Not long after Katrina, Kayne West said that George Bush doesn't like Black people. It's also true that George Bush doesn't like to follow the law.
MoveOn.org's Political Action group has a great new ad out, called Breaking the Law. The real question is, is GWB the son of George Bush or Richard Nixon? Check it out before you answer.
The Word of the Week on the Colbert Report.
This clip, via Crooks and Liars, is hysterical. It points out the sad, but true fact that Americans are voting against their interests and what that means for them.
Democracy Now has a transcript of author Gore Vidal, who delivered his own version of the State of the Union, which he has done since the '70s. His current SOTU address: "Let the Powers That Be Know There is Something Called We the People of the U.S. and all Sovereignty Rests in Us."
My favorite spot for videos, onegoodmove, explores the Daily Show entering the fray into the world of George Bush and James Fray/Oprah, in: A Million Little Laughs, or A Million Little Lies.
It's that office builidng (now Hotel) in D.C., right?
Parody blogger Spittle & Ink gives us an idea of how things might have turned out If Today's Media Reported Watergate.
It's funny, for sure, but it does make you wonder.
"We boxed them in," one lawyer present during the strategy meetings said with pride in an interview over the weekend. This lawyer and others present who described the meeting were granted anonymity because the meetings were confidential and because the team had told its allies not to exult publicly until the confirmation vote was cast.
This quote is from an excellent article in the NYT, titled In Alito, G.O.P. Reaps Harvest Planted in '82. The entire article should be read for the insight it gives into the evolution of the conservative judicial movement.
This quote, however, was especially revealing to me. It's funny, but as the Alito nomination has progressed to its inevitable denouement, I couldn't help but think that the Republicans were sitting back gloating about the whole thing. I could almost picture them chuckling behind closed doors at the helpless spectacle of the Democrats floundering in a futile attempt to stop the "done deal" as the article refers to it.
In fact, I almost blogged about it on several occasions. I could just picture it. It had to be. The same people that believe in a "scorched earth" policy also believe in celebrating victory over the spoils. And now, my imaginary vision (nightmare?) has been confirmed.
The Houston Chronicle reports the sad news about Molly Ivins: Ivins' breast cancer returns.
As I said recently in Ditto, she's the best thing there is about Texas.
Give 'em hell, Molly. Just like you do to GWB.
Discussing Bush's News Conference, Dana Milbank of the Washington Post, in his column Trying to Maintain Control of the State, in a State of Confusion, aptly observed:
In all, Bush uttered nearly 7,000 words in his 45-minute Q&A. But his message could be summed up with a brief phrase in his least-favorite language: L'Etat c'est moi (I am the state).
His approval of a program to eavesdrop without warrants: "As I stand here right now, I can tell the American people the program is legal," he certified.
His refusal to release photos of him with Abramoff: "They're not relevant to the investigation."
His view on congressional anti-torture legislation: "Conducting war is a responsibility in the executive branch, not the legislative branch."
His refusal to provide Congress with testimony about the federal response to Hurricane Katrina: "That's just the way it works."
Midway through this Bourbonic performance, the Los Angeles Times's James Gerstenzang offered an observation on Bush's surveillance policy: "This seems to sound like something President Nixon once said, which was: 'When the president does it, then that means that it's not illegal.' " Whispered "oohs" could be heard in the room.
Buffalo alternative weekly, the BEAST, is pretty raunchy (but hysterical and well written), so it's worth checking out its 50 Most Loathsome People in America, which is the self-described, disturbingly popular annual list of the foulest among us, for a particularly objectionable year, 2005.
See if your favorite repugnant (republican) is there and where he/she is on the list!
I would ordinarily say that this is unbelievable, except for the fact that, with the Bush Administration, it's par for the course.
A Knight-Ridder Washington Bureau article, In 2002, Justice Department said eavesdropping law working well, reports:A July 2002 Justice Department statement to a Senate committee appears to contradict several key arguments that the Bush administration is making to defend its eavesdropping on U.S. citizens without court warrants.
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the law governing such operations, was working well, the department said in 2002. A "significant review" would be needed to determine whether FISA's legal requirements for obtaining warrants should be loosened because they hampered counterterrorism efforts, the department said then.
The article cites a piece from Glen Greenwald's blog, Unclaimed Territory, The Administration's new FISA defense is factually false, which details the 2002 DOJ Statement. Greenwald is very good and the whole piece is worth reading. As he notes:By that time, the Administration had already been engaging in eavesdropping outside of the parameters of FISA, and yet the DoJ itself was expressing serious doubts about the constitutionality of that eavesdropping and even warned that engaging in it might harm national security because it would jeopardize prosecutions against terrorists. Put another way, the DoJ was concerned that it might be unconstitutional to eavesdrop with a lower standard than probable cause even as the Administration was doing exactly that.
In other words: We don't need to change the Law, we're already ignoring it.
UPDATE: The LA Times has also has an article on the subject, Words, Deeds on Spying Differed, which quotes an ACLU attorney's charge that the Bush Administration is guilty of "'remarkable duplicity' for having testified in public against the legal change while carrying it out in private."
Peter Daou, who blogs at Salon, has a post which is related to our LWL ("Ladies Who Lunch") conversation today, at the Daou Report. As Daou notes: To illustrate the power of the media to shape public opinion, simply imagine what would happen if the cable nets and the print media and the elite punditocracy treated the warrantless spying scandal with the same round-the-clock intensity as the Swift-boating of Kerry or the Natalee Holloway disappearance. Suppose Lewinsky-style headlines blared about impeachment and presidential law-breaking. Suppose the question of the day on every cable net was, "Should Bush be impeached for violating the Constitution?" The media can create a crisis -- and can squelch one. The media can deliver narratives, they can frame events, they can shape the way Americans see the political landscape. A disproportionate amount of power is wielded by a handful of opinion-shapers, and when these individuals tell America a story that favors the right and marginalizes the left, the remedies are few. What's the common thread running through the past half-decade of Bush's presidency? What's the nexus between the Swift-boating of Kerry, the Swift-boating of Murtha, and the guilt-by-association between Democrats and terrorists? Why has a seemingly endless string of administration scandals faded into oblivion? Why do Democrats keep losing elections? It's this: the traditional media, the trusted media, the "neutral" media, have become the chief delivery mechanism of potent anti-Democratic and pro-Bush storylines. And the Democratic establishment appears to be either ignorant of this political quandary or unwilling to fight it.
How true.
The LWL were discussing the fact that the Republican Party manages to maintain control by requiring strict adherence to the "party line." A Stepford Party, if you will. The desire not just to win, but to adopt a "scorched earth" policy to emasculate and destroy dissenters (of either party) has assisted in this regard. Democrats haven't been able to adjust to this unrelenting assault on every statement, every position they try to take. The end result is that most Democratic Party leaders can't take a stand on any issue. They are afraid to be attacked by the vicious Republicans or to alienate someone who might possibly still vote for them. Instead they alienate even their "base" of supporters by being so wimpy.
The press has contributed to this by being so reluctant (afraid?) to criticize the Bush Administration or the Republican Party. It's amazing the difference a new Administration makes! With Clinton, the press was perfectly prepared to attack and point out any and all potential missteps, lies and crimes, real or imagined.
With Bush? Nada. Fair and balanced is the new mantra. If Bush or someone in the Administration says UP, the press reports that, without any question, and merely adds that the Democrats dispute UP by saying DOWN. No independent reporting that UP is incorrect, misleading or an outright lie (or, if it should ever by chance occur, that UP is correct). Instead, the press merely recites the words from both sides, leaving the reader without a clue as to the "truth."
The power of the press to do good or evil is great. As Daou posits:
