Tonight's song originated from an unfinished outtake off of Bob Dylan's soundtrack to Sam Peckinpah's brilliant movie, Pat Garrett and Billy The Kid. Old Crow Medicine Show's Ketch Secor added verses to the Dylan refrain and included it on the band's eponymous debut, O.C.M.S.. Rock me.
Fox News' favorite pair of 'Democrats' penned an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal trashing President Obama and surprise, surprise... Sean Hannity ends up quoting them on his show. Here's more on Cadell and Shoen from Salon's War Room and Media Matters.
Official Fox News Democrats-in-residence Pat Caddell and Doug Schoen got together to write one of their op-eds about how the Democrats are Bad and Wrong. As usual, the reasons given for the Badness and Wrongness of Democrats are exactly the same ones named by right-wing talk radio hosts and bloggers and Fox News hosts -- but because the authors of the op-ed are Democrats, it is newsworthy!
[...]
Who are Caddell and Schoen, exactly? And what kind of Democrats are they?
Doug Schoen is pollster grifter Mark Penn's former right-hand man. He wrote a book about how independent Republican Mayor Mike Bloomberg should run for president, with Republican Senator Chuck Hagel as his running mate. (His Bloomberg worship is funny, considering that he and Penn proposed doing "market research" for Phillip Morris to help them fight smoking bans in the '90s.) Schoen's 2008 insistence that Hillary could win if she'd just attack Obama a little bit harder makes his bemoaning Obama's supposedly divisive racial politics even more risible.
Pat Caddell is a much more interesting character. He's a brilliant former Democratic strategist for McGovern and Carter who angrily left the party in the late-1980s. He has more or less dedicated his career to trashing Democrats ever since. While he may still actually be a liberal, his intense hatred for the entire Democratic party tends to color his analysis and make him a willing useful idiot for far-right ideologues. (Caddell also used polling to invent the statistical ideal presidential candidate in 1983: "a moderate senator in his early 40's, bold, who breaks with party tradition and wins his generation's vote." While it didn't work with Gary Hart and Joe Biden, maybe he's just mad that he didn't get any credit when it did work.)
But being a professional Democratic Concern Troll makes strange bedfellows. Caddell was one of the minds behind the 1992 Jerry Brown campaign, and he relentlessly trashed Bill Clinton, whom he deeply loathed. Schoen, meanwhile, is only invited to speak about national politics because Hillary Clinton brought in Dick Morris -- who brought in Schoen and Mark Penn -- to advise Clinton in his second term.
Y'know the shtick, the two Obama-haters lash out at the president and the Left in the pages of the WSJ but do so under the guise of being "Democrats" so readers are supposed to take their cheap shots to heart because it really, really pains Caddell and Schoen to write these nasty things about Obama. Just like it really, really pains them to go on Fox News and trash Obama.
Today's effort by the duo is particularly rancid: Obama constantly divides America by playing the race card. I'll let TNR's Jonathan Chait and Time's Joe Klein do the honors in terms of dismantling Caddell/Schoen's lazy fearmongering...read on...
So an anonymous "senior administration official" says that "most" internet and email providers already turn over this information. (Gee, I wonder why he didn't want to go on the record. And I wonder why the Post allowed it.)
See, here's the problem with these relentless expansions of executive power: I don't actually believe that the Obama administration is interested in putting me under surveillance for criticizing their policies. But they're sure as hell making it a lot easier for a paranoid Republican administration to do it -- not to mention loose cannon FBI agents who simply want to ignore the rules. In a democracy, the way it's supposed to work is, we have laws that will protect us even when the bad guys are in charge:
The Obama administration is seeking to make it easier for the FBI to compel companies to turn over records of an individual's Internet activity without a court order if agents deem the information relevant to a terrorism or intelligence investigation.
The administration wants to add just four words -- "electronic communication transactional records" -- to a list of items that the law says the FBI may demand without a judge's approval. Government lawyers say this category of information includes the addresses to which an Internet user sends e-mail; the times and dates e-mail was sent and received; and possibly a user's browser history. It does not include, the lawyers hasten to point out, the "content" of e-mail or other Internet communication.
But what officials portray as a technical clarification designed to remedy a legal ambiguity strikes industry lawyers and privacy advocates as an expansion of the power the government wields through so-called national security letters. These missives, which can be issued by an FBI field office on its own authority, require the recipient to provide the requested information and to keep the request secret. They are the mechanism the government would use to obtain the electronic records.
[...] Many Internet service providers have resisted the government's demands to turn over electronic records, arguing that surveillance law as written does not allow them to do so, industry lawyers say. One senior administration government official, who would discuss the proposed change only on condition of anonymity, countered that "most" Internet or e-mail providers do turn over such data.
To critics, the move is another example of an administration retreating from campaign pledges to enhance civil liberties in relation to national security. The proposal is "incredibly bold, given the amount of electronic data the government is already getting," said Michelle Richardson, American Civil Liberties Union legislative counsel.
Settle in, because it looks like it will be a long hot summer debate about taxing and spending. We're already hearing the old saws from Republicans about how we spend too much, tax cuts don't increase the deficit, and we're saddling our children and grandchildren with enormous, horrible debt that will surely bankrupt them before they're even born.
It isn't like we haven't all heard this before, or like we don't hear it over and over, but this time perhaps we could start by shattering myths. One begging to be shattered is this idea that we must limit spending to a certain percentage of GDP in order to be "fiscally solvent".
Simply put, aiming to stabilize the budget at the recent historical spending average of 21 percent of GDP might be appropriate for the years ahead if the age distribution of the population remained the same as it was in recent decades; if health care costs grew no faster than the economy; if Medicare had no drug benefit; if we were willing to leave more than 30 million Americans without health coverage; if there were no terrorist threats and hence no need for homeland security spending; if no wounded veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan needed medical care and income support; and if decisions and events over the last decade had not nearly doubled the national debt as a share of GDP. But that’s not the world in which we live, and it’s not the target at which we should aim.
This report hits at the heart of why today's spending debate is such a non-starter: Historically, we have not had revenues that come close to what is needed to maintain public services and programs. (As an aside: the unspoken but clear message is that taxes should NEVER have been cut in the first place)
The historical record shows a persistent mismatch between revenues and the funding needed for public services. Revenues at the 40-year average — a little over 18 percent of GDP — would not have balanced the budget in any of the last 40 years. The only balanced budgets over this period occurred from 1998 through 2001, years in which revenues were markedly above the 40-year average. Revenues in these years were in the 20-to-21-percent-of-GDP range. As a result of this mismatch between revenues and funding needs, the government ran deficits that averaged 2.6 percent of GDP over the past 40 years.
In case that wasn't clear enough, let me make it clearer: Bill Clinton's budget put us on the path to fiscal solvency without cutting services, and George Bush's tax cuts derailed it. To further complicate the picture, the whole "Homeland Security" spending package along with a couple of wars finished the job.
Indeed, the CBPP report confirms this, and urges policymakers to rethink how they approach Federal debt and spending.
The bottom line is that arbitrary numerical targets for federal spending and revenues are misguided. Although history provides useful information and guidance, it should not be a straitjacket. What will be appropriate in 2020, 2030, or 2050 is not necessarily the same as in 1970 or 1980. Budgetary policies, like other policies, must respond to changing circumstances. “As our cause is new,” wrote Abraham Lincoln, “so we must think anew, and act anew.”
And this:
In our view, the aging of the population, the continued importance of Social Security and Medicare, the growth in federal responsibilities in recent years in areas such as homeland security, and rising health care costs justify higher levels of federal spending and revenues over the next 40 years than over the past four decades.
See that empty seat front and center? That was Helen Thomas' official seat in the White House press pool, the only such designation in the press room. It was given to her in honor of her 57 years of covering presidential press conferences.
In the wake of her resignation, three news services are vying to take Thomas' seat: Fox News Channel, Bloomberg and NPR.
But let's be honest: giving Fox News Channel--the same outlet that elevated Breitbart's ACORN and Sherrod scandals to national prominence, that continues to push the NBPP non-story, that employs that inciter of insanity, Glenn Beck--the seat is a slap in the face to any American who actually cares about news.
Credo Action is asking progressives to contact the White House Correspondents Association and ask them to not award Fox News Helen Thomas' seat. From an email sent to members:
We need help.
There's a new front where we can chip away at the perceived legitimacy of FOX as a news organization.
The White House Correspondents Association is scheduled to decide in a Monday meeting which news outlet will get the White House press briefing room front row seat vacated recently by Helen Thomas. (we're trying to confirm reports that this meeting has been moved up a day to Sunday. more on that when we get better info.)
Three organizations are vying for this seat: FOX, NPR and Bloomberg News. [..]
We need your help. CREDO launched a campaign yesterday morning to call attention to this and already 140,000 people have signed our petition. We are faxing and working on petition deliveries to the board members and executive director of the organization in advance of their meeting. The petition is here: http://www.credoaction.com/campaign/fox_or_npr/
"Joe the Voter" at OpEd News has a boilerplate letter that you may want to use to send in your name:
White House Correspondents' Association
600 New Hampshire Avenue, Suite 800
Washington, DC 20037
202-266-7453 (v)
202-266-7454 (f )
Julia Whiston, Executive Director.
Do not give Helen Thomas' seat to FOX !
They are NOT news...they are a politically motivated racist organization who lie, distort and deceive viewers to promote a specific political agenda. They have FCC complaints filed against them for using their "news" status contrary to federal rules against bias and distortion in the news. The recent scandals where Fox assisted in slander and personal attacks against blacks such as Shirley Sherrod, Van Jones and Acorn all indicate their inability to present news using accepted and honorable journalistic standards.
Putting FOX in that chair would be a black mark on your organization as it would amount to an acceptance of their extreme distortions as being the equal of your other distinguished members.
It's all coming into place. My hope that America would be reminded that the mess our country is in is a direct result of George W. Bush's administration is actually coming true. I know the grand poobahs of the GOP have kept George locked in the basement for almost two years. I was pushing for President Obama and Congress to make a point to tell America that they are trying to clean up the mess they were left with via Bush & Cheney, but they've been ineffective on that front. I've written about it and so have many other bloggers, but who would have thought that it would be Republicans and George Bush himself who would lead the charge?
According to former Bush aide Matt Latimer, that's the Republican reaction to the news that former president George W. Bush will release his memoir, Decision Points, the week after the 2010 midterm elections. Yes, the races will be decided by the time the book hits stores, but as with any major print release, a slew of excerpts are sure to be leaked in the weeks prior to Nov. 2. Latimer gives his take on The Daily Beast, reporting on Democrats who are "gleeful" at the news, Republicans who are on the fence about it, and what Bush himself might be thinking:
The former president, who I knew to be an often "misunderestimated" politician, may indeed think his book will help his party--by setting the record straight. (There are parts of that record that can use some plain old Texas clarifyin'.) Undoubtedly some people will look more kindly on the Bush years now than they did at the time, particularly on national security. But the problem is that Bush himself will not be able to make his case before the elections. As with most high-profile books, W. will likely be embargoed from talking until his book is released--far too late to change the minds of any voters.
I love this reaction to the news that the Bush Memoirs are being released in November:
One prominent conservative compared the Bushies'
public-relations savvy to LeBron James.
Last night a fan at a Cleveland/Yankee game had to be escorted out of the stadium because he wore a LeBron Miami Heat jersey in Cleveland. Here's the reaction.
In the meantime, if the Obama administration has their way in the media, the weeks before the election could be about revisiting issues the party still has nightmares about: Why didn't we find WMD in Iraq? Did the Bush administration drop the ball on Afghanistan? What did the administration do to stave off the collapse of our economy? Was Alan Greenspan right that the Bush-led Republicans "deserved to lose"? Not to mention Katrina and "Heckuva job, Brownie" and prisoner-abuse scandals and on and on—discussed by the same cast of characters from Rove to Perino to Gillespie who presided when Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barack Obama came to power in the first place.
How soon will it be before Rahm Emanuel and James Carville circulate excerpts of Decision Points to major media outlets to get that conversation started? Maybe they'll even co-host the former president's book party.
My hope is that Meet The Press, Face The Nation, FAUX News Sunday, This Week and many others will have George Bush on for a lengthy interview so he can taut his book. Keep your fingers crossed.
The news surrounding the pending congressional ethics trial of Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) is all quite confusing. Despite reports that he has reached a settlement in the case, the House Ethics committee moved forward with his trial.
People familiar with the talks say representatives of New York Democrat Charles Rangel and lawyers for the House ethics committee have reached a plea deal in his ethics case. However, committee members have not agreed to the settlement.
It was not immediately clear how many of the 13 charges of ethical violations Rangel agreed to accept.
The committee did meet, and the charges against Rep. Rangel were read. A full copy can be read here (PDF). There are some eyebrow-raising charges, including a failure to report $600,000 of income on his congressional disclosure statements, along with rental income from a Dominican Republic property he purchased in 2005.
This sequence on pages 11-12 got my attention:
78. In April 2008, Respondent met with CCNY officials and AIG officials (the "AIG meeting"), including Edward "Ned" Cloonan, a federally-registered lobbyist, regarding the Rangel Center. The briefing memo prepared for Respondent by CCNY stated the objective of the meeting was to "close $10M gift for the Rangel Center to create AIG Hall."
79. At the AIG meeting, a potential donation to the Rangel Center was discussed. AIG raised concerns about a potential donation, including the potential headline risk. Respondent asked AIG, at least twice, what was necessary to get this done.
Seriously? AIG? In 2008? As the ethics report points out, AIG lobbied members of the House of Representatives on income tax issues, free trade issues and treaty issues. As head of the Ways and Means Committee, Rangel stepped way out of line when he undertook dealings with Verizon, AIG, Nabors Industries and others. That should be enough right there.
Will there be a trial? I'm guessing here, but I think the deal may involve a public release and reading of the charges, and his admission to the understatements of income on his disclosure statements. Ultimately, the charges are damning enough on their face to disgrace him. After all, if the Democrats want to point the finger at Newt Gingrich, Dick Armey, et al, then Charlie Rangel surely must also be a target, particularly with the evidence against him.
Charlie Rangel is 80 years old. He's been in Congress since 1971. At some point, his desire for a "legacy" outweighed any sense of ethics he had. So much of these charges center around his apparent need to have the Rangel Center become reality that he used his stationery, his station and evidently traded his soul for it. It's not a day to celebrate, but I am glad to see it coming to light.
If Democrats are smart, they'll point to the fact that at least they're cleaning out the rotten apples, whereas the Republicans double down and let the Vitters and Ensigns rot in the barrel along with everything else. It's about the best outcome there is, given that Charlie Rangel really doesn't have much of a defense for these charges.
Nicholas Phillips at the Riverfront Times takes note of this YouTube video from a Tea Party/Patriot movement outfit calling itself Don't Tread On Me, which apparently is planning a movie documenting the "Patriot uprising" against President Obama and the eeeeeeevil Marxist/socialist/fascist Democrats.
Among the featured guests on the video are a couple of Missouri Republican House legislators: Rep. Cynthia Davis, who you may remember for her proclamation that "hunger can be a motivating force", which is why we shouldn't give kids school lunches; and Rep. Brian Nieves, who got some attention earlier this month for his goofy political demanding Obama and Muslims "leave us alone".
The theme of the video is that eventually, "patriots" are going to have to take up arms against the eeeeeevil Democrats. Nieves, for instance, intones:
Thirty years from now, somebody's going to ask you what you did during the patriot uprising.
Davis adds:
We're drawing the line in the sand and saying, 'This is our territory.'
But hey, those Tea Partiers are just normal, sane people who only want to advocate for fiscal restraint. Right? Right?
Choosing bluster over blushing, Breitbart told Matt Lewis in a Politics Daily interview: "I couldn't wait to get this story. I knew from past experience that I had a news cycle to get this out." Later in the interview, Breitbart underscored his cavalier publish-or-perish approach to fact-checking: "It had to be done at the exact moment in time that the press would notice it." A new report by the Project for Excellence in Journalism details how the Sherrod charade migrated from conservative blogs taking their cues from Breitbart to Fox News and then to CNN.
Breitbart is just a symbol of a larger problem that transcends the poison-pen politics of ideological warriors (of both the right and left) and the slippery ethics of the blogosphere. We have collectively blundered into a P.T. Barnum media age when being first trumps being accurate. The economic rewards of the Internet flow to those who win the search-engine wars by being fast and furious rather than to those laggards who wait to be accurate and comprehensive. It is as if the motto of today's journalism has become: "He who dies with the most clicks wins."
Every second, we are mentally assaulted by hyperbolic cable TV "breaking news" alerts, data bursts and Twitter trivia. Meaning and context disappear amid the bite-sized news nuggets. In the world of politics, every new poll, TV ad and opposition-research press release is treated as a game changer on par with Newt Gingrich handing down the Contract With America from Mount Sinai. If everything is equally important, then simultaneously everything is equally unimportant.
I have to wonder: Did Walter Shapiro simply sleep through the Whitewater "scandal" that was freshly fueled every single day by the New York Times? Yeah, I get his point. I think the news cycle does drive inaccuracy. But bloggers didn't invent this "go-go" news mentality, they only learned to take advantage of it. Even the voracious cable networks didn't invent it - they only sped it up.
Clutching your pearls and pointing to "ideological warriors" isn't going to solve the problem. (I mean, you're pointing to Newt's Contract On America as a "game changer" when it was really a bunch of meaningless blather. What made it a "game changer" was the relentless repetition by the Beltway bobbleheads. They kept talking about it as if it were meaningful, and so people began to take it seriously.)
But the biggest factor is that the corporations that own and direct news organizations care only about the bottom line. It's to their benefit to hype news as much as possible. That gets more viewers, more viewers means higher ratings, and higher ratings mean more lucrative ad sales.
As much as I can't stand this amoral man, Andrew Breitbart isn't the problem. He's only a con man who's learned how to game this sick corporate culture. If the news business weren't so eager to chase every ad dollar (remember, once upon a time, network news operated at a loss and was considered to be a public service) and to curry favor with corporate conservatives, they wouldn't be so eager to bite at every juicy fabrication tossed their way by the likes of Breitbart.
Fox News? They're in a category by themselves. They jump at everything and don't care all that much if it's accurate -- just as long as it makes Democrats look bad. After all, that's why they exist.
Oh, and Walter? As a rule of thumb, liberal bloggers aren't the ones with the "slippery ethics." If you weren't using that lazy "he said, she said" tactic and throwing false equivalence into a story to appear "fair," you'd know that liberal bloggers, perhaps even more than the corporate journalists, actually try to get the facts straight. (Even though most of us aren't getting a paycheck to do so.) We don't manufacture stories out of whole cloth, nor do we knowingly twist and distort facts. (*cough* Judy Miller *cough*)
That's because the corporate news media has much higher standards for vetting anything liberals tell them. When a conservative blogger plants a "factual" smear, all he or she has to do to get it out there and then whine that the biased "liberal media" won't pick up their story! (See "New Black Panthers".)
Meanwhile, liberal bloggers get attacked simply for having opinions and sharing them with each other -- even though we are opinion writers. (See the difference?)
If you were doing your job, you wouldn't need me to tell you that. You'd already know. Instead, you sound like Grandpa Simpson, yelling at those damned blogger kids to get the hell off your lawn.
