I can't agree more with Moore

Senate to Middle Class: Drop Dead ............ Friday, December 12th, 2008

Friends,

They could have given the loan on the condition that the automakers start building only cars and mass transit that reduce our dependency on oil.

They could have given the loan on the condition that the automakers build cars that reduce global warming.

They could have given the loan on the condition that the automakers withdraw their many lawsuits against state governments in their attempts to not comply with our environmental laws.

They could have given the loan on the condition that the management team which drove these once-great manufacturers into the ground resign and be replaced with a team who understands the transportation needs of the 21st century.

Yes, they could have given the loan for any of these reasons because, in the end, to lose our manufacturing infrastructure and throw 3 million people out of work would be a catastrophe.

But instead, the Senate said, we'll give you the loan only if the factory workers take a $20 an hour cut in wages, pension and health care. That's right. After giving BILLIONS to Wall Street hucksters and criminal investment bankers -- billions with no strings attached and, as we have since learned, no oversight whatsoever -- the Senate decided it is more important to break a union, more important to throw middle class wage earners into the ranks of the working poor than to prevent the total collapse of industrial America.

We have a little more than a month to go of this madness. As I sit here in Michigan today, tens of thousands of hard working, honest, decent Americans do not believe they can make it to January 20th. The malaise here is astounding. Why must they suffer because of the mistakes of every CEO from Roger Smith to Rick Wagoner? Make management and the boards of directors and the shareholders pay for this.

Of course that is heresy to the 31 Republicans who decided to blame the poor, miserable autoworkers for this mess. And our wonderful media complied with their spin on the morning news shows: "UAW Refuses to Give Concessions Killing Auto Bailout Bill." In fact the UAW has given concession after concession, reduced their benefits, agreed to get rid of the Jobs Bank and agreed to make it harder for their retirees to live from week to week. Yes! That's what we need to do! It's the Jobs Bank and the old people who have led the nation to economic ruin!

But even doing all that wasn't enough to satisfy the bastard Republicans. These Senate vampires wanted blood. Blue collar blood. You see, they weren't opposed to the bailout because they believed in the free market or capitalism. No, they were opposed to the bailout because they're opposed to workers making a decent wage. In their rage, they were driven to destroy the backbone of this country, not because the UAW hadn't given back enough, but because the UAW hadn't given up.

It appears that the sitting President has been looking for a way to end his reign by one magnanimous act, just like a warlord on his feast day. He will put his finger in the dyke, and the fragile mess of an auto industry will eke through the next few months.

That will give the Senate enough time to demand that the bankers and investment sharks who've already swiped nearly half of the $700 billion gift a chance to make the offer of cutting their pay.

Fat chance.

Yours,
Michael Moore

US re-examines Afghan civilian deaths.....

Unfortunately we can't simply bomb and destroy villages in sovereign nations like Afghanistan by killing innocent civilians - including children - regardless of how much we want to 'get Bin Laden'. When we kill innocents, we are just as bad as the enemy... and saying that they hide behind the civilians and often look just like them is no excuse - that is our problem - not theirs!

If we can't work more closely with the Afghanstan government to prevent such tragedies, perhaps we should simply pull out of there too and with international surveillance keep the various terrorists at bay as a police action rather than massive military search and destroy tactics.

I hope our new president, whomever he may be, has the sense to figure this out - we don't need any more enemies!

US re-examines Afghan civilian deaths from attack
By JASON STRAZIUSO, Associated Press Writer

KABUL, Afghanistan - The U.S. military said Sunday it has new evidence about civilian casualties from an American attack that Afghanistan says killed scores of women and children and it is sending a senior officer to the country to review its initial finding that no more than seven civilians died.

The military did not say what new information had emerged. But Afghan and Western officials say Afghanistan's intelligence agency and the U.N. both have video of the aftermath of the Aug. 22 airstrikes on Azizabad village showing dozens of dead women and children.

"In light of emerging evidence pertaining to civilian casualties in the August 22 counter-insurgency operation in the Shindand District, Herat province, I feel it is prudent to request that U.S. Central Command send a general officer to review the U.S. investigation and its findings with respect to this new evidence," Gen. David McKiernan — the senior U.S. officer in Afghanistan and the commander of the 40-nation NATO-led mission — said in a statement.

"The people of Afghanistan have our commitment to get to the truth," he added.

The attack has further strained relations between Afghanistan's U.S.-backed President Hamid Karzai and the foreign forces operating against the Taliban and al-Qaida in the country.

An Afghan government commission has said 90 civilians, including 60 children and 15 women, died in the bombings, a finding that the U.N. backed in its own initial report.

But an initial U.S. investigation released Tuesday said only up to seven civilians and 35 militants were killed in the operation in the western province of Herat.

A U.N. official who has seen one video of Azizabad told The Associated Press it shows maimed children. The official became highly emotional describing rows of bodies.

A second Western official has said one video shows bodies of "tens of children" lined up and he called the video "gruesome." The two officials spoke on condition they not be identified because the videos had not been publicly released.

Although the U.S. said Tuesday its investigation of the attack was complete, the military at that time appeared to leave open the possibility that photographs or video from the scene could emerge. American officials said privately last week that they were aware photographic evidence apparently existed, but that they did not have access to it.

"No other evidence that may have been collected by other organizations was provided to the U.S. investigating officer and therefore could not be considered in the findings," the initial U.S. report said.

On Saturday, a statement attributed to McKiernan on Azizabad said: "We realize there is a large discrepancy between the number of civilians casualties reported" and McKiernan would continue to "try to account for this disparity."

The New York Times reported on its Web site Sunday that one of its reporters had seen cell phone video in Azizabad of at least 11 dead children among some 30 to 40 bodies laid out in the village mosque. The Times also said Azizabad had 42 freshly dug graves, including 13 so small they could hold only children.

Karzai has for years warned the U.S. and NATO that it must stop killing civilians in its bombing runs, saying such deaths undermine his government and the international mission. But the Azizabad incident could finally push Karzai to take action.

Shortly after the Azizabad attack, he ordered a review of whether the U.S. and NATO should be allowed to use airstrikes or carry out raids in villages. He also called for an updated "status of force" agreement between the Afghan government and foreign militaries. That review has not yet been completed.

Nek Mohammad Ishaq, a provincial council member in Herat and a member of the Afghan investigating commission, has said photographs and video taken of the victims are with Afghanistan's secretive intelligence service.

Ahmad Nader Nadery, spokesman for Afghanistan's Independent Human Rights Commission, has said a villager named Reza, whose compound bore the brunt of the attack, had a private security company that worked for the U.S. military at nearby Shindand airport.

Villagers and officials have said the operation was based on faulty information provided by a rival of Reza. Aziz Ahmad Nadem, a member of parliament from Herat, has told the AP that the rival is now being protected by the U.S. military.

Afghan officials say U.S. special forces and Afghan commandos raided the village while hundreds of people were gathered in a large compound for a memorial service honoring a tribal leader, Timor Shah, who was killed eight months ago by a rival, Nader Tawakal. Reza, who was killed in the Aug. 22 operation, is Shah's brother.

The U.S. investigative report released Tuesday said American and Afghan forces took fire from militants while approaching Azizabad and that "justified use of well-aimed small-arms fire and close air support to defend the combined force."

The report said investigators discovered evidence that the militants planned to attack a nearby coalition base. Evidence collected included weapons, explosives, intelligence materials and an access badge to the base, as well as photographs from inside and outside the base.

Associated Press reporter Fisnik Abrashi contributed to this report.

GOVERNMENT PLAN FOR FANNIE, FREDDIE or The Other Shoe Droppeth On Its 'Heels' ! However, note that both presidential candidates agree with the government's position - after all, it is an election year! Also, note that the reason for the government's action is that foreign investment has sold their stocks in the mortgage giants and those stocks have dropped about 90%. Somebody's lost a lot of money - mostly poor dumb working shmuck's 401k's, I'll bet! (all of the smart money bailed a long time ago - gives you a good reason for not wanting Social Security to be privatized - it wouldn't be funded by smart money any more than 401k's are.) After all, it has become increasingly true that Americans don't actually own America - the rest of the world does. So we had better keep on showing a profit or we'll be dumped - it is very easy to sell stock - and we don't even have any industry left! I heard someone during the Republican convention remark that we shouldn't be trying to get along with the rest of the world because our own principles are more important! I wondered at the time what American principles she was talking about. The epic decision highlights the size of the threats facing the housing market and the economy. On Friday, Nevada regulators shut down Silver State Bank, the 11th failure this year of a federally insured bank. And earlier this year, the government orchestrated the takeover of investment bank Bear Stearns by JP Morgan Chase. "Any government action must help to strengthen our economy, which is suffering a crisis brought on by the administration's failure to stop predatory lending," said Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., who chairs the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. "Any intervention also must minimize the cost to American taxpayers, and should not put other financial institutions at risk." GOVERNMENT PLAN FOR FANNIE, FREDDIE TO HIT SHAREHOLDERS By John Poirier and Patrick Rucker The U.S. government plans to take over Fannie Mae (FNM.N) and Freddie Mac (FRE.N) and all shareholders of the two mortgage giants will take a hit, an influential lawmaker said on Saturday. The move to take control of the two companies, expected to be announced on Sunday, could amount to the largest financial bailout in the nation's history, and is a bid to ward off further damage to a housing market in its deepest downturn since the Great Depression. "I think all shareholders will be disadvantaged," Rep. Barney Frank, chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives Financial Services Committee, told Reuters. "The government will act as the new management," implying the chief executives would be ousted, according to Frank, who spoke to U.S. Treasury Secretary Paulson on Friday about the plan to put the companies into federal conservatorship to protect the interest of all parties. An industry source said the two government-sponsored enterprises were sent a letter by their regulator, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, detailing shortcomings at the companies and explaining why the federal government was taking control. The source said the letter suggested the companies, which own or guarantee almost half of the country's $12 trillion in outstanding home mortgage debt, should agree to the arrangement in order to avoid the more onerous step of being placed in a receivership in the interests of debtholders. In a separate interview with The Washington Post, Frank said the government was expected to control the companies for at least a year as it considers whether they should remain government-run, or be restructured. Paulson, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, and the director of the companies' regulator, James Lockhart, met with the chief executives of the two companies on Friday to detail the plan. Other sources said the boards of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were briefed in meetings or conference calls on Saturday. Fannie Mae argued it was in a stronger capital position than Freddie Mac and had fulfilled a promise to raise funds, but there was no sign that argument gained traction. The U.S. Treasury, the Federal Reserve and Freddie Mac declined to comment. Fannie Mae did not return calls seeking comment. The planned intervention reflects concerns among U.S. officials that financial markets had begun to lose confidence in the companies, after they suffered combined losses of nearly $14 billion in the last four quarters. The stocks of the two companies have fallen more than 90 percent in the past year and in recent months foreign investors have pared their holdings of the companies' securities. In an emergency move in July, the U.S. Congress gave the Treasury the authority to extend an undetermined amount of credit to the companies or take a stake in them if they ran into trouble. ECHOES ON CAMPAIGN TRAIL Paulson discussed the plan with Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama on Friday and Republican candidate Sen. John McCain on Saturday. "I think it has to be done," McCain said in an interview with the CBS program "Face the Nation" to air on Sunday. "There's got to be restructuring, there's got to be reorganization, and there's got to be some confidence that we've stopped this downward spiral." Obama also agreed action was needed. "Intervention was necessary," he said in an interview on the ABC program "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" that will also air on Sunday. But at a campaign stop in Terre Haute, Indiana, he said he was withholding final judgment until he could see details. "We have to protect taxpayers and not bail out the shareholders and management," Obama said. McCain also said it should not be a "bailout of Wall Street speculators and irresponsible executives." FINANCIAL MARKETS SAW IT COMING Financial markets have come to expect that an investment by the U.S. Treasury would explicitly back the companies' $1.6 trillion in debt, but leave their shares nearly valueless. The Washington Post reported on Saturday that the value of the company's common stock would be diluted but not wiped out, while the holdings of other securities, including company debt and preferred shares, would be protected by the government. Separately, The New York Times said the executives and their boards would be replaced and shareholder value diluted, but the companies would be able to continue functioning with the government generally standing behind their debt. Analysts at Citigroup, Merrill Lynch, and Goldman Sachs have issued reports since mid-August saying the companies had plenty of capital to operate for the near term, and both have successfully rolled over debt in the meantime. However, since August22, all the major credit rating agencies have cut their ratings on the companies' preferred stock on expectations that the share price declines had cut access to capital, increasing the need for emergency financial support. While the companies never lost their access to capital markets, the biggest buyers of their debt had grown more cautious. Foreign central banks reduced their holdings of "federal agency" debt in custody at the Federal Reserve in the past week for the seventh week in a row. With foreign demand now in question, "it sounds like they said, 'Why wait until there's a total panic? Let's go ahead and forestall it somewhat.' But there's still so much uncertainty of how investors will be treated," said James McGlynn, portfolio manager at Summit Investment Partners in Southlake, Texas. (Additional reporting by Deborah Charles in Terre Haute, Indiana, Jeff Mason in Colorado Springs, Al Yoon in New York and Mark Felsenthal, David Lawder and Glenn Somerville in Washington; Writing by Tim Ahmann; Editing by Peter Cooney)

Rev. Jeremiah Wright: Revelations

I've been puzzled by Rev. Wright and his relationship with Sen. Obama but think that I may have an explanation for the controversy. Of course, it has been blown up all out of proportion by TV “talking heads” who are mandated to talk, 24/7, about something -- anything. However, not until Rev. Wright was interviewed by Bill Moyers did I begin to 'see the light'!


The Rev. Wright is not one of the ubiquitous Bible thumping preachers of hellfire and damnation, but rather a man who knows American history and has concerns for his poor, mostly black congregation (including Oprah Winfrey?). I recognized this when he mentioned Crispus Attucks in the interview - an interesting patriot but a man little known by most Americans despite being mentioned in most 5th grade textbooks.


Those of us who are students of American history are well aware that we are very far from being a perfect people despite having an eloquent declaration of independence and revolutionary constitution to say nothing of many inspirational speeches such as Lincoln's Gettysburg Address or even Obama's keynote address to the Democratic National Convention in 2004 entitled “The Audacity of Hope” (and title of his 2nd book, BTW).


Our national warts go all the way back to Colonial days when King Philip, an Indian chief, fought a bloody war with the New England colonists over loss of hunting grounds. Then during the French and Indian wars because of mistreatment by the English colonists, the Indians sided with the French who paid bounty on English scalps – and were defeated. During the Revolutionary War, the Indians decided the English had treated them much better than the colonists and again rose up against Americans – and lost yet again. Aside from a short battle with the egomaniac Custer, American tribes have never won against their invaders.


Of course, we all know our nation, including our founding fathers, based our economy upon slave labor despite the fact that slavery had been abolished in England and most of Europe by the 1780's – before the Revolutionary War ended! It is interesting to note that widowed, Thomas Jefferson, who probably fathered several children by his slave mistress, Sally Hemings, took her (and her brother) with him to France in 1784 where they lived for the next five years. While in France, Sally and her brother could have chosen freedom in France since slavery had been outlawed. But they chose to return and live at Monticello with Jefferson – obviously a great man whose slaves had volunteered their servitude!


Nor have we Americans been kind to any of our 'melting pot' immigrants. Our treatment of the Irish, Italians, Jews, Chinese, Japanese, and now Mexicans, has been deplorable – yet they all have persisted and been assimilated, despite our hatreds and bigotry. In fact, many of them with short memories have become -- us.


This history, I think, is what Rev. Wright was reminding his congregation about since most of them live in a defunct industrial area, deserted by corporate America and left to rot and starve along with other workers throughout most of the 'rust belt' -- just as the orange glow from Pittsburgh's blast furnaces no longer light up the nighttime skies I remember many years ago.


But this doesn't explain Wrights timing and media-prompted embarrassment to Senator Obama.
First, I think we have to note that despite the fact that Obama appears to be black, it is not American blacks who have elected him to the position he enjoys in the U.S. Senate nor will he be elected President of the United States by anyone other than whites! Despite his appearance, he is at least as white, as black. In fact, although he was well received at last year' NAACP convention, many there questioned whether he was “black enough”!


And indeed, white's constitute three quarters of the American population while blacks are less than one in eight. One should consider also that of the two more or less equally populous groups, blacks and hispanics, there are more black people who prefer Sen. Clinton than there are Hispanics who prefer Obama! Thus, obviously, Obama's bread is buttered by white people, not any other ethnic group.


As a postscript -- after listening to Rev. Wright's speech tonight to the Michigan NAACP on CNN.... and after having already written my op-ed, above. Let me add it was a wonderful sermon on the subject of 'Difference is not Deficiency' -- certainly something that Barack Obama, would embrace – as do I.


It will be interesting what the spinsters put on – and invent about this. I understand that the Republicans are now promoting Hillery Clinton because they're scared to death of the phenomenon of Obama! Stay tuned!

Obama's latest

At last, there is a modicum of fireworks on the campaign trail with Obama telling it as it is and the "others" capitalizing on "political corectness"! I think that all of us who think must agree that Obama has spoken the truth and burst the bubble of political hypocracy which caters to the universal sensitivity of "the we".

Obama says some voters are angry, bitter

By JIM KUHNHENN, Associated Press Writer

TERRE HAUTE, Ind. In the midst of an assault from his rivals, a defensive Barack Obama said Friday that many working-class Americans are angry and bitter over economic inequalities and have lost faith in Washington — and, as a result, vote
on the basis of other issues such as gun protections or gay marriage.

The Illinois senator's analysis of what motivates working-class voters came after chief rival Hillary Rodham Clinton accused him of looking down on such voters. Clinton rebuked Obama on Friday for similar remarks he made privately last Sunday to a group of donors in San Francisco.

"People don't vote on economic issues because they don't expect anybody is going to help them," Obama told a crowd at a Terre Haute, Ind., high school Friday evening. "So people end up voting on issues like guns and are they going to have the right to bear arms. They vote on issues like gay marriage. They take refuge in their faith and their community, and their family, and the things they can count on. But they don't believe they can count on Washington."

The Huffington Post Web site reported Friday that Obama, speaking of some Pennsylvanians' economic anxieties, told supporters at the San Francisco fundraiser: "You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years.

... And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

In Terre Haute, Obama said he did describe some voters as bitter when a donor asked why working-class voters in Pennsylvania were not getting behind his campaign.

"Well, that's not my experience," Clinton told a Drexel University crowd, describing the state's residents as resilient, optimistic and hardworking."Pennsylvanians don't need a president who looks down on them," she said. "They need a president who stands up for them."

Steve Schmidt, a spokesman for Republican candidate John McCain, described Obama's comments as "condescending" and "out of touch."

In Terre Haute, Obama chided McCain for not responding promptly to the home mortgage crisis and criticized Clinton for voting for a bankruptcy bill supported by credit card companies."

No, I'm IN touch," he said. "I know exactly what's going on. People are fed up, they are angry, they're frustrated and they're bitter. And they want to see a change in Washington."

Clinton spokesman Phil Singer said Friday night, "Instead of apologizing for offending small-town America, Senator Obama chose to repeat and embrace the comments he made earlier this week."

Tucker Bounds, a spokesman for McCain, said Friday: "Only an elitist would say that people vote their values only out of frustration. ... You can't be more out of touch than that."

........................................................................

---- Oh tell me more Senator McCain, tell us what you know of or have ever known of middle class Americans... or you too, Hillary.... Neither of you had the luxury of being middle class!

A Note from Move-On

Dear MoveOn member,

For all the coverage this week of Senator John McCain's background, there are some important things you won't learn about him from the TV networks. His carefully crafted positive image relies on people not knowing this stuff—and you might be surprised by some of it.

Please check out the list below, and then forward it to your friends, family, and coworkers. We can't rely on the media to tell folks about the real John McCain—but if we all pass this along, we can reach as many people as CNN Headline News does on a good night.

10 things you should know about John McCain (but probably don't):

1. John McCain voted against establishing a national holiday in honor of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Now he says his position has "evolved," yet he's continued to oppose key civil rights laws

2. According to Bloomberg News, McCain is more hawkish than Bush on Iraq, Russia and China. Conservative columnist Pat Buchanan says McCain "will make Cheney look like Gandhi."

3. His reputation is built on his opposition to torture, but McCain voted against a bill to ban waterboarding, and then applauded President Bush for vetoing that ban.

4. McCain opposes a woman's right to choose. He said, "I do not support Roe versus Wade. It should be overturned."

5. The Children's Defense Fund rated McCain as the worst senator in Congress for children. He voted against the children's health care bill last year, then defended Bush's veto of the bill.

6. He's one of the richest people in a Senate filled with millionaires. The Associated Press reports he and his wife own at least eight homes! Yet McCain says the solution to the housing crisis is for people facing foreclosure to get a "second job" and skip their vacations.

7. Many of McCain's fellow Republican senators say he's too reckless to be commander in chief. One Republican senator said: "The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine. He's erratic. He's hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me."

8. McCain talks a lot about taking on special interests, but his campaign manager and top advisers are actually lobbyists. The government watchdog group Public Citizen says McCain has 59 lobbyists raising money for his campaign, more than any of the other presidential candidates.

9. McCain has sought closer ties to the extreme religious right in recent years. The pastor McCain calls his "spiritual guide," Rod Parsley, believes America's founding mission is to destroy Islam, which he calls a "false religion." McCain sought the political support of right-wing preacher John Hagee, who believes Hurricane Katrina was God's punishment for gay rights and called the Catholic Church "the Antichrist" and a "false cult."

10. He positions himself as pro-environment, but he scored a 0—yes, zero—from the League of Conservation Voters last year.

John McCain is not who the Washington press corps make him out to be. Please help get the word out—forward this email to your personal network.

And if you want us to keep you posted on MoveOn's work to get the truth out about John McCain, sign up here:
http://pol.moveon.org/mccaintruth/?id=12407-8309733-1f.JfE&t=232
Thank you for all you do.
–Eli, Justin, Noah, Laura, and the MoveOn.org Political Action Team Saturday, April 5th, 2008
Sources: 1. "The Complicated History of John McCain and MLK Day," ABC News, April 3, 2008 http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/04/the-complicated.html
"McCain Facts," ColorOfChange.org, April 4, 2008 http://colorofchange.org/mccain_facts/
2. "McCain More Hawkish Than Bush on Russia, China, Iraq," Bloomberg News, March 12, 2008 http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aF28rSCtk0ZM&refer=us
"Buchanan: John McCain 'Will Make Cheney Look Like Gandhi,'" ThinkProgress, February 6, 2008 http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/06/buchanan-gandhi-mccain/
3. "McCain Sides With Bush On Torture Again, Supports Veto Of Anti-Waterboarding Bill," ThinkProgress, February 20, 2008 http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/20/mccain-torture-veto/
4. "McCain says Roe v. Wade should be overturned," MSNBC, February 18, 2007 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17222147/
5. "2007 Children's Defense Fund Action Council® Nonpartisan Congressional Scorecard," February 2008 http://www.childrensdefense.org/site/PageServer?pagename=act_learn_scorecard2007
"McCain: Bush right to veto kids health insurance expansion," CNN, October 3, 2007 http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/03/mccain.interview/
6. "Beer Executive Could Be Next First Lady," Associated Press, April 3, 2008 http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h-S1sWHm0tchtdMP5LcLywg5ZtMgD8VQ86M80
"McCain Says Bank Bailout Should End `Systemic Risk,'" Bloomberg News, March 25, 2008 http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aHMiDVYaXZFM&refer=home
7. "Will McCain's Temper Be a Liability?," Associated Press, February 16, 2008 http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=4301022
"Famed McCain temper is tamed," Boston Globe, January 27, 2008 http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/01/27/famed_mccain_temper_is_tamed/
8. "Black Claims McCain's Campaign Is Above Lobbyist Influence: 'I Don't Know What The Criticism Is,'" ThinkProgress, April 2, 2008 http://thinkprogress.org/2008/04/02/mccain-black-lobbyist/
"McCain's Lobbyist Friends Rally 'Round Their Man," ABC News, January 29, 2008 http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4210251
9. "McCain's Spiritual Guide: Destroy Islam," Mother Jones Magazine, March 12, 2008 http://www.motherjones.com/washington_dispatch/2008/03/john-mccain-rod-parsley-spiritual-guide.html
"Will McCain Specifically 'Repudiate' Hagee's Anti-Gay Comments?," ThinkProgress, March 12, 2008 http://thinkprogress.org/2008/03/12/mccain-hagee-anti-gay/
"McCain 'Very Honored' By Support Of Pastor Preaching 'End-Time Confrontation With Iran,'" ThinkProgress, February 28, 2008 http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/28/hagee-mccain-endorsement/ 10. "John McCain Gets a Zero Rating for His Environmental Record," Sierra Club, February 28, 2008 http://www.alternet.org/blogs/environment/77913/

Iraqis > Who Cares?

Well now, this certainly makes one wonder why we're risking the necks of our servicemen in Iraq. Granted, those interviewed may have been specially selected or there may have been some other motive but Reuters is a large reputable news organization and I find this article very interesting although not statistically significant.

We've long known that many of the people in Iraq want us out but have assumed that most like to have us there. This certainly doesn't address which is the majority, but their opinions are fascinating. I think it would be enlightening for someone other than our government to take a serious poll of the Iraqi people and let us know...

Iraqis search for signs of change in U.S. election

By Aseel Kami Mar 10, 2008

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraqis are avidly watching the 2008 U.S. election race, searching for signs of policy change under a new president and prospects for U.S. troop withdrawals from their country.

"I do not care if the president is a man or a woman, what really matters is the change of American policy towards Iraq," said Muhenad Sahib, a university professor from the southern oil hub of Basra, Iraq's second largest city.

Athil al-Nujaifi, a member of a secular, multi-ethnic political bloc in the volatile northern city of Mosul, said a Democrat victory would offer the United States "a new future." "The current situation in Iraq is tied to President Bush and his inability to admit his mistake in occupying Iraq and his inability to avoid the mistakes the neo-conservatives committed,"

Nujaifi said.Mohammed Shaker, a member of Iraq's biggest Sunni Arab party, the Iraqi Islamic Party, in Mosul, thought the Democrats would win but disagreed with Nujaifi, saying he did not expect U.S. policy to change regardless of the outcome of the election. But he hoped U.S. troops might withdraw anyway because of improving security.

SOME SEE NO IMPACTSome Iraqis felt their lives would be little changed whoever wins the November election.

"I follow the news but I don't care who will win because they are two faces of one coin," said Ali Naji, a 27-year-old shop owner in Iraq's southern holy Shi'ite city of Najaf.Qassim

Ahmed, a photography shop owner in Mosul and father of seven sons, agreed. "We are in a race to make a living for our children. These things will not be any use to us," Ahmed told Reuters.

Many of those across Iraq interviewed by Reuters over the past week felt U.S. voters could do worse than elect Clinton as the first female president of the United States.

"It would be fantastic because a woman has more sense ... she cares more about her life, her family and her people," said Qassim Tuaima, the owner of a Baghdad curtain shop.

Abdul-Latif al-Dulaimi, a 38-year-old architect, agreed, describing Bush as "hasty and stubborn.""Bush led his country to be hated and created violence in many parts of the world," said Dulaimi, who is from the former insurgent stronghold of Falluja just west of Baghdad.

But not all Iraqis are glued to the U.S. election.

"I don't watch it because I do not have a TV set," said Abu Ali, a 50-year-old vegetable shop owner from Saddam Hussein's hometown of Tikrit. "I would love any person who gave me money to buy a TV set."

(Additional reporting by Sabah al-Bazi in Tikrit, Aref Mohammed in Basra, Khaled Farhan in Najaf and Aws Qusay in Baghdad, writing by Paul Tait; Editing by Dominic Evans)

McCain

The right wing likes to claim that the media favors the left wing. However, this really is not the case, as you will see below.John McCain is one of our Arizona senators. There is absolutely no doubt that in the election next November unless something drastic happens, the state of Arizona will choose to elect him to the presidency whether I vote or not and no matter that we Democrats are able to 'get out the vote' or whatever! McCain wins Arizona!

I will vote, of course, because I have always voted just as a poor black angus calf goes up the chute to be bonked on the head and butchered. That's just what we do - me and the calf!

We could demand fairness, one man - one vote, but the states, under the Constitution can make the decision. Almost universally, to satisfy their political machines, to have a 'winner take all system' rather than 'proportional representation'. This is despite the fact that amazingly we claim to be Democratic even though obviously we are not. It is only a fluke when a president wins both the Presidency AND the popular vote! Note that the Republican primaries were based upon the winner take all strategy and nobody could beat McCain.

The Democratic primary is based upon proportional representation and there is much more competition between the cndidates since they are subject to popular vote.

Sure, McCain was a hero of sorts. He was a pilot who was shot down and captured by the North Vietnamese. He spent the rest of the war in a cage. He had no choice and so far as I know did nothing valiant beyond managing to stay alive. Of course, that was not pleasant and he deserves credit for his service as a volunteer rather than being drafted and perhaps shot in a foxhole in the boonies like over 50,000 other guys were in that miserable war.

Frankly, I don't see him as a hero which, to me, means his doing something 'over and above the call of duty' - he was simply a POW!

Never-the-less, he has milked being a hero for over forty years with little else to qualify him for political office. All I can say in fairness is that he isn't the only one using military service as justification for election to office (from both parties). Actually, Sen. Kerry was much more a hero than McCain - and there have been others even more heroic than Kerry!

The Weekly Update from Media Matters for America:

THE MEDIA'S HERO

In the past week, The New York Times has described John McCain as "a Vietnam hero and national security pro." The Associated Press has referred to McCain's "Vietnam War-hero biography." UPI has referred to him as "the
71-year-old Vietnam hero." The Boston Globe called McCain "a 71-year-old war hero." The Buffalo News combined the two descriptions, describing McCain as "a 71-year-old Vietnam War hero." And Newsweek declared McCain "a war hero who is fun to be around." (Such casual invocations of McCain's war record are far from new. Two examples: In 2003, the Las Vegas Review-Journal sneaked a reference to McCain's Vietnam service into the beginning of an article about his efforts to ban gambling on the NCAA basketball tournament. In August 2000, the Chicago Tribune shoehorned McCain's status as a former prisoner of war into a brief article -- just 157 words -- about his skin cancer.)

The week's most intense focus on McCain's status as a war hero came on MSNBC following his appearance with President Bush at the White House. As the blogger Digby noted, MSNBC's
Brian Williams and Chris Matthews gushed over McCain:

WILLIAMS: You know what I thought was unsaid -- they took their position, Chris, we're seeing the replay -- they end up in this spot and the sun is coming is just from the side and there in the shadow is John McCain's buckled, concave shoulder. It's a part of his body the suit doesn't fill out because of his war injuries. Again you wouldn't spot it unless you knew to look for it. He doesn't give the same full chested profile as the president standing next to him. Talk about a warrior...

MATTHEWS: You know, when he was a prisoner all those years, as you know, in isolation from his fellows, I do believe, uhm, and Machiavelli had this
right -- it's not sentimental, it's factual -- the more you give to something, the more you become committed to it. That's true of marriage and children and everything we've committed to in our lives. He committed to his country over there. He made an investment in America, alone in that cell, when he was being tortured and afraid of being put to death at any moment -- and turning down a chance to come home. Those are non-political facts which I think do work for him. When it gets close this November, which I do believe, and you likely agree,
will be a very close contest between him and whoever wins the Democratic fight. And I think people will look at that fact, that here's a man who has invested deeply, and physically and personally in his country.

WILLIAMS: Absolutely. Couldn't agree more. Of course the son of a Navy Admiral, a product of Annapolis who couldn't wait to become a Navy aviator... Williams acknowledged that "you wouldn't spot" McCain's war injury if he hadn't pointed it out.

Indeed, McCain's war record didn't come up, even in passing, during his appearance with Bush. There was no reminder of it in anything Bush or McCain said -- and, as Williams acknowledged, there was no visual indication of it, either. Williams and Matthews brought it up out of the blue. So what's wrong with bringing McCain's status as a war hero up out of the blue, as Williams and Matthews did, as many other news reports did this week? Or even as the Las Vegas Review-Journal and Chicago Tribune did in articles about gambling on the NCAA tournament and skin cancer?

McCain is, after all, a war hero; everybody agrees about that. There isn't anything wrong with Brian Williams and Chris Matthews talking about that.

But Matthews and Williams then agreed, in essence, that John McCain is more "committed" to America than Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. And that the "non-political facts" of McCain's service to his country will have very real political impact.

Well, it certainly will if Chris Matthews and Brian Williams keep telling voters that McCain is more "committed" to America and more "invested ... physically and personally in his country" than his Democratic opponent.

That isn't journalism; it's taking sides. And that illustrates what is troubling about the media's tendency to invoke McCain's admirable service at the drop of a hat: It begins to resemble cheerleading.

It would be virtually inconceivable for news reports to treat McCain's Democratic rivals this way. Try
to imagine a 157-word article about Barack Obama seeking treatment for skin cancer that notes in passing that he opposed the Iraq war in 2002, or an article about Hillary Clinton introducing port security legislation that casually notes her years of work on behalf of children. Seems pretty unlikely, doesn't it?

But non-sequiturs like that occur regularly in coverage of McCain. The effect is to constantly remind voters of what may be the most admirable thing about him, enhancing his reputation on security issues. Which isn't to say that voters are
the only people affected in this way by media coverage of McCain. Reporters apparently are, as well.

The Washington Post reported this week: "Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), the war hero and likely Republican nominee who once dismissed Obama for misspelling 'flak jacket,' has also belittled his credentials,
accusing him last week of making ill-informed comments about Iraq and al-Qaeda."

Had the Post actually looked into the merits of McCain's "flak jacket" attack on Obama rather than assuming that the "war hero" must be correct, the paper might have told readers the truth. The truth is that McCain once falsely accused Obama of misspelling "flak jacket" and that it was McCain who was wrong about the spelling of "flak." (After a written statement from Obama referred to "flack
jackets," McCain issued a statement purporting to correct Obama's spelling: "By the way, Senator Obama, it's a 'flak' jacket, not a 'flack' jacket."

But McCain was wrong, as Media Matters has repeatedly noted. Multiple dictionaries indicate
that both spellings are acceptable, and numerous official U.S. military websites use Obama's spelling. Several reporters have nevertheless repeated McCain's attack on Obama without noting that he was wrong.)

The media's constant repetition of McCain's war record also serves to inoculate him from criticism.
Indeed, media outlets sometimes explicitly invoke McCain's service in response to completely unrelated criticism of him. And this appears to be something McCain himself is encouraging. In February, former Republican presidential nominee Bob Dole wrote a letter to Rush Limbaugh asking Limbaugh to go easy on McCain. In response, Mitt Romney, who was then running against McCain for this year's GOP nomination, said that he wouldn't have had Dole write a letter on his behalf, explaining that "there are a lot of folks that tend to think that maybe John McCain's race is a bit like Bob Dole's race -- that it's the guy who's the next in line; he's the inevitable choice and we'll give it to him, and then, it won't work."

In response, McCain denounced Romney for "disparaging an American hero" -- a reference to Dole's service in World War II. In case McCain's point wasn't clear, he added: "I think Governor Romney should apologize to Bob Dole for that comment. He's a great American, and for Governor Romney, who has never had any military experience, to disparage the service and courage of an American hero, I think is disgraceful."

And again, just in case there was anyone who
still didn't get the point: "[T]o disparage a great American hero like Senator Bob Dole, who led our Republicans in the Senate? I mean, that's -- an apology is in order.

"Romney's comments about Dole had absolutely nothing to do with Dole being "an American hero," absolutely nothing to do with Dole's "service and
courage." Romney's own lack of "military experience" was completely irrelevant.

The standard McCain seemed to be setting was that because of Dole's military service, it is "disgraceful" to criticize him in any way -- even if the criticism has nothing to do with his service.

That's a pretty convenient standard for McCain to set, given his own war record. It is also completely irrational.

It almost goes without saying that the media ate it up with a spoon. MSNBC aired portions of McCain's attacks on Romney without noting that Romney had not in any way disparaged Dole's service, as did NBC's Nightly News with Brian Williams.

Other news reports similarly repeated McCain's attacks without indicating that they were false -- and, of course, without explaining that McCain was in effect declaring that Dole's service renders any criticism of him inappropriate.

A few weeks later, McCain more directly benefited from the apparent willingness of some reporters to stipulate to McCain's premise that any criticism of a
candidate who has served in the military is out of bounds. (Any Republican candidate that is: Neither McCain nor the media applied that standard to past
Democratic candidates like Al Gore and John Kerry, both of whom served in Vietnam.)

On February 20, MSNBC aired a clip of Barack Obama saying, "The American people understand that the last thing we need is to have the same old
folks doing the same old things making the same mistakes over and over and over again."

MSNBC anchor Contessa Brewer then said: "Obama has used that line today, but this time the world 'old' seemed to pop up with more frequency. Was he
taking aim at John McCain's age, an American war hero?"

Set aside for a moment the fact that Obama hadn't even mentioned McCain in the comments in question.

Assume for a moment that Obama was talking about McCain. Pretend that his reference to doing the "same old things" and making the "same mistakes" really was a clever way to reference McCain's advanced age, as Brewer guessed.

What in the world does McCain being "an American war hero" have to do with Obama's comments?

Nothing. Not a damn thing. In fact, just a few sentences after the comments MSNBC aired, Barack Obama made clear the difference between criticizing
McCain and criticizing his service:

OBAMA: I revere and honor John McCain's service to this country. He is a genuine American hero. But when he embraces George Bush's failed economic policies, when he says that he is willing to send
our troops into another 100 years of war in Iraq, then he represents the policies of yesterday. And we want to be the party of tomorrow. And I'm looking
forward to having that debate with John McCain.

And yet MSNBC pretends that Obama's criticism of McCain -- if that is even what he was doing -- is about McCain being "an American war hero."

What's next? Are MSNBC anchors going to respond to Democratic criticism of McCain's tax cuts for the rich by invoking McCain's service? Will they indignantly point to his time as a prisoner of war
the next time someone criticizes McCain for not having an economic plan, or opposing universal health care?

If this is going to be how the media cover this
campaign -- invoking McCain's status as a war hero every time anyone dares criticizes him, or even hints at criticism of him, or even might have hinted at
criticism of him -- they may as well just start wearing "McCain For President" buttons on their lapels and drop the charade that they are anything but in the tank for him.

Tim Russert - sleeze?

Tim Russert? - “Meet the Press”? I feel that I have been deceived by such a likable, 'round, friendly guy' with the perpetual smile and inquisitive 'look' – one who would ask the right questions and find for us the 'actual truth' of the matter....
There is enough below – almost too much – to convince me that my favorite political inquisitor is a paid Trojan horse to honest journalism and should be evicted from the position of influencing the American people on the public airways – at least as a legitimate journalist who only speaks the truth.

Sure there is room for the Rush Limbaugh's because we know who they are and where they stand. We do have free speech, after all. But, after all, sneaky liars and twisters of the truth, pretending to be objective reporters and interviewers should be not only exposed but expunged! I'm very sorry to say that Tim Russert is an evil in our nation and should be denounced and removed from the public influence.

But please don't take my word for it. Read the article I just received from 'Media Matters' with its expose' of Russert. Much of what is reported I do recall but thought little of – since Russert was considered an 'investigative reporter' or actually, 'investigative interviewer'. He didn't appear to have a bias – simply to be a 'devil's advocate'!

But the facts and quotes go on and on and on to the point which I'm overwhelmed by the evidence! Tim Russert must go! Other more honest news reporters have been eliminated for less. I'm posting the entire report from 'Media Matters' without regard to their copyrights because because I feel that they would not mind my spreading of their message in a common interest.

The Weekly Update from Media Matters for America

Meet Tim Russert

"It's never the question that's the problem, Matt, it's the answer." -- NBC's Tim Russert "It's 'never the question that's the problem'? Really? Spoken like the guy who gets to ask the questions." -- CJR's Liz Cox Barrett
MSNBC recently began running commercials touting its coverage of "Decision 2008." One begins with on-screen text asking, "Why do people care about politics?" Viewers then hear Tim Russert explain: "It's about the war. Our sons and daughters. It's about the economy. Our jobs. It's about education. Our schools. It's about health care. Our families' well-being. It's about everything that matters." The ad ends with the on-screen declaration: "That's why you care. That's why we cover it." The serious and high-minded approach to political coverage Russert brags about would be a welcome change from the political coverage for which Russert is responsible. During this week's Democratic presidential debate, Russert didn't ask a single question about global warming, continuing his longstanding habit of all but ignoring the topic. He didn't ask a single question about the mortgage crisis. (As one Cleveland resident noted, "We've got the mortgage industry's toxic waste scattered all over this city, but Mr. Blue-Collar-Buffalo-and-Cleveland-Marshall-Guy Russert couldn't be bothered with a question about it.") He didn't ask a single question about executive power, the Constitution, torture, wiretapping, or other civil-liberties concerns. But that shouldn't come as a surprise; of all the questions he has asked while moderating presidential debates during this campaign, only one has dealt with any of those topics. He has, however, asked Dennis Kucinich what he felt compelled to insist was a "serious question" -- whether Kucinich has seen a UFO. And he has asked about John Edwards' expensive haircut. Funny, Russert doesn't mention UFOs or haircuts in that MSNBC promo. Russert's performance as a moderator of this week's debate has drawn widespread criticism. Most appalling was his bizarre fixation on Louis Farrakhan. Russert asked Barack Obama about Louis Farrakhan's praise for the Illinois senator. Obama, who had previously denounced Farrakhan, did so again. Then Russert asked about Farrakhan again. So Obama reiterated his denunciation. Then Russert, (who, I can only assume, was not bothering to listen to Obama's responses) asked about Farrakhan again. So Obama again reiterated his denunciation. Russert, plowing ahead, asked yet another question about Farrakhan, prompting Obama to answer yet again. Josh Marshall summed up Russert's behavior nicely: "It was a nationwide, televised, MSM version of one of those noxious Obama smear emails."
This wasn't the first time Russert made the odd decision to ask Obama about controversial comments made by a famous African-American. During a 2006 interview, Russert asked Obama about controversial comments Harry Belafonte made the day before. But Belafonte, as Jane Hamsher noted at the time, had made similar comments two weeks before, and Russert had never asked any guest about them. Russert gave no indication of why Obama was uniquely qualified or required to comment on Belafonte's comments. (The only other time Russert has ever asked anyone about any comments made by Harry Belafonte, according to Nexis? 2003, when Russert asked then-Secretary of State Colin Powell about comments Belafonte made about U.S. actions toward Cuba.) Given Russert's badgering of Obama about Farrakhan, you might be wondering how he handles endorsements by controversial figures who have a history of statements that are widely considered to be anti-Semitic ... when the endorser and the endorsed are both white Republicans. Last November, Pat Robertson endorsed Rudy Giuliani during a joint event at the National Press Club where Giuliani praised Robertson as "a person of great, well-deserved reputation." Robertson has endorsed Jerry Falwell's claims that 9-11 was the fault of "abortionists," feminists, and the ACLU. He has suggested that the annual Gay Days event at Disney World would result in "the destruction of your nation. It'll bring about terrorist bombs, it'll bring earthquakes, tornadoes and possibly a meteor." He has linked Hurricane Katrina to legalized abortion. He has said "Jewish people" are "very thrifty" and "very wise in finance." Robertson wrote a bizarre conspiracy theory book called New World Order that, Anthony Lewis noted, "relied [so] heavily on a British anti-Semitic writer of the 1920's, Nesta H. Webster ... one sometimes thinks of plagiarism." Lewis concluded of Robertson: "Perhaps Pat Robertson in his heart is not an anti-Semite. He just thinks a satanic conspiracy led by Jews has threatened the world for centuries. The best you can make of such a defense is that he is a plain, ordinary crackpot." That's who Pat Robertson is; that's who Rudy Giuliani praised as "a person of great, well-deserved reputation." Now: How did Tim Russert react to Giuliani's enthusiastic acceptance of Robertson's endorsement? On Today on November 8, 2007, Russert said it would be "helpful" to Giuliani. In early December, Russert hosted Giuliani on Meet the Press. Russert didn't ask Giuliani a single question about Robertson. On January 24, Russert moderated a GOP debate. Russert didn't ask a single question about Robertson -- even though the debate took place in Florida, which was central to Giuliani's campaign "strategy" and which is home to a large number of Jewish voters who might not look kindly on Robertson's theories about a "satanic conspiracy led by Jews." So: During this week's Democratic debate, Russert grilled Barack Obama about Louis Farrakhan, who Obama had repeatedly denounced prior to the debate, whose praise Obama did not accept, and who Obama reiterated his denunciation of multiple times during the debate.
Yet Russert never once asked Rudy Giuliani about his enthusiastic acceptance of Pat Robertson's endorsement or about his praise for Robertson. Not one question. He never said on NBC or MSNBC a single word about Robertson's history of inflammatory comments causing problems for Giuliani. The double standard couldn't be clearer. The only question is, what it is about Barack Obama and Rudy Giuliani that makes Tim Russert treat them so differently? Why does Tim Russert think Barack Obama and Colin Powell are uniquely required and qualified to talk about Harry Belafonte? Why does Tim Russert think Barack Obama has to explain praise from Louis Farrakhan that he did not accept, but Rudy Giuliani doesn't have to explain an endorsement from Pat Robertson that he did accept? Glenn Greenwald has more. Given the intensity with which Russert questioned Obama about Louis Farrakhan -- a person whom Obama has nothing to do with -- two of Russert's own associations may be of interest:
At the beginning of Russert's June 2004 appearance on Rush Limbaugh's radio show, Limbaugh noted: "We don't have guests on this program, but we made an exception here for our friend Tim Russert of NBC News." Russert replied, "It's an honor to be here, Rush. Thank you very much. " Later, the two reminisced about sharing a steak dinner. Although the appearance came just weeks after Limbaugh's comparison of the torture at Abu Ghraib to a fraternity prank, Russert politely chose not to ask his host about the comments, or about any of Limbaugh's countless inflammatory statements about women and minorities.
Russert was a frequent guest on Don Imus' radio show and appeared just two days after Imus' comments about the Rutgers women's basketball team that ultimately led to his firing. Russert didn't say anything to Imus about the comments, nor did he comment on the Imus controversy in any other forum. Phil Noble noted in the Columbia Journalism Review in 2000 that at least one of Russert's appearances on Imus' radio show featured the two men engaging in what Noble described as "kidding" about homosexuality. Noting Imus' lengthy history of anti-gay rhetoric, Noble concluded: "Russert's kidding was the equivalent of sharing a watermelon joke with David Duke."
Back to this week's debate. Russert asked Obama a question about "keeping your word." When Russert sets up a question by announcing that it is about the candidate's character, there's a pretty good chance that he is about to reveal something about his own. (Last fall, Russert began a question to Hillary Clinton by announcing that the question "goes to the issue of credibility." He was right; the question went to his credibility: Everything he said after that was false. More on that below.) In this case, Russert asked about Obama's position on accepting public financing in for the general election if he is the Democratic nominee:
RUSSERT: Senator Obama, let me ask you about motivating, inspiring, keeping your word. Nothing more important. Last year you said if you were the nominee you would opt for public financing in the general election of the campaign; try to get some of the money out. You checked "Yes" on a questionnaire. And now Senator McCain has said, calling your bluff, let's do it. You seem to be waffling, saying, well, if we can work on an arrangement here. Why won't you keep your word in writing that you made to abide by public financing of the fall election?
This is horribly misleading. In fact, in response to the questionnaire Russert referred to, Obama wrote: "Yes. ... If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election."
So when Obama now says, as Russert puts it, "if we can work on an arrangement," that isn't "waffling," that is entirely consistent with his response to the questionnaire. Russert mischaracterized Obama's response to the questionnaire in order to accuse him of "waffling" and not "keep[ing] your word."
In response, Obama correctly noted that what he had previously said was that if he is the nominee, he will "sit down with John McCain" to pursue an agreement. Russert then followed up: "So you may opt out of public financing. You may break your word." But as Obama had just explained (and as his answer to the very questionnaire Russert cited confirms) the "word" Obama had given was that he would pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee -- exactly the position he holds now. Russert was dishonest in saying that Obama would be breaking his word if he opts out of public financing.
As bad as his performance this week was, it wasn't as bad as his handling of last fall's Democratic debate in Philadelphia. That may have been the all-time worst performance by a debate moderator. To cite just two examples: Annenberg's FactCheck.org agreed that Russert's question about the Clinton archives was "breathtakingly misleading." Another question misrepresented previous questions Hillary Clinton had been asked (including one of Russert's own questions), misrepresented her answers, quoted her saying things she did not say, then concluded by suggesting that Clinton is a liar. Somebody was lying, all right, but it wasn't Hillary Clinton. I explained Russert's stunningly bad performance in greater detail at the time.
It takes a special kind of dishonesty to falsely describe someone's previous comments in order to accuse them of lying and breaking their word. There should be a word for that kind of behavior. In light of Russert's question to Clinton last fall and to Obama this week, perhaps it should be called "pulling a Russert."
After Russert was blasted by FactCheck.org for a "breathtakingly misleading" question to Clinton about the archives, you'd think he would be extra careful to get it right next time, wouldn't you? In this week's debate, Russert again asked Clinton about the archives -- and Russert again got the facts wrong.
Russert's mishandling of the influence that comes with his lofty perch atop the political media food chain is by no means limited to his conduct during presidential debates.
Last year, Russert was interviewed for a Bill Moyers report about how the Bush administration "misled the country" into the Iraq war with the help of a "compliant press ... [that] pass[ed] on their propaganda as news and cheer[ed] them on." During the interview, Russert famously complained that, during the run-up to the war, nobody called him to tell him they had concerns about the administration's case for war: "My concern was, is that there were concerns expressed by other government officials. And to this day, I wish my phone had rung, or I had access to them."
Though the image of one of the nation's most influential reporters staring at the phone, waiting for it to ring rather than actively seeking out the news might strike you as appallingly poor journalism, it isn't the most self-damning thing Russert said during the interview.
When Moyers asked him about the three networks' reliance on the Bush administration for their Iraq stories, Russert responded: "It's important that you have an opposition party. That's our system of government" -- suggesting that the reason the media relied on the Bush administration for Iraq reporting was the lack of an opposition party. The notion that the media shouldn't challenge the government unless the political party out of power does so first is self-evidently wrong. But Russert was also wrong about the lack of an opposition party, as I explained last year:
There was an "opposition party" during the run-up to the Iraq war. The majority of congressional Democrats opposed invading Iraq and voted against the law authorizing the use of force. Among the Democrats who voted against the authorization were some of the party's most prominent and powerful members, including Sens. Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer, and Dick Durbin, and Reps. John Conyers, Nancy Pelosi and Charlie Rangel.
Given that the majority of congressional Democrats voted against the authorization, including such household names as Ted Kennedy and Barbara Boxer, how could Tim Russert suggest there was no "opposition party" during the Iraq debate?
Maybe because there was scant evidence of an opposition party on Russert's Meet the Press during the run-up to the Iraq war. On his personal blog earlier this year, Media Matters for America Senior Fellow Duncan Black examined five months of Meet the Press guest lists, starting on the day Congress authorized the use of force against Iraq to the day coalition forces actually invaded. Of the appearances by Democrats that involved a discussion of Iraq, eight appearances were by Democrats who voted for the authorization, and only three were by Democrats who voted against it.
Remember, a majority of Democrats voted against the authorization; but on Russert's Meet the Press, there were nearly three times as many Democratic supporters of the authorization as opponents.
Is it any wonder that Russert said there wasn't an "opposition party" during the Iraq debate?
In November 2006, Russert demonstrated that he still didn't have room for the "opposition party" on his television show: The first broadcast of Meet the Press after Democrats won control of both houses of Congress, due in large part to their opposition to the Iraq war, featured two guests: John McCain and Joe Lieberman. Neither was elected as a Democrat. Both are among the staunchest supporters of the Iraq war.
Over the years, Russert has regularly smeared Democrats and progressives over issues large and small:
Last year, John McCain launched a petty attack on Barack Obama over an Obama press release that spelled "flack jacket" with a "c" in the word "flack." You might think that a United States senator treating a debate over war as though it was a spelling bee would be mocked by the media for trivializing questions of life and death. Not when the senator is John McCain; not when the media figure is Tim Russert.
Here's how Russert reported the flap: "Senator Obama talked about Senator McCain going to an Iraqi marketplace warring a flak jacket and surrounded and protected by American troops, but misspelled the word flak. And Senator McCain seized on that, suggesting that Senator Obama doesn't have the necessary experience in military and security affairs."
Other than the inanity of repeating McCain's attempt to correct Obama's spelling, Russert made another mistake: He didn't bother to check to see if McCain was right. In fact, Webster's, NBC congressional correspondent Mike Viqueira, and several U.S. military websites all agree that "flack" is an acceptable spelling of the word. So Russert's repetition of McCain's attempt to spell-check Obama's press releases was not only inane, it was also fundamentally false.
During a January interview with Hillary Clinton, Russert aired a truncated quote by former President Bill Clinton to falsely suggest that Bill Clinton had been talking about Obama's presidential campaign when he said, "This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen." In fact, Bill Clinton's "fairy tale" comment had been about Obama's record of opposition to the Iraq war, not about his bid for the presidency. Before airing a clip of Bill Clinton's remarks, Russert told viewers: "This is exactly what President Clinton said in Dartmouth. Here is the tape." But the clip showed Clinton saying only 15 words, and omitted the sentences immediately prior, which make clear that Clinton was talking about Obama's position on Iraq. Russert's use of the video clip was beyond misleading and well into dishonest -- the whole dispute was about the context of the "fairy tale"; the transcript shows Russert was clearly wrong, and he played a video clip that omitted any of that context and acted as though it proved he was correct.
Russert blamed Bill Clinton for the fact that North Korea had purportedly expanded its nuclear weapons program from having the ability to build two nuclear devices in 1993 to 13 in 2006: "When President Clinton said that, the North Koreans probably had the potential to build two nuclear devices. It's now up to 13. And if nothing is done, when George Bush leaves office, it could reach 17. It seems as though the United States talks tough with North Korea, but allows the program to go forward." Russert omitted the rather important detail that, as Media Matters noted, "North Korea did not produce any plutonium, nor build or test any nuclear bombs, during Clinton's eight years in office."
Five months after Democrats won control of both houses of Congress in a campaign in which the Iraq war was a central issue, Russert announced that "Democrats have always had a difficulty being competitive with the Republicans in the public voters' mind on national security and foreign policy issues." Not only was Russert's claim contradicted by the results of the most recent elections, it was contradicted by contemporaneous polling.
In June 2006, Russert asked a guest if same-sex marriage was an issue "that the Republicans used successfully to demonstrate that the Democrats were out of sync on cultural -- and values." But, as Media Matters noted, polling leading up to the 2004 election "found that the public was split equally on which party better represented their values," and that "[m]ore recent polling indicates that more people think Democrats better represent their values than do Republicans."
Immediately following the January 15, 2008, Democratic presidential debate he moderated, Russert misrepresented statements by Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John Edwards in order to suggest that their positions had shifted since a September 2007 debate Russert moderated. (Russert, in other words, "pulled a Russert.")
In October 2006, Russert falsely claimed that "one-third of [convicted lobbyist Jack] Abramoff's money went to Democrats." In fact, Abramoff, a powerful Republican activist, never gave a dime to any Democrat. This is not an obscure fact; the false GOP talking point that Abramoff had contributed to Democrats had been debunked long (and often) before Russert made the claim. Earlier in the year, Washington Post ombudsman Deborah Howell faced a barrage of public criticism for repeating the false claim.
In November 2006, Russert suggested that Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid (NV) opposed lobbying reform and the creation of the Office of Public Integrity. In fact, Reid had introduced lobbying-reform legislation calling for the creation of that office.
Speaking about Hillary Clinton earlier this year, Russert suggested that there is irony in a "self-avowed feminist" having shown "some emotion," as though feminists are the dour, humorless beings Rush Limbaugh and Tucker Carlson think they are. At least Russert stopped short of using the term "feminazis."
In February 2007, Russert said: "My ear heard something that I had not heard from Democratic candidates in some time. Up front, Senator Obama began his speech with references to his faith, and then came back to that same issue in the speech. ... What's that about?" This is abject nonsense. It is a Republican lie to say that Democrats do not discuss their faith.
Just the week before -- seven short days -- Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards had talked about his religious upbringing. Where? In an interview on Meet the Press. Tim Russert's Meet the Press. How did the topic come up? Russert read Edwards a quote of Edwards saying, "I was raised in the Southern Baptist church and so I have a belief system that arises from that. It's part of who I am. I can't make it disappear." Edwards responded in part: "I grew up in the Southern Baptist church, I was baptized in the Southern Baptist church, my dad was a deacon. In fact, I was there just a couple weeks ago to see my father get an award. It's, it's just part of who I am."
So: On February 4, 2007, Tim Russert read John Edwards a quote of Edwards talking about his faith. Tim Russert then (presumably) listened as Edwards spoke of his faith, of having been baptized, of his father being a deacon. Seven short days later, Tim Russert told America that it had been "some time" since he last heard a Democratic candidate talk about faith.
Other examples of Democrats discussing their faith abound: Hillary Clinton. Bill Clinton. John Kerry (including in his speech accepting the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination, which, presumably, Russert listened to at some point). Name a significant Democrat; it's a near certainty he or she has discussed his or her faith. It is simply false to suggest otherwise, as Russert did. Russert wasn't telling the truth; he was peddling a right-wing smear of Democrats.
In 2006, as Democrats were criticizing the Bush administration's decision to allow a company owned by the government of Dubai to run terminals at six U.S. ports, Russert suggested that Democrats were criticizing the deal in order to exploit it for political gain. "Here's the situation," Russert told viewers. "Democrats believe they can look tough on national security." Russert made no mention of the other possibility: that Democrats were talking about port security because they had been talking about port security for years.
The most prominent Democrats in the country -- Bill and Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and John Edwards among them -- had been discussing port security for years. They had been doing so in the most high-profile ways available to them: in speeches at the 2004 Democratic convention, during presidential debates. Even on Tim Russert's Meet the Press, where, presumably, Russert was listening to them.
Yet, in 2006, Russert suggested Democrats had just discovered and were cynically exploiting the issue. (A few weeks later, Democratic Sen. Joe Biden appeared on Meet the Press and told Russert: "I heard you on another show with [Today host] Katie Couric, Tim, saying something, in effect that the Congress hadn't done much either. Back in 2001, we introduced legislation for port security and rail security; 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005. It's been repeatedly spurned by the administration.")
Last year, during congressional debate over Iraq, Russert said that "the Democratic leadership realizes to vote against funding for the troops would be seen in a general election as not supporting the troops." Russert said nothing similar about Republicans who had voted against a previous version of the bill. To Tim Russert, Democrats who vote against a war-spending bill are voting "against funding for the troops" and will be seen as "not supporting the troops." But when Republicans vote against a war spending bill ... no problem.
Russert is also a serial misinformer about Social Security, frequently parroting bogus talking points produced by conservatives who want to privatize the program:
In questioning guests about Social Security, Russert uses a pro-privatization talking point about the declining ratio of workers per retiree to join the privatizers in suggesting that the system is in crisis: "When Social Security was created there were ... 42 workers for every retiree. There are now going to be, soon, two workers per retiree."
But economists Dean Baker and Mark Weisbrot explained in their book Social Security: The Phony Crisis that this statistic is grossly misleading: "[T]he decline in this ratio has actually been considerably steeper in the past. ... These figures also neglect to take into account the reduced costs faced by the working population from having a smaller proportion of children to support. A more accurate measure of the actual burden faced by the employed labor force would be the total dependency ratio, which includes both retirees and children relative to the number of workers."
In using the alarmist pro-privatization rhetoric, Russert neglected to mention that the decline in the worker-to-retiree ratio has been steeper in the past. Nor does he mention that the total dependency ratio is, and is projected to remain, considerably lower than it was in the past.
Contrary to his carefully cultivated reputation as a tough interviewer who won't let guests get away with anything, Russert allows advocates of Social Security privatization to spin and mislead with impunity.
Russert employs crisis rhetoric favored by the privatization lobby and frowned upon by those who prefer to discuss Social Security accurately. He does so in part by trumpeting a decade-old quotation of Bill Clinton talking about the Social Security trust fund (and by attempting to use the quotation as a gotcha when interviewing Democrats). Clinton's comments were based on projections that were accurate at the time, but more recent projections show the trust fund to be in much better shape. Russert's use of Clinton's 1998 comments based on 1998 projections to argue that Social Security is in crisis now is like a child going to her parents in the dead of winter and citing a weather report from the previous July to argue that she should be able to wear shorts to school.
Along with his carefully cultivated image as a blue-collar son of South Buffalo, the thing everybody knows about Tim Russert is what a tough questioner he is. Like his regular-guy shtick, everybody knows this in large part because Russert himself keeps telling us it's true. He told Time magazine, for example, "I just don't let any kind of personal feelings interfere with my professional job, with my professional mission of trying to elicit information and ask questions. I believe very deeply, particularly about someone running for president, that if you can't answer tough questions then you can't make tough decisions. And so I apply that standard to all candidates from all parties."
In a piece headlined "How to beat Tim Russert," Slate.com's Jack Shafer wrote, "Plotting his interviews out like chess matches, he deploys aggressive openings, subtle feints, artfully constructed traps, and lightning offenses to crack the politicians' phony veneer and reveal the genuine veneer beneath. ... If you've switched your position on anything, or if your views on, say, the balanced budget clash with your advocacy of new tax cuts, expect Russert to grill you."
But this popular (and Russert-approved) view of Russert isn't quite right. There are a variety of ways you can avoid such tough questioning.
You could, for example, advocate Social Security privatization. If you do that, you can not only use a variety of phony arguments and bogus claims to buttress your position, you can do so with the confidence that if you need a moment to catch your breath, Russert himself will fill in for you.
Or you could be a Republican senator and presidential candidate talking about the decision to go to war in Iraq. Important Safety Tip: Do not skip the part about being a Republican.
In the first few months of 2007, Russert interviewed John McCain, John Edwards, and Joe Biden. All were running for president. All had been in the Senate for the 2002 vote authorizing the use of force in Iraq. Russert asked all of them about the decision to go to war. Russert asked Biden and Edwards why they voted to authorize the use of force despite the "caveats" in the 2002 NIE that cast doubt on the notion that Iraq was a threat to the U.S. But when Russert interviewed McCain a few weeks after interviewing Biden, he let McCain assert that the invasion of Iraq "was certainly justified" because "[e]very intelligence agency in the world, not just U.S., believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction."
Oddly, Russert -- the notoriously tough questioner who won't let anyone get away with anything and who brags he applies the same "standard to all candidates from all parties" -- didn't challenge McCain about the doubts expressed by American intelligence agencies in the NIE. (A year earlier, McCain had claimed on Meet the Press that "every intelligence agency in the world believed that he [Hussein] had weapons of mass destruction." Russert didn't challenge McCain that time, either. He does keep asking Democrats about the NIE, though.)
Media Matters has documented many other examples of Russert lobbing softballs to conservatives and letting them get away with misleading spin and false claims:
Russert allowed former Reagan adviser Ken Adelman to claim that "no one knew" that intelligence indicating Iraq had WMD "wasn't true." In fact, many, people had challenged the accuracy of that intelligence. The "no one knew" claim has long been the GOP's defense against criticisms of its decision to go to war, but Russert was either unprepared to challenge it or uninterested in doing so (just as he would later give McCain a pass on the same.)
On the May 20, 2007, edition of Meet the Press, guest Newt Gingrich asserted that an alleged plot to carry out an armed attack on Fort Dix was evidence that terrorists "don't plan to stop in Baghdad. They are coming here as soon as they can get here." This is a common right-wing talking point, but it has been repeatedly disputed by experts. In the weeks prior to Gingrich's appearance, The Washington Post, McClatchy, and NPR had all run reports that included intelligence officials and other experts disputing the claim. NPR cited, among others, retired Army Lt. Col. James Carafano, a research fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation. According to NPR, "calls asserting that terrorists will follow U.S. troops home naive and poor rhetoric." The NPR report also featured a clip of Carafano saying, "There's no national security analyst that's really credible who thinks that people are going to come from Iraq and attack the United States -- that that's a credible scenario." But rather than challenging Gingrich's claim, Russert turned to his Democratic guest and instructed him to respond to Gingrich's far-fetched assertions.
In early 2006, Russert hosted Gen. Peter Pace, then-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and failed to challenge a series of dubious assertions Pace made in support of his claim that the Iraq war was "going very, very well."
In 2004, Russert asked Jerry Falwell about his comments that abortion rights advocates, feminists, and homosexuals, among others, were responsible for the September 11 terrorist attacks. Falwell falsely claimed that he "likewise" held responsible "a sleeping church, a lethargic church." Falwell wasn't telling the truth, but Russert let him get away with it. Russert also asked Falwell about a study that showed that "[t]he states with the highest level [of divorce] are the so-called Bible Belt, in the South." In response, Falwell asserted that "born-again, Bible-believing Christians who take the Bible as the word of God," the divorce rate is lower. That wasn't true, either -- but again, Russert failed to challenge Falwell. Keep in mind: Russert brought both of these topics up. He presumably had Falwell's 9-11 quote handy; after all, he read it to Falwell. But when Falwell falsely described his comments, Russert let him get away with it.
Interviewing Sens. John Warner, a Republican, and Joe Biden, a Democrat, Russert asked Warner about whether the Bush administration distorted or withheld evidence that the aluminum tubes sought by Saddam Hussein didn't have anything to do with WMD. When Warner dodged the question, not saying anything about the aluminum tubes but instead simply asserting that Bush "would not intentionally take any facts and try and mislead the American public," Russert did not press Warner either on that dubious assertion or on his failure to answer the question. Instead, he turned to Biden and grilled him on his vote to authorize the use of force, asking Biden about the 2002 NIE that contained caveats about the WMD intelligence. Russert didn't ask Warner why he voted to authorize force despite the NIE caveats.
Russert allowed Richard Perle to suggest that former Vice President Al Gore supported the invasion of Iraq in a 2002 speech. In fact, during that speech Gore opposed the invasion.
Russert repeatedly failed to challenge false and dubious claims by Vice President Cheney during a September 2006 interview.
In 2005, amid speculation that the investigation into the Bush administration's outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame would yield indictments on perjury and obstruction of justice charges, conservatives were frantically trying to downplay the seriousness of those charges. Appearing on Meet the Press, Republican Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison did so by claiming "there were charges against former President Bill Clinton besides perjury and obstruction of justice" during his 1999 Senate trial on impeachment charges. In fact, there were not, as Russert should have known; the impeachment trial was a fairly high-profile event. Nevertheless, Russert let Hutchison's false claim go uncorrected.
In 2005, Russert hosted RNC chair Ken Mehlman, who claimed that the 9-11 Commission had "totally discredited" the notion that the Bush administration manipulated prewar intelligence. Given that the 9-11 Commission didn't even address the administration's use of prewar intelligence, this was a pretty big falsehood. But Russert let Mehlman get away with it.
In early 2007, Russert let John McCain make a series of wild claims without challenging them. McCain claimed Joe Lieberman's re-election in Connecticut was evidence that it was not "clear-cut" that the public opposed the Iraq war. Russert failed to note that exit polls showed that Lieberman was re-elected in spite of his support for the war, not because of it. Nor did Russert note that Lieberman spent the bulk of the campaign frantically pretending to be a war critic and trying to convince voters that he intended to end the war and bring the troops home.
McCain also claimed that at the time of the first Gulf War, "only 15 percent of the American people thought we ought to go to Kuwait and get rid of Saddam Hussein there." In fact, a Gallup poll taken the day before the launch of Operation Desert Storm found 79 percent of Americans supported going to war in the Gulf. McCain could hardly have been more wrong, yet Russert didn't correct the glaring falsehood.
Interviewing Republican California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Russert asked such hard-hitting questions as whether or not Schwarzenegger agreed with the assessment that he had a "mastery of the state's rising independent center"; whether Schwarzenegger thought a description of him as a "moderate" was "fair," the open-ended "What is an Arnold Republican?" and, best of all: "You're a Republican winning in California, a Blue State, in a Democratic year. People would have you on the short list for the Republican nomination in 2008. But they can't for one reason: You were not born in the United States. Is that fair?" Russert had a follow-up to that one: "You've been a citizen for 23 years, shouldn't you have an opportunity to run for president?" In between tossing Schwarzenegger softballs, Russert let him get away with whoppers like his claim that "we have the lowest unemployment rate in 30 years or so." That was true -- if by "30 years or so" Schwarzenegger meant "six years."
Russert doesn't just toss softballs to conservatives when he interviews them. He carries their water in other ways, too.
As Media Matters' Eric Boehlert has explained, during the 2004 election, Russert apparently knew that then-Cheney aide Scooter Libby had given false testimony to the special counsel investigating the Bush administration's outing of Valerie Plame -- but Russert kept this information secret.
President Bush and his press secretary indicated during the Plame leak investigation that anyone who had anything to do with the leak would be fired. When it was clear that Karl Rove had participated in the leak, Russert helped the Bush administration move the goalposts, describing Bush as having "said early on in this [investigation] that if anyone broke the law, that he would deal with it." Since Rove was never convicted of anything, under this standard, Bush wouldn't have to fire him.
Russert adopted the GOP's inflammatory description of a Democratic Iraq proposal as "slow-bleed."
Russert falsely claimed there was "no evidence" that former head of the Iraqi National Congress Ahmed Chalabi "was associated with Curveball," a relative of a top Chalabi aide who became the most influential source for U.S. intelligence on Iraq's biological weapons program. In fact, independent reporting and the then-recently released Robb-Silberman report on intelligence regarding WMDs (to which Russert referred) indicated a clear connection between Chalabi and Curveball.
During the fight over President Bush's nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, Russert twice claimed that when former President Bill Clinton nominated Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer to the Supreme Court, Senate Republicans voted for them despite ideological differences with the "two liberal jurists." Russert also claimed that Alito's judicial philosophy is "no more conservative than Ginsburg and Breyer's were liberal." Russert wasn't telling the truth. Ginsburg and Breyer were seen as moderate nominees, not liberal, and had in fact been recommended for nomination by Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah.
Immediately after the 2004 vice presidential debate between John Edwards and Dick Cheney, Russert repeated Cheney's claim during the debate that he had previously never met Edwards until moments before the debate started -- a claim Cheney made in order to suggest that Edwards didn't show up for work at the Senate. The next morning, Russert noted that in fact the two had met multiple times before, including one morning in 2001 when they were both on Meet the Press and, according to Russert, "they stopped and shook hands." Russert said that, during the debate, he "thought that John Edwards would call him on it right at that very moment." So -- according to his own statements -- Russert knew while watching the debate that Cheney had lied. Yet after the debate, he repeated Cheney's lie, without giving viewers any indication that it wasn't true.
Is it any wonder that Cheney's staff believes they can control the message on Meet the Press? The Washington Post's Dana Milbank reported during the Scooter Libby trial:
Memo to Tim Russert: Dick Cheney thinks he controls you.
This delicious morsel about the "Meet the Press" host and the vice president was part of the extensive dish Cathie Martin served up yesterday when the former Cheney communications director took the stand in the perjury trial of former Cheney chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.
Flashed on the courtroom computer screens were her notes from 2004 about how Cheney could respond to allegations that the Bush administration had played fast and loose with evidence of Iraq's nuclear ambitions. Option 1: "MTP-VP," she wrote, then listed the pros and cons of a vice presidential appearance on the Sunday show. Under "pro," she wrote: "control message."
"I suggested we put the vice president on 'Meet the Press,' which was a tactic we often used," Martin testified. "It's our best format."
If you still aren't persuaded that on Meet the Press, it is often the question -- and the questioner -- that is the problem, spend a few hours poking around Bob Somerby's Daily Howler archives. Be sure to seek out his analysis of Russert's interviews with Al Gore, Howard Dean, and George W. Bush.