claims -- understanding that the intelligence was wrong -- but that the claims went far beyond what the intelligence community was giving the White House, and that it ignored significant dissent within the intelligence community -- the White House.
MS. PERINO: That dissent, amongst experts within the intelligence community at some levels, did not reach the President.
[snip]
And I think that this is just another example of rehashing this old issue, which is fine. If people want to spend their time doing that, that's up to them. But we have changed the process, and it's much more improved. And that's good for the President -- not just this President, but any future President as well.
Exaggerated Statement About Exaggerated Intelligence
Q Okay. And on the Iraq intelligence report, you've said a couple times in the past week or so that the entire world had the same intelligence on Iraq. Given the significant dissent even inside the United States intelligence community on a lot of key issues, how can that be true?
MS. PERINO: Okay, well, maybe "entire world" was probably a little bit too strong, or too broad. But clearly, other governments that looked at the same intelligence that we had came to the same conclusions. I don't think that's in dispute.
Cheney in Charge
Q A follow-up from yesterday. Do you have anything on an agreement between Cheney and Olmert on a military aid package that includes F-35 stealth fighter jets in 2012 --
MS. PERINO: Did you say Cheney and Olmert?
Q -- and missile defense cooperation?
MS. PERINO: Did you say Cheney and Olmert? No, I don't have anything on that. No, I don't.
Q Did he meet with Cheney?
MS. PERINO: He did meeting with the Vice President. I believe they had dinner on Tuesday night. I don't know if that came up. I'd refer you to his office for more.
Your Daily Dana Don't Know
Q On the story in The Independent about the deal allegedly between the U.S. and Iraq, The Independent says that details of the deal were leaked to them. I'm sure you've seen The Independent's story --
MS. PERINO: I don't know, I haven't seen it.
Q You've not seen the story in The Independent?
MS. PERINO: I've not seen The Independent, I don't think.
Q Really?
MS. PERINO: I've read about ten other papers today, but not The Independent.
Continue reading "Today On Holden's Obsession With The Gaggle" »
Via Froomkin:
In the wake of Bush's congratulatory nod to Barack Obama on clinching the Democratic presidential nomination, here's an interesting anecdote from a 2004 William Finnegan article in the New Yorker.
Jan Schakowsky, a liberal Democratic congresswoman who represents Evanston and parts of north Chicago, told Finnegan about a "visit she had made to the White House with a congressional delegation. On her way out, she said, President Bush noticed her 'OBAMA' button. 'He jumped back, almost literally,' she said. 'And I knew what he was thinking. So I reassured him it was Obama, with a "b." And I explained who he was. The President said, "Well, I don't know him." So I just said, "You will."'"
Heh.
I guess this is one way to assure we will never again see ice trucks aimlessly criss-crossing the country during a hurricane response.
FEMA says they are done with ice...
TAMPA - Ice is no longer part of the government's response to hurricanes.
Federal Emergency Management Director R. David Paulison made the announcement at MacDill Air Force base Thursday, in conjunction with the release of the 2008 NOAA hurricane forecast.
"It takes a tremendous amount of resources, and it really doesn't accomplish much, other than making people feel good because they have a bag of ice," Paulison said.
Paulison went on to say his agency is focusing on delivering essentials, such as food, water, bots, blankets, and tarps.
"Ice is more of a comfort thing," he said.
Paulison explained that people with special needs will still get ice, but only if it is medically necessary.
I was talking with some of my Annenberg colleagues at a journalism conference last month, and one asked how many hours a day we each spent reading and watching the news, whether in print, online or on TV. The consensus? About four to five hours a day.But there is one exception to this potential rule: Many journalists despise TV news. They hate watching it, they hate producing it, and, given the opportunity, they turn it off and ignore it.
[snip]
My students complained about the titillation - fear-mongering crime reports, salacious coverage of the entertainment industries, reporters and anchor people glammed up to look like models. And when TV reports covered more serious issues, including politics, they result as little more than propaganda - talking points served up from two sides, with no analysis testing the claims, beyond petty insults.
The broadcast majors among them expressed their revulsion at moving into an industry where "good television" meant insults, violence and conflict, rather than information, engagement and enlightenment.
Many also complained about the strict format that they were being instructed to follow in their broadcast classes, in order to make their reports appear more "professional," i.e. like the TV news that many of them despised.
Via Romenesko.
A.
Heckuva job, Chimpy.
ST. LOUIS (AP) - The father of the first female soldier from Missouri to die in Iraq wants Congress to force the Army to reopen its investigation into her death.
John Johnson, father of LaVena Johnson, said yesterday that he met in April with Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, as well as others.
[snip]
Army Pfc. LaVena Johnson was found dead July 19, 2005, in a small contractor’s tent in Balad, Iraq, after only eight weeks in the country. Army investigators and coroners ruled she had shot herself in the mouth with an M-16 rifle.
Johnson contends his daughter was attacked, raped and had her body dumped in the tent, where a fire was started in hopes of destroying her remains.
[snip]
Johnson said he presented Skelton and others the names of nine other military women who were raped or murdered while in the service. He said he became aware of their stories as he investigated his daughter’s.
He said there’s a pattern and "whoever is behind this must have significant rank or prestige."
He said color photographs, documents and autopsy reports he has obtained from Army investigators indicate his daughter was scratched, bruised and burned and that her genital area showed evidence of lye "to destroy DNA evidence." An autopsy performed at Dover Air Force Base concluded that she died from a self-inflicted gunshot wound.
The St. Louis medical examiner reached the same conclusion after Johnson had his daughter’s body exhumed for a second autopsy.
The Pentagon reported in March that men and women in uniform reported 2,688 sexual assaults last year. That compares to 2,947 reported the year before and 2,400 in 2005.
I was at a Brewers game today and out of touch with the political world. But on returning home I saw that John McCain claimed he voted for every Katrina investigation. Of course I knew that was not true as it was pointed out by the Dems when McCain was in NOLA this past April. (see FD post.)
Now I see that his campaign has qualified his remarks:
"Instead he was speaking to his strong support for the Homeland Security Committee's comprehensive, bipartisan investigation of Hurricane Katrina, which was already fully underway when these other proposals were suggested."
I thought well that is not right either, as well as lacking in account of what occurred. So I was about to write a post on such when I discovered that E at We Could Be Famous had it covered:
Oh, he was talking about the "bipartisan" investigation rammed down the throats of Democrats by the then-majority Republicans desperately trying to limit the political damage of the disaster.
They rejected Democratic appeals to model the panel after the Sept. 11 commission, which was made up of non-lawmakers and was equally balanced between Republicans and Democrats. That commission won wide praise for assessing how the 2001 terrorist attacks occurred, and for recommending changes in the government's anti-terrorism structure.
House and Senate GOP leaders announced the "Hurricane Katrina Joint Review Committee," which will include only members of Congress, with Republicans outnumbering Democrats by a yet-to-be-determined ratio. The commission, which will have subpoena powers, will investigate the actions of local, state and federal governments before and after the storm that devastated New Orleans and other portions of the Gulf Coast.
Ultimately, there were three Katrina investigations, one each by the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the Presidency. That which was produced by the House was boycotted by Democrats. That which was produced was the President was intended to be toilet paper. The Senate investigation was what the Democrats were left with after the independent commission was rejected in a vote down party lines.
This Senate investigation was launched on September 15th, 2005.
Thus, it was not "fully underway" when John McCain voted against the independent investigation on September 14th, 2005.
(my emphasis)
And I wish to say, thank heaven for blogs so we have a means to reach out and say--just wait a freaking minute. And say it I must.....Does McCain really think that no one out here is going to remember that initial fight over a Katrina Commission?
Does he think we can't remember that Bush said he would investigate only to have Scottie McClellan, when pressed for details on the investigation, qualify Bush's remarks by "describing it as an "analysis," not an investigation"?
Would we have a senior moment and not recall that as Senator Clinton was calling for an independent commission, Republicans Frist and Hastert were trying to get ahead of that by announcing a bipartisan Joint House and Senate Review?
And that when Democratic leaders "refused to appoint members to a joint committee, citing the lack of equal representation for their party" and insisted on an independent inquiry such as Clinton's commission which was voted down on September 14...that THEN on September 19th the Republicans "abandoned their plan to conduct a joint House-Senate probe" blaming the Democrats of course.
Oh yeah it was a heckuva fight and though it has somehow slipped John McCain's mind, some of us still do remember.
One final note...Oyster says E at We Could Be Famous "will be famous one day." I would say, should be Today. Read it all and Link it.
To Add: You'd think McCain and his campaign would have been ready for this given in April during his trip to NOLA the Dems issued a press release saying McCain twice voted against Katrina investigations. It's not new news. What is news is that unlike McCain's BBQ licking press base, a local reporter, WWL's Maya Rodriguez called him on it. In other words the question itself wasn't out of left field, but he and his campaign didn't prepare for it as they do not expect it to be asked--that would be left of field for John McCain. It's an arrogance and conceit of the process and press that was displayed here. If only there were more Maya's out there, think how vulnerable he would be.....
You can't live in this society and not be tainted by both racism and sexism. That goes for women and African Americans as well as privileged white men who imagine themselves free of any such notions. You can try, you can be self-aware, you can learn, but you can't live in this culture and not carry the taint. And you can't live in this society and not carry those taints because racism and sexism are both malignant symptoms of the same disease: Patriarchy. In the Patriarchy, Power Over is everything. In order to exercise Power Over, one must consistently create new "others" over whom the privileged members of the Patriarchy can exercise power. African Americans and women have been prime targets, but so have gays, lesbians, immigrants, young people, old people, etc. And the Patriarchy prospers when, for example, women and African Americans fight with each other over the tiny piece of the pie that they perceive is available to maybe one, but not more than one, underprivileged group. Arguments about which group has suffered more at the hands of the Patriarchy strike me as pointless. The goal seems to be to rank groups by who has suffered more so that the most harmed group can get first crack at all of the (again, perceived) few crumbs of power that the patriarchs are willing to toss towards the "others." Ranking, in and of itself, is almost always a tool of the Patriarchy.
Emphasis in the original.
Hecate's right in that when we turn our guns on each other, everybody loses, and that I lost this way and you lost that way doesn't change the fact that neither of us won. The high ground in a swamp is a swamp all the same. And I am more than willing to stipulate to whoever is complaining loudest that yes, in fact, your pain is the most special, you get the gold medal, if I give you a quarter will you just go play in traffic already, in the interests of getting some things done. Hecate's right, in fighting racism vs. sexism we're only betraying ourselves, and that becomes blindingly obvious every second I watch Howard Fineman and His Astonishingly Red Toupee on MSNBC.
(I've been picking on Fineman a lot lately; it's because he's such a fucking kitchen appliance, out there every day talking gravely about how deep the chasms we must all cross now, and how critical it's going to be, that we all get along and learn to forgive and when will our bruises ever fade? It is not in any way belittling the actual hurt actual supporters of any candidate feel to say that everything out of his mouth about "Democrats in disarray" benefits Republicans and is mostly untrue.)
When the fight becomes about how you hurt me more than I hurt you, or my slights being worse than your slights, I lose sight of your hurt and you lose sight of mine. It becomes a contest, where whoever's hurt the worst wins. I don't want to win that contest. I don't want you to win it either. If that is the contest, I want us both to lose, terribly, badly, so horribly that we will never ever ever think of entering it again.
A.
I highly recommend Feral's gardening and winemaking posts.
Our local farmer's market starts this weekend. Thank God. Maybe there will be some tomatoes what don't taste like cardboard so I can finally make decent bruschetta.
A.
From a comment here:
I'm a Hillary supporter, and still am, but I can be an Obamaniac this presidential election. And I won't be holding my nose when talking him up to others and voting for him in November--I think that he's an excellent and exciting candidate for OUR Democratic Party, who possesses dynamic leadership and vision. Throughout the entire, grueling primary season, I never thought that supporting one of them meant that you had to demonize the other, and I believed that either Clinton or Obama would have been worthy of our support and respect. And if Hillary had won the nomination, my thoughts still would have been the same, and my opinion of Obama still would have remained just as high. I know there has been talk about Hillary supporters defecting this November, but I just wanted to put my two cents in--we will all resolve our differences (whatever they may be--I never thought the schism was as great as the two camps made them out to be), kick some Repuke ass in November and take the first step in making this country great again!
Threats of defection to the Republican ticket should the speaker's preferred candidate not win have largely come from two major constituencies:
a ) Attention whores.
b ) TV dickheads like Howard Fineman who recognize that the DEMOCRATS ARE DOOOOMED meme is only viable so long as the Democratic primary was still going on, and who are now going to be desperate for airtime and a storyline to get it for themselves.
I respect the work done by the Democrats, all the Democrats, in getting their asses out to vote and march and work and fight for Democratic interests. All the rest of it is just bullshit barroom bravado and long after we forget who said what to who that pissed us off, we'll remember the thousands and thousands of Democrats who stood in lines and showed up to vote. People are, by and large, grown-ups and while this process may have inspired some of them to fight fights they wouldn't otherwise have fought, while this process may have made all of us at one time or another angry or disappointed, while there are still rifts to be healed and problems to be solved within our own party, it is still our own party.
And in our own party, when we get knocked down we get back up.
If there's a lesson to be learned, by everybody, after this primary season is finally over, it's that.
A.
"The blacks" get the jobs, the government handouts, the special treatment, and now they're being handed the Presidency. That's the particular view of the world that Limbaugh is endorsing here. The Republican Party, demoralized and frustrated, is hoping to rile up the country with an identity politics-based campaign intended to speak to white people as a captive, persecuted minority against the big, bad un-American black majority waiting to install themselves in the White House and send every Caucasian to a re-education camp.
The Republican Party was reaching for this shit long before they became demoralized and frustrated. Democrats have always been the party of taking your hard-earned, perfectly meritricious achievements and giving them to some welfare queen who just wants to blow your factory paycheck on bling. Democrats want to take away your marriage and your Bible and strip Jesus from the schools, Democrats want to give your money to the government to give it to France. Democrats have always been this, to Republicans, and they always will be, no matter what we say or do.
And yes, Obama's candidacy will make the shorthand a little shorter, but if anybody's thinking that this is gonna be something we haven't seen before, they're kidding themselves. We know the playbook, they've been showing it to us for years, since Lyndon Johnson was president. Racist old fuckers defected to the Republican Party and stayed in power by appealing to people's anger at their lot in life and fear of anything new, and they will continue to do it until somebody makes it stop working.
I don't know if Obama's that guy, who can make it stop working, but I hope he is because now he's what we've got.
A.
Republicans appear headed for another year of substantial House seat losses, if the latest survey by Democracy Corps/Greenberg Quinlan Rosner stands true. In the congressional districts that DC/GQR determined to be the 45 most competitive [pdf] Republican-controlled districts, Democratic challengers lead 50 percent to 43 percent overall.
In a similar survey taken in the same districts four months ago (other than five "hard-to-reach" districts that were added for this survey), Democrats trailed by 1 point. The current 7-point lead shows a landscape sliding in Democrats' favor.
DC/GQR polled 1,600 registered voters in 45 districts from May 19-26. Bush won these 45 districts by 12 points in 2004, and Republicans won the House races by the same margin in 2006.
Prior to polling, DC/GQR separated the 45 districts into two tiers, based on the district's likelihood to flip to Democrats. In the top tier, consisting largely of open seats, the margin for Democrats widens to 9 points, with a 51 percent to 42 percent lead. In second tier races, considered more difficult for Democrats to win, the GOP still trails by 3 points, 48 percent to 45 percent.
[snip]
One problem for Republican candidates and incumbents appears to be voters' feelings about Pres. Bush, whose job approval rating in these GOP districts is at 33 percent.
"You have to keep reminding yourself that you're looking at Republican districts; this is not a national poll," said GQR pollster Stan Greenberg. "The fact that Bush's approval rating is only 33 percent in these districts gives you a sense what these Republican incumbents and Republicans running across the country are likely to face."
Job approval for Republican incumbents, who the pollsters referred to by name based on what district they were polling, was at 38 percent. On specific issues, Democrats faired 17 points better than Republicans on handling the economy and 11 points better on the war in Iraq. On handling illegal immigration, Republicans led by 3 points.
I offer the above as a stunning example of what not to do in a speech, and to explain the following:
Why, oh WHY...does he always sound:A) Angry
B) Like an automaton
---
We need to start a fund for a speech coach for John....
---
Dammit, another one of those grins at his own lines like he was doing in the first debate. That’s a very annoying habit.
---
We are so screwed.
---
Sad
---
Why listen at all? You know if he says anything you like it’s lie. The guy’s a politician fer cryin’ out loud. He’ll say anything his ‘handlers’ tell him to and if it comes out wrong he (and they) will say we’re taking it out of context.
---
Are you listening to the crap spewing out of the Republicans? From McCain on down they have all ready surrendered to the Left. McCain will be the best Democrat President ever. All the Leftism only with a GOP label slapped all over it. Iraq is done, what is left is mop up. We will be pulling troops out of there in 2009 no matter who is President.
---
It is almost as if the Republicans are trying to lose the White House. How in the HELL can this guy be the best in the Republican party. My Goodness he is soooo lame. Attacks are president on the War and GITMO.. Hugs a tree and kisses Hillary's Butt. Oh I think I am going to Barf....
---
“I hate that sh*t eating grin of his!”
It’s OK considering the North Vietnamese knocked a lot of his teeth out.
---
OK, that was a pathetic display of McCain supporters. What a weak crowd. Guess they pretty much reflect what we feel!
---
Good grief what a Washington DC JackA$$... F him and F the Republican party. They obviously do not give a Ratt’s A$$ about Conservatives. What a jerk!
---
Are you all sitting here wondering...how did we end up with this man as our nominee? I mean really. He’s dreadful on so many levels.
Did he even READ this speech before tonight?
---
His style is going to be an awful contrast against Obama’s.
No. Really?
A.
Drive safely until I get home from work. NO VIOLENCE. Make room for the noobs.
Update: Van Closed. For anyone who's been, like, in space for the last 24 hours, Barack Obama is the first African-American nominee of any major party for the presidency of the United States.
Every so often, there are moments which call on that fundamental goodness to make this country great again.So it was for that band of patriots who declared in a Philadelphia hall the formation of a more perfect union; and for all those who gave on the fields of Gettysburg and Antietam their last full measure of devotion to save that same union.
So it was for the Greatest Generation that conquered fear itself, and liberated a continent from tyranny, and made this country home to untold opportunity and prosperity.
So it was for the workers who stood out on the picket lines; the women who shattered glass ceilings; the children who braved a Selma bridge for freedom’s cause.
So it has been for every generation that faced down the greatest challenges and the most improbable odds to leave their children a world that’s better, and kinder, and more just.
And so it must be for us.
America, this is our moment. This is our time.
A.
So McCain attempts to distance himself from Bush by kicking off his campaign tonight in New Orleans....
But Schmidt also signaled that the setting of the speech in New Orleans, where McCain last visited in April, is intended to highlight differences between McCain and the current Republican occupying the White House. The city, Schmidt said, "signifies to the American people what is broken about our government."
Although McCain will not be in New Orleans or even Orleans Parish. He will be in suburban Kenner which is in Jefferson Parish. JP was Bush country in 2000 and 2004. Of course Orleans Parish was not.
Prior to that event McCain will make another stop in Jefferson Parish to attend a "private fundraiser in Metairie. About 30 people are expected to pay $50,000 each to attend the event at the home of real estate developer Joe Cannizaro." Also in attendance will be Boysie Bollinger, the CEO of Bollinger Shipyards. Both Canizaro and Bollinger are friends of Bush and responsible for large contributions to his campaigns. Canizaro was a Bush Ranger. Bollinger was a Bush Super Ranger. Also of note is that Bollinger has been at the "center of Coast Guard contract fiasco."
McCain may say of tonight--"The message is change. It's real change," but really it's all McSame.
Distancing is hard work
UPDATE: Ouch. From NOLA blog People Get Ready:
Skipping New Orleans is a little like proclaiming success in Baghdad while taking shelter in Baghdad’s Green Zone,...
Our Intelligence Agencies Don't Know Nothin'!
Q The Israeli media is reporting that Olmert is going to come with a message that he hopes the President will disavow the NIE on Iran; that essentially Israel believes it's wrong. Do you believe that to be true?
MS. PERINO: I don't know what Olmert will say. Obviously Prime Minister Olmert will have his speech tonight at AIPAC and so I'll -- you will get a chance to see that. The President has spoken to Prime Minister Olmert and many other leaders across the Middle East and throughout the world about the Iran NIE, and so I don't think there's really anything too new there for them to discuss. I think they both made their points very clear, and Israel has made it clear that they think the -- that intelligence is wrong, and that Iran is still pursuing a nuclear weapon.
[snip]
Q So as you continue to hear this concern about the NIE, what's the message from the White House to the Middle East about this document?
MS. PERINO: Well, I think that the President has been clear. And you heard him say, when he went to the Middle East back in January, he explained to everyone that our position on Iran is -- remains one in which we want to solve this diplomatically, and that we are working on an international basis with our partners, the EU plus a couple of others -- I can't remember the number of that one -- but there's multiple -- multilateral negotiations going on in order to put pressure on Iran in order to get them to fulfill their obligations, which is to halt, or suspend the enrichment of uranium, come clean on what their past program was, and allow the international community to come in and be satisfied; that if their claims are expected to be taken as truth, then we have to have some verification that they really aren't pursuing a nuclear weapon.
Obviously, what the NIE said is that they had a nuclear weapons program, it was covert, and they hid it from the world. The NIE said that it stopped in 2003, but there is no evidence -- nobody could say either way whether they restarted it. That's what the concern was.
It's All About Chimpy
Q Dana, you talk about the need to conclude this by the end of this year, on the President's schedule. But putting it on the President's schedule, doesn't that create an artificial deadline that the President usually tries to steer clear of?
MS. PERINO: I think you're mixing up a couple of different things there. But remember, if you go back to November 30th, when the President invited all the leaders here at the Annapolis Conference, one of the things that President Abbas and Prime Minister Olmert, amongst other leaders who attended, that they all said that they believe that it was the right thing to do to try to get this done before the end of the year. That was their timetable. And the President fully supports it. He wants to try to get it done, as well.
Q So are you saying that this is in no way driven by the President's term in office?
MS. PERINO: Well, of course, it -- I'm not saying that. I don't know why you would suggest that. I'm saying that they both -- both of those leaders said they want to get it done on this President's watch, and the President is going to try to help them do that. We're pretty well aware of the calendar, seven and a half months or so left, a long way to go. But they've also come a long way since November.
That Les, Always The Comedian
Q The New York Times editorial page commends Senator McCain for promising, if he is elected, to bring the hallowed British parliament's Prime Minister's question time to Congress. And my question: Would the President be willing to try this just once as a sampling before the election? (Laughter.)
MS. PERINO: As entertaining as that might be, I think we'll let -- the next President can decide if they want to do that or not.
(AP Photo/Jose Fidelino Vera Hernandez)
An apparently drunk driver plowed his car into a bike race in Mexico near the US border. According to the photo caption, at least one person was killed and 14 were injured.
...from the AP:
WASHINGTON - Hillary Rodham Clinton will concede Tuesday night that Barack Obama has the delegates to secure the Democratic nomination, campaign officials said, effectively ending her bid to be the nation's first female president.
The former first lady will stop short of formally suspending or ending her race in her speech in New York City. She will pledge to continue to speak out on issues like health care. But for all intents and purposes, the two senior officials said, the campaign is over.
UPDATE: Terry McAuliffe just now on CNN says "the race goes on"....so who knows
Yesterday, at the White House.
Brainwreck
And there really is kind of -- talks about the philosophical divide we face.
What We Got And Need
We got plenty of money in Washington. What we need is more priority. People got to set the priorities.
Maybe More Than 27?
If Congress doesn't act, 27 [sic] small business owners will face a tax increase of $4,066 on average.
Your Daily Dana Don't Know
Q The Guardian is reporting that the United States is holding terrorism suspects on U.S. ships. Is there any truth to that?
MS. PERINO: Jeremy, I saw that report and I did not hear back from DOD, so I'll have to refer you to Defense Department.
[snip]
Q The human rights organization Reprieve says there have been more than 200 new cases of renditions since 2006. Can you confirm that?
MS. PERINO: I can't, and I don't even know what Reprieve is. So I'll refer you to the CIA --
Q Could you look --
MS. PERINO: I'll refer you to the CIA.
Shitcannning Will Make You Disgruntled
Q Can I ask about Scott McClellan? Last week in your statement you used the word "disgruntled" to describe him. Why did you use that word, "disgruntled"? Is he disgruntled because he was fired? Did he, in fact, resign? Was he pushed out?
MS. PERINO: Well, I think -- I hold it up because I wondered last week if you'd ask me this question. Being disgruntled means being displeased or being discontented. And I think that by any measure, if you look at Scott in his comments over the past week that he is displeased with his time at the White House. That's why I used that phrase. And when it comes to how he left the White House, I'll let him describe it. And we all fully supported him while he was here, and even after he left he had a lot of support from people at this White House. And so I think that "disgruntled" is the right way to characterize it.
Q But just for the record, so he did resign, though, he was not fired?
MS. PERINO: Technically, he resigned, yes.
Q Technically. (Laughter.)
MS. PERINO: He resigned.
Q He was asked to resign, though, Dana?
MS. PERINO: I'm not going to comment on it. He resigned.
Unwelcomed In Crawford
Q Two quick questions. One, does the President think Scott is still his friend, or he lost one? Because Scott was really good press secretary, as you are, and he was very loyal to the President, as you are. So what do you think what President think about him now?
MS. PERINO: I think the President is just very sad about the situation and sad the way that it turned out. Obviously I think you could describe him as disappointed, but certainly doesn't harbor any ill will toward him, and is a forgiving person and is certainly not dwelling on the book.
President Bush's approval rating among Californians has plummeted to an all-time low, with 25 percent saying he's done a good job, according to the latest Field Poll, released today.
PRINCETON, NJ -- President George W. Bush's job approval rating in the latest USA Today/Gallup poll, conducted May 30-June 1, is at 28%, essentially where it has been for the last two months, and tied for the lowest of his administration. Bush's disapproval rating is at 68%, one point off the highest such reading in Gallup history.
[snip]
The lowest job approval rating in Gallup's history is 22%, recorded by Harry Truman in 1952. The only other president to score lower than 28% was Richard Nixon in 1973 and 1974 (although Jimmy Carter also received a 28% rating in 1979).
Guys? I think I found our Crack Van for election night:
Yes, the van will be up and running tomorrow evening, for the final primaries of this very long, crazy season.
A.
Look how each becomes gift and giver:
their veins with nothing but spirit flow.
Look how their forms like axles quiver,
round which revolving raptures glow.
Thirsters, and straight there are draughts for their drinking;
wakers, and look, they are sated with sight.
Let them, into each other sinking,
rise, surviving each other’s might.
-- Ranier Maria Rilke
While we're on the topic of love, a column I forgot to whore out last week:
In 2004, most Republicans and many Democrats credited ballot measures like this for helping to re-elect President Bush by turning out socially conservative voters. When Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) lost the election, pundits were quick to opine that Democrats needed to do more to appeal to such "moral values" voters.Doubtless, some advisers now are telling Clinton and Obama the same things, urging caution in the face of injustice, lest some straight man or woman somewhere be turned off voting for them by their promises to, I don't know, uphold the Constitution. The advice will, of course, ignore the reality that Republicans always will characterize Democrats as the party of gay marriage, whether Democrats support it or not.
In the end, though, all this fear is just that. There are no gay raid sirens, no one is coming to take your marriage away. What the Supreme Court in California did two weeks ago was merely affirm what Americans have always known: that under the law in this land, we are all of us safe, all of us equal, all of us protected - all of us, or none of us is.
That's not cause for alarm. That's cause for celebration.
Someone pass me a glass of champagne and be sure to save me some cake.
A.
The United States is operating "floating prisons" to house those arrested in its war on terror, according to human rights lawyers, who claim there has been an attempt to conceal the numbers and whereabouts of detainees.
Details of ships where detainees have been held and sites allegedly being used in countries across the world have been compiled as the debate over detention without trial intensifies on both sides of the Atlantic. The US government was yesterday urged to list the names and whereabouts of all those detained.
Information about the operation of prison ships has emerged through a number of sources, including statements from the US military, the Council of Europe and related parliamentary bodies, and the testimonies of prisoners.
The analysis, due to be published this year by the human rights organisation Reprieve, also claims there have been more than 200 new cases of rendition since 2006, when President George Bush declared that the practice had stopped.
It is the use of ships to detain prisoners, however, that is raising fresh concern and demands for inquiries in Britain and the US.
According to research carried out by Reprieve, the US may have used as many as 17 ships as "floating prisons" since 2001. Detainees are interrogated aboard the vessels and then rendered to other, often undisclosed, locations, it is claimed.
Ships that are understood to have held prisoners include the USS Bataan and USS Peleliu. A further 15 ships are suspected of having operated around the British territory of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, which has been used as a military base by the UK and the Americans.
Reprieve will raise particular concerns over the activities of the USS Ashland and the time it spent off Somalia in early 2007 conducting maritime security operations in an effort to capture al-Qaida terrorists.
At this time many people were abducted by Somali, Kenyan and Ethiopian forces in a systematic operation involving regular interrogations by individuals believed to be members of the FBI and CIA. Ultimately more than 100 individuals were "disappeared" to prisons in locations including Kenya, Somalia, Ethiopia, Djibouti and Guantánamo Bay.
Reprieve believes prisoners may have also been held for interrogation on the USS Ashland and other ships in the Gulf of Aden during this time.
The Reprieve study includes the account of a prisoner released from Guantánamo Bay, who described a fellow inmate's story of detention on an amphibious assault ship. "One of my fellow prisoners in Guantánamo was at sea on an American ship with about 50 others before coming to Guantánamo ... he was in the cage next to me. He told me that there were about 50 other people on the ship. They were all closed off in the bottom of the ship. The prisoner commented to me that it was like something you see on TV. The people held on the ship were beaten even more severely than in Guantánamo."
Consider this your primary open thread. Crack Van will be available for the others this week, but we've got to get the stains out of the shag carpet from last time.
A.
to First Draft
