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.

Index of all life on Earth!

The website, http://www.eol.org/ - very intersting!
Provides Online Indexing of All Life on Earth
Stephen Leahy, Inter Press Service (IPS)BROOKLIN, Canada,

Feb 27 (IPS) - Free, authoritative and online: 1.8 million species.That is the ultimate goal of the Encyclopedia of Life project, which put its first 30,000 species on the Internet this week. This ambitious global project will provide the details of every known species -- habitat, range, life cycle, pictures, and more -- and archive everything online so anyone can access this important information about life on Earth.From sharks to mushrooms to bacteria, the Encyclopedia of Life will provide scientifically verified information that will satisfy both a grade school child's curiosity or enable a university researcher -- or amateur naturalist -- to make a scientific breakthrough, says James Edward, new executive director of the Encyclopedia of Life (EOL) project headquartered in Washington, DC at the Smithsonian Institution.Each species page has a built in content slider that allows you to select how much information you want to see on the page. And there is plenty of detail, including links to at least 1 million pages of digitized scientific information that is normally only available in the big 10 natural history museums located in the developed world."Anyone can access this for free no matter where they are," Edward told IPS.Anyone who can read English, that is. "We're hoping to get translations into other languages," he added.In the near future, there will be regional editions of the EOL: EOL Colombia or EOL Netherlands, with all information in Spanish and Dutch and provided by local experts.Unlike traditional encyclopedias, EOL will be interactive and continually updated. Indeed, it has the potential to become a powerful investigative tool on its own. If the public participates, the EOL could become a global species monitoring system to track responses to climate change.Around the world, species' habitats are altering dramatically, forcing birds to migrate sooner, or becoming too dry or too hot to support certain plants. There is no chance the scientific community can keep pace with the speed and breadth of these changes. The only possible way is through observations by non-scientists who can check the EOL to see if that frog they saw this morning is in its normal habitat or has shifted its range."If someone in Ecuador sees a frog they've never seen before, they can quickly check the EOL to see if it's endemic or from neighboring countries. If not, then it may be a new species," said James Hanken, director of Harvard's Museum of Comparative Zoology, and chair of the EOL Steering Committee.So many species are going extinct before they can even be identified, but the EOL will make it much easier to identify them, Hanken told IPS."We can't protect things (species/habitat) without knowing what is there," he said.In a few months' time, species experts will be happy to receive information -- pictures, videos, text -- from the public about their observations. The EOL will have a form to complete which will be reviewed, checked, and if warranted, incorporated into the EOL.Right now Edward, Hanken and others would like people to tell them what they think about the EOL as it currently stands. Suggestions and ideas are welcome about anything from the page structure to the font colors, says Edwards.Perhaps the most intriguing aspect of the EOL is the notion that it is a macroscope -- the opposite of the common microscope. As such, the EOL will offer the biggest picture yet of the Earth's amazing biodiversity. It will make visible patterns previously unseen, illuminate relationships, and identify knowledge gaps.It could map the distribution of human disease vectors, such as crows, mosquitoes, and the West Nile virus. Life spans of related species could be compared to understand what truly governs longevity. With the mysterious, ongoing loss of honey bee populations, the EOL could point the way to alternative pollinators.It will hopefully revolutionize teaching and learning of the life sciences. And such a revolution is urgently needed.Better understanding of biodiversity -- the sum total of living, interacting species -- is critical to the survival of humans, who too often ignore the vital services that other species provide. There is no oxygen for us to breathe without plants. No plants also means no food. Trees clean water and air, regulate temperature, and prevent flooding and much more. However, the world is in the midst of an extinction crisis with one species vanishing every three hours. And the rate is accelerating. It will take a decade to complete the EOL and perhaps 40,000 to 50,000 existing species will have gone extinct before it's complete. Up to 30 percent of all species on Earth are likely to vanish by 2050 due to unsustainable human activities, according to the 2006 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Scientists do not know how many species are "enough" to keep ecosystems that we depend on functioning. Recent research reported by IPS last November shows that if a forest loses too many unique species, it can reduce the total number of plants in that forest by half. It's a sobering finding: some species are irreplaceable, but we don't know what they are. "We hope the EOL will spark a new generation of budding biologists and will help people develop a better appreciation of the natural world," says Hanken.

Ralph Nader

Being 3 years older, I feel that I have grown up with Ralph Nader my entire adult life! He is now 74 years old and STILL causing trouble for everyone. He has GREAT credentials having graduated from Princeton and then Harvard Law - by the way, the same schools which graduated Michele Obama - who is no slouch herself! If you’re interested, you may learn all about Ralph at Wikipedia’s online encyclopedia at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Nader .

Ralph Nader is, I think, a delema for most people - like why does he think like he does? What are his motives? As the son of a psychologist - and certainly not one myself, I have always been fascinated by the human mind and how others think. In the case of Nader, I’m reminded of the observation that young people tend to think in ‘black and white’ regarding life. As people get older their experiences tend to teach them to moderate their attitudes and life becomes various shades of grey. I’ve always felt that Nader still sees things as black and white, right and wrong, yes and no - with no maybes.

He has always been that way when his first ascension to the limelight involved the announcement of the great hazards to anyone driving the rear engined Corvair produced by General Moters. It certainly did have problems as an automobile for people used to driving front engined cars, but they weren’t insurmountable. Never-the-less he blasted General Motors which resulted in the Corvair to become a collector’s item in greater demand than the VW ‘Beetle’.

I used to subscribe to Consumer’s Report until Mr. Nader took charge and had the magazine report on his idea of the “safety” of products tested rather than their design, reliability and value. For example, he downgraded kitchen stoves which had front mounted controls simply because children could reach and turn on the burners. That, of course would be a good warning, but he neglected to consider the hazard of one having to reach across hot burners to the back of the stove to turn them off in case of emergency.

Mr. Nader reminds me of commander Queeg (Humphrey Bogart) in the classic movie, “The Caine Mutiny”. Nader fails to see the mechanisms of how change is enacted through interaction and negotiation rather than through arbitrary mandate and the exertion of power.

At first, I have to admit, that I figured that the Republicans paid Mr. Nader to enter the race - much as they had the slanderous book, “The Swift boats”, when Sen. Kerry ran for office. But, upon review, I think that Mr. Nader, true to form, sees black and white and somehow thinks he can change things in Washington.

However, can one reasonably assume that Ralph Nader, on the side of good and wonderful would ever be able to negotiate and compromise with the myriad of factions throughout the world to maintain world peace - or even domestic prosperity? Does he really have the temperament?

As of today, we have two Democrats and one Republican to choose from for our next President. Of the Democrats, we have a return to a wiser form of our old Clinton presidency (who was not bad in my opinion.) Or we can have “hope for a change from the same old way of doing business in Washington”!

I’m inspired by Obama - yes, by the rhetoric!. Afer all, what have we to lose? Otherwise the best we can expect is more of the same - perhaps not in the Presidency, but in the Congress!

As an Arizonan, I expect my vote next November to be worthless and the state will support Sen. McCain for the presidency.

His election would be, in my opinion, a disaster for the American people and the future of our nation. I hope and assume that the rest of the American people will chose either Hilary or Barack to be our next president - despite the efforts of the Republican party, Senator McCain or the pathetic efforts of Ralph Nader.

A bit about the Constitution

Show me in the Constitution where this nation can not legislate social programs, Dennis. For your information, the primary function of the Constitution is to describe the three branches of government and their responsibilities. Aside from a few basic human rights presented in the amendments, the Constitution does not legislate.
For example, nowhere in the Constitution is there a law against murder - and aside from some liberties taken by the military in their 'uniform code of military justice', the only laws against murder are by the states which have their own laws.
You might consider also that a very loose interpretation of the Constitution allows anyone and everyone to bear arms (guns, etc.). The Supreme Court has ruled against that interpretation of the 2nd Amendment a couple of times, but even so, did you know the amendment does NOT involve states rights and that any state, California, for example could, if it wished outlaw guns? The states are not bound by the 2nd Amendment.
I'd suggest that you study the Constitution more closely, Dennis. This is not political opinion, but fact. The Constitution happens to be a rather simple document and not really a body of law. It is an excellent document which allows for all sorts of interpretations which fit the times as they change.
Social programs are enacted either through the states or by the Congress which have the exclusive right to enact laws. As long as the laws don't violate the very few restrictions in the Constitution they are certainly legal and Constitutional. In fact, there is probably no law on the books which is unconstitutional because ALL laws are generally opposed by someone and if challenged and found to not be constitutional, they are rescinded by the courts.

The Truth of the Matter....

It seems that President Clinton while campaigning for Hillary in Iowa has stated that he has always been against the Iraq War.

I don't understand why he would say such a thing because the truth is certainly not secret and it will most certainly affect the credibility of the Clinton's in this political contest.

I have always supported the Clinton's despite the fact that I haven't always agreed with them in such things as NAFTA and the Iraq War. However, I now think that Obama would be a breath of fresh air and -- as he says, "a change".

It was an easy Google search to find the CNN post regarding what Bill Clinton's position was in 2004 regarding Bush and the Iraq situation:

Clinton defends successor's push for war
Says Bush 'couldn't responsibly ignore' chance Iraq had WMDs
Wednesday, June 23, 2004 Posted: 7:55 AM EDT (1155 GMT)

(CNN) -- Former President Clinton has revealed that he continues to support President Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq but chastised the administration over the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison.

"I have repeatedly defended President Bush against the left on Iraq, even though I think he should have waited until the U.N. inspections were over," Clinton said in a Time magazine interview that will hit newsstands Monday, a day before the publication of his book "My Life."

Clinton, who was interviewed Thursday, said he did not believe that Bush went to war in Iraq over oil or for imperialist reasons but out of a genuine belief that large quantities of weapons of mass destruction remained unaccounted for.

Noting that Bush had to be "reeling" in the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001, Clinton said Bush's first priority was to keep al Qaeda and other terrorist networks from obtaining "chemical and biological weapons or small amounts of fissile material."

"That's why I supported the Iraq thing. There was a lot of stuff unaccounted for," Clinton said in reference to Iraq and the fact that U.N. weapons inspectors left the country in 1998.

"So I thought the president had an absolute responsibility to go to the U.N. and say, 'Look, guys, after 9/11, you have got to demand that Saddam Hussein lets us finish the inspection process.' You couldn't responsibly ignore [the possibility that] a tyrant had these stocks," Clinton said.

Pressed on whether the Iraq war was worth the cost to the United States, Clinton said he would not have undertaken the war until after U.N. chief weapons inspector Hans Blix "finished his job."

Weapons inspectors led by Blix scoured Iraq for three and a half months before the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003 but left after President Bush issued an ultimatum to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to leave the country.

"I want it to have been worth it, even though I didn't agree with the timing of the attack," Clinton said.

Clinton blamed the Abu Ghraib prison abuses on poorly trained National Guard personnel and higher-ups in the Bush administration.

The former president said he was not surprised by the abuses committed by U.S. forces at Abu Ghraib but that he was surprised by their extent.

"There is no excuse for that," Clinton said.
Clinton blamed the abuses on the higher echelons of the Bush administration.

"The more we learn about it, the more it seems that some people fairly high up, at least, thought that this was the way it ought to be done," he said.

Implying that the United States should lead by example, Clinton said of the abuses, "No. 1, we can't pull stunts like that, and No. 2, when we do, whoever is responsible has to pay."

Shame on Democrats?

The other night I heard a very good question. The questioner stated that we all know that the Democrats keep talking against the Iraq war but claim that even though they have the majority they don't 'quite' have the numbers and power to 'change course'.

The question was essentially, how come they simply sit on their hands and do nothing? The House certainly has the power to impeach the President and Vice President even if they can't put them out of office. They have the power to cut off funds for the war and other anti-war legislation. So what if the President has a veto!

It is only the Senate who doesn't have the numbers to pass legislation but they certainly could tie up the Congress until the Republicans cave -- they could at least be obstructionists, rant and rail, and put the whole bag on the backs of those few Republicans who still support Bush.

If the Democrats showed a little backbone, with the backing of the people, the Republicans in Congress would most certainly put their tails between their legs if they want to be re-elected!

I suspect they are playing cat and mouse waiting game -- letting the Republicans hang on the ends of their strings simply twisting in the wind. That is good politics but it is evil because continuing this war is costing the lives of Americans - even if they are considered mercenaries.

Sin and Scandals Galore!

I don't quite understand why the Democratic politicians feel they have to give the campaign moneys donated by Hsu away to charities, etc. He obviously was not trying to buy their favor since he didn't represent anything other than perhaps to acquire business contacts based upon his notoriety for future scams - ? Anyway, this is an interesting story...

In similar fashion, I wonder why Republican senator Craig sort of resigned his seat because he may or may not be gay. Seems to me that it is only a problem for his family and the people he represents in Idaho - certainly not the rest of the country and especially the Senate ethics committee! Ethics for what?

As a Democrat, it certainly doesn't bother me that the Republicans have a hard time keeping their holier-than-thou behaviors in line but so what? I suspect that his skin-head constituents back home know him much better than we do. After all, if he does resign he'll only be replaced by someone just as reprehensible!

Democratic donor a no show at hearing
By PAUL ELIAS, Associated Press Writer

REDWOOD CITY, Calif. - Disgraced Democratic fundraiser Norman Hsu was a wanted man again after he failed to show up for a court date Wednesday and a judge issued a new warrant for his arrest.

Hsu, whose criminal past has roiled the campaigns of top presidential candidates, was scheduled to ask a judge to cut in half the $2 million bail he posted last week when he turned himself in after spending 15 years on the lam from a felony theft conviction.

Instead, San Mateo Superior Court Judge Robert Foiles ordered Hsu's bail forfeited to the county and issued a new arrest warrant. If Hsu is arrested again, he will be jailed without bail this time.

Hsu, a Hong Kong native, was also supposed to turn over his passport Wednesday. Hsu's prominent Silicon Valley criminal defense attorney Jim Brosnahan said Hsu failed to give the passport to the legal team on Monday.

"Mr. Hsu is not here and we do not know where Mr. Hsu is," Brosnahan said outside court. Brosnahan said that "there was some contact" with Hsu a few hours before the scheduled 9 a.m. court appearance, but he declined to say how and who talked to Hsu.

Hsu pleaded no contest in 1991 to a felony count of grand theft, admitting he'd defrauded investors of $1 million after falsely claiming to have contracts to purchase and sell Latex gloves. He was facing up to three years in prison when he skipped town before his 1992 sentencing date.

Prosecutors said they suspected Hsu fled the country then. But a few years ago, Hsu re-emerged in New York as an apparel executive and a wealthy benefactor of Democratic causes and candidates. They included presidential contenders Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton, whose campaign designated Hsu a "HillRaiser" — a title given to top donors.

Brosnahan said he didn't know if Hsu returned to his Manhattan condominium or stayed in California after his five-hour jail stint Friday when Hsu turned himself in. He was released from jail after posting $2 million bail, which a judge refused then to reduce to $1 million.

Prosecutors with the California Attorney General's office had agreed to the bail reduction because it would be used to reimburse the victims Hsu admitted swindling out of $1 million in the early 1990s.

"We did think that was enough," Deputy Attorney General Ralph Sivilla said outside court. Sivilla also said he was troubled that Hsu didn't turn in his passport.

Federal Election Commission records show Hsu donated $260,000 to Democratic Party groups and federal candidates since 2004. Though a top fundraiser for Clinton, he also donated to Obama's Senate campaign in 2004 and to his political action committee. He also contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to state and municipal candidates.

After reports surfaced of his fugitive status, politicians at all levels scrambled to distance themselves. On Wednesday, Rhode Island Rep. Patrick Kennedy, who initially said he would keep the $6,200 from Hsu, announced that he would give the money to charity.

Kennedy had originally counted $6,600 in donations, but a review of federal campaign records showed it was actually $6,200.

Obama's campaign said it would give to charity the $2,000 Hsu contributed to his 2004 Senate campaign and the $5,000 Hsu gave to his political action committee, Hopefund.

Hsu's $43,700 in donations to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and $2,500 to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee also will go to charity, both groups said.

Clinton joined the other candidates, returning $23,000 in contributions that Hsu made to her presidential and senatorial campaigns and to her political action committee, HillPac. But his close association with her campaign put Clinton on the defensive.

Last week, Hsu said he thought the criminal charges had been taken care of when he completed his bankruptcy proceedings in the early 1990s.

"I have not sought to evade any of my obligations and certainly not the law," Hsu said in a prepared statement.

God's Warriors.... CNN

Did anyone watch CNN's documentary "God's Warriors" hosted by Christiane Amanpour?

It consisted of three two-hour presentations starting Tuesday night on the radical Jews and Israel. On Wednesday evening it considered Islam and fundamentalist Muslims. Tonight it ended with two hours on American evangelical Christians.

I found it not only very interesting, but very disturbing! What I learned was that we ‘normal?' humans on this Earth are all faced with the peril of religious fundamentalism regardless of the denomination, Jew, Muslim or Christian. Each shares the intent of subjugating all peoples to their own beliefs throughout the world - not just from the synagogues, mosques, or churches, but through the political control of governments and terrorism! Pretty scary stuff with no indication of ‘turn the other cheek' or ‘love thine enemy'. .....and the show didn't indicate how any of these mass movements could be stopped or even controlled!

Of course basically, the fundamentalist movements with no remorse regarding bloodshed, revolve around the decadence of our secular freedoms which include rampant sex and pornography amongst other ‘liberal' permissions. I might agree with them on those points except that they also invoke almost prehistoric prohibitions against the rights of women or political and religious dissent, etc. Only someone who could be happy as cannon fodder in the military could tolerate such a life style!

I've been impressed by Christine Amanpour's journalism for several years now and after this documentary, I decided to look her up. She has not only a rather unique genealogy but has also led an interesting life as described at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christiane_Amanpour – well worth reading.

Dick & Jane....

Hmmmm.... Seems to me that there are both qualitative and quantitative differences between reading Mary Higgins Clark mysteries, ‘HTML for Dummies', ‘The Unemotional Investor', ‘The Physics of Consiousness', ‘Genome', ‘The Crisis of Islam' or perhaps reading both the 'New Testament' and 'The Jefferson Bible' to discover the philosophical dichotomy between the two - and then, there is Omar's 'Rubaiyat'!

The article below doesn't address quality or subject matter in making its political statement other than a reference to the Republican mantra, "No new taxes", which is of course true, but not reflective of what Republicans might do in the privacy of their own homes – with the shades drawn!

Book chief: Conservatives want slogans
By ALAN FRAM, Associated Press Writer Tue Aug 21

WASHINGTON - Liberals read more books than conservatives. The head of the book publishing industry's trade group says she knows why — and there's little flattering about conservative readers in her explanation.

"The Karl Roves of the world have built a generation that just wants a couple slogans: 'No, don't raise my taxes, no new taxes,'" Pat Schroeder, president of the American Association of Publishers, said in a recent interview. "It's pretty hard to write a book saying, 'No new taxes, no new taxes, no new taxes' on every page."

Schroeder, who as a Colorado Democrat was once one of Congress' most liberal House members, was responding to an Associated Press-Ipsos poll that found people who consider themselves liberals are more prodigious book readers than conservatives.

She said liberals tend to be policy wonks who "can't say anything in less than paragraphs. We really want the whole picture, want to peel the onion."

The book publishing industry is predominantly liberal, though conservative books by authors like former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., and pundit Ann Coulter have been best sellers in recent years. Overall, book sales have been flat as publishers seek to woo readers lured away by the Internet, movies and television.

Rove, President Bush's departing political adviser, is known as a prodigious reader. White House spokesman Tony Fratto said Schroeder was "confusing volume with quality" with her remarks.

"Obfuscation usually requires a lot more words than if you simply focus on fundamental principles, so I'm not at all surprised by the loquaciousness of liberals," he said.

"As head of a book publishing association, she probably shouldn't malign any readers," said Mary Matalin, a GOP strategist who oversees a line of books by conservative authors, Threshold, at Simon & Schuster. Matalin said conservatives and others aren't necessarily reading less, but are getting more information online and from magazines.

The AP-Ipsos poll found 22 percent of liberals and moderates said they had not read a book within the past year, compared with 34 percent of conservatives.

Among those who had read at least one book, liberals typically read nine books in the year, with half reading more than that and half less. Conservatives typically read eight, moderates five.

By slightly wider margins, Democrats tended to read more books than Republicans and independents. There were no differences by political party in the percentage of those who said they had not read at least one book.

The poll involved telephone interviews with 1,003 adults and was conducted August 6 to 8. It has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

AP Manager of News Surveys Trevor Tompson and AP News Survey Specialist Dennis Junius contributed to this report.

More Bloodshed to come....

Wow! This article, below, reads like a real life spy thriller! And I'd guess that it doesn't bode well for our American and other forces in occupied Iraq.

With a Shiite government in power in Iraq they obviously have two goals - one to punish the Sunni's for Saddam's past crimes and to rid themselves of the American invaders who are, after all, Jew loving Christians and are hindering their progress toward a religiously ‘clean' Shiite ruled nation!

The writing has been on the wall for quite sometime, now. But our administration only sees the chance for our oil companies to glom onto Iraqi oil. In that respect, we had better be nice to Venezuela's Chavez and perhaps Russia because my guess is that because of our overbearing "Christian morality" we're going to lose the friendship of those Muslims who control middle east oil everywhere - including the Saudi's who have been amazingly patient with us - after all, the Chinese will buy all they can produce with profits from selling junk to us and or cashing in their American holdings. In the meantime we had better work toward that difficult goal of "energy independence."

If we're not scared, we should be.

Italy probe unearths huge Iraq arms deal

By CHARLES J. HANLEY and ARIEL DAVID
Associated Press Writers Sun Aug 12

PERUGIA, Italy - In a hidden corner of Rome's busy Fiumicino Airport, police dug quietly through a traveler's checked baggage, looking for smuggled drugs. What they found instead was a catalog of weapons, a clue to something bigger.

Their discovery led anti-Mafia investigators down a monthslong trail of telephone and e-mail intercepts, into the midst of a huge black-market transaction, as Iraqi and Italian partners haggled over shipping more than 100,000 Russian-made automatic weapons into the bloodbath of Iraq.

As the secretive, $40 million deal neared completion, Italian authorities moved in, making arrests and breaking it up. But key questions remain unanswered.

For one thing, The Associated Press has learned that Iraqi government officials were involved in the deal, apparently without the knowledge of the U.S. Baghdad command — a departure from the usual pattern of U.S.-overseen arms purchases.

Why these officials resorted to "black" channels and where the weapons were headed is unclear.

The purchase would merely have been the most spectacular example of how Iraq has become a magnet for arms traffickers and a place of vanishing weapons stockpiles and uncontrolled gun markets since the 2003 U.S. invasion and the onset of civil war.

Some guns the U.S. bought for Iraq's police and army are unaccounted for, possibly fallen into the hands of insurgents or sectarian militias. Meanwhile, the planned replacement of the army's AK-47s with U.S.-made M-16s may throw more assault rifles onto the black market. And the weapons free-for-all apparently is spilling over borders: Turkey and Iran complain U.S.-supplied guns are flowing from Iraq to anti-government militants on their soil.

Iraqi middlemen in the Italian deal, in intercepted e-mails, claimed the arrangement had official American approval. A U.S. spokesman in Baghdad denied that.

"Iraqi officials did not make MNSTC-I aware that they were making purchases," Lt. Col. Daniel Williams of the Multi-National Security Transition Command-Iraq (MNSTC-I), which oversees arming and training of the Iraqi police and army, told the AP.

Operation Parabellum, the investigation led by Dario Razzi, anti-Mafia prosecutor in this central Italian city, began in 2005 as a routine investigation into drug trafficking by organized-crime figures, branched out into an inquiry into arms dealing with Libya, and then widened to Iraq.

Court documents obtained by the AP show that Razzi's break came early last year when police monitoring one of the drug suspects covertly opened his luggage as he left on a flight to Libya. Instead of the expected drugs, they found helmets, bulletproof vests and the weapons catalog.

Tapping telephones, monitoring e-mails, Razzi's investigators followed the trail to a group of Italian businessmen, otherwise unrelated to the drug probe, who were working to sell arms to Libya and, by late 2006, to Iraq as well, through offshore companies they set up in Malta and Cyprus.

Four Italians have been arrested and are awaiting court indictment for allegedly creating a criminal association and alleged arms trafficking — trading in weapons without a government license. A fifth Italian is being sought in Africa. In addition, 13 other Italians were arrested on drug charges.

In the documents, Razzi describes it as "strange" that the U.S.-supported Iraqi government would seek such weapons via the black market.

Investigators say the prospect of an Iraq deal was raised last November, when an Iraqi-owned trading firm e-mailed Massimo Bettinotti, 39, owner of the Malta-based MIR Ltd., about whether MIR could supply 100,000 AK-47 assault rifles and 10,000 machine guns "to the Iraqi Interior Ministry," adding that "this deal is approved by America and Iraq."

The go-between — the Al-Handal General Trading Co. in Dubai — apparently had communicated with Bettinotti earlier about buying night visors and had been told MIR could also procure weapons.

Al-Handal has figured in questionable dealings before, having been identified by U.S. investigators three years ago as a "front company" in Iraq's Oil-for-Food scandal.

The Interior Ministry's need at that point for such a massive weapons shipment is unclear. The U.S. training command had already reported it would arm all Interior Ministry police by the end of 2006 through its own three-year-old program, which as of July 26 has bought 701,000 weapons for the Iraqi army and police with $237 million in U.S. government funds.

Negotiations on the deal progressed quickly in e-mail exchanges between the Italians and Iraqi middlemen of the al-Handal company and its parent al-Thuraya Group. But at times the discussion turned murky and nervous.

The Iraqis alternately indicated the Interior Ministry or "security ministries" would be the end users. At one point, a worried Bettinotti e-mailed, "We prefer to speak about this deal face to face and not by e-mail."

The Italians sent several offers of various types and quantities of rifles, with photos included. The negotiating focused on the source of the weapons: The Iraqi middlemen said their buyer insisted they be Russian-made, but the Italians wanted to sell AK-47s made in China, where they had better contacts.

"We are in a hurry with this deal," an impatient Waleed Noori al-Handal, Jordan-based general manager of the Iraqi firm, wrote the Italians on Nov. 13 in one of the e-mails seen by AP.

He added, in apparent allusion to the shipment's clandestine nature, "You mustn't worry if it's a problem to import these goods directly into Iraq. We can bring the product to another country and then transfer it to Iraq."

By December, the Italians, having found a Bulgarian broker, were offering Russian-made goods: 50,000 AKM rifles, an improved version of the AK-47; 50,000 AKMS rifles, the same gun with folding stock; and 5,000 PKM machine guns.

The Iraqis quibbled over the asking price, $39.7 million, but seemed satisfied. The Italians were set for a $6.6 million profit, the court documents show, and were already discussing air transport for the weapons. At this point prosecutor Razzi acted, seeking an arrest warrant from a Perugia court.

"The negotiation with Iraq is developing very quickly," he wrote the judge.

On Feb. 12, in seven locations across Italy, police arrested the 17 men, including the four alleged arms traffickers: Bettinotti; Gianluca Squarzolo, 39, the man whose luggage had yielded the original clue; Ermete Moretti, 55, and Serafino Rossi, 64. If convicted, they could be sentenced to up to 12 years in prison.

The at-large fifth man, Vittorio Dordi, 42, was believed to be in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where he apparently is involved in the diamond trade. Italian authorities were seeking information on him from the African country.

In the parallel Libya case, the Italians allegedly paid two Libyan Defense Ministry officials about $500,000 in kickbacks to speed that transaction for Chinese-made assault rifles. It isn't known whether such bribes were a factor in the Iraq deal. No Libyans or Iraqis are known to have been detained in connection with the cases.

Al-Handal's operations have caught investigators' notice before. In 1996-2003, the company was involved as a broker in the kickback scandal known as Oil for Food, the CIA says.

In that program, Iraq under U.N. economic sanctions bought food and other necessities with U.N.-supervised oil revenues. Foreign companies, often through intermediaries, surreptitiously kicked back payments to officials of Saddam Hussein's Iraqi government in exchange for such supply contracts.

Those Iraqi middlemen also engaged in "misrepresenting the origin or final destination of goods," said the 2004 report of the CIA's Iraq Survey Group, which investigated both Iraq's defunct advanced weapons programs and Oil for Food.

That report also alleged that during this period Al-Handal General Trading, from its bases in Dubai and Jordan, secretly moved unspecified "equipment" into Iraq that was forbidden by the U.N. sanctions.

Reached at his office in Amman, Jordan, Waleed Noori al-Handal denied the family firm had done anything wrong in the Italian arms case.

"We don't have anything to hide," he told the AP.

Citing the names of "friends" in top U.S. military ranks in Iraq, al-Handal said his company has fulfilled scores of supply and service contracts for the U.S. occupation. Asked why he claimed U.S. approval for the abortive Italian weapons purchase, he said he had a document from the U.S. Army "that says, 'We allow al-Thuraya Group to do all kinds of business.'"

In Baghdad, the Interior Ministry wouldn't discuss the AK-47 transaction on the record. But a senior ministry official, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the matter's sensitivity, acknowledged it had sought the weapons through al-Handal.

Asked about the irregular channels used, he said the ministry "doesn't ask the supplier how these weapons are obtained."

Although this official refused to discuss details, he said "most" of the 105,000 weapons were meant for police in Iraq's western province of Anbar. That statement raised questions, however, since Pentagon reports list only 161,000 trained police across all 18 of Iraq's provinces, and say the ministry has been issued 169,280 AK-47s, 167,789 pistols and 16,398 machine guns for them and 28,000 border police.

A July 26 Pentagon report said 20,847 other AK-47s purchased for the Interior Ministry have not yet been delivered. Iraqi officials complain that the U.S. supply of equipment, from bullets to uniforms, has been slow.

A Pentagon report in June may have touched on another possible destination for weapons obtained via secretive channels, noting that "militia infiltration of local police remains a significant problem." Shiite Muslim militias in Iraq's civil war have long been known to find cover and weapons within the Interior Ministry.

In fact, in a further sign of poor controls on the flow of arms into Iraq, a July 31 audit report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office said the U.S. command's books don't contain records on 190,000 AK-47s and other weapons, more than half those issued in 2004-2005 to Iraqi forces. This makes it difficult to trace weapons that may be passed on to militias or insurgents.

The Pentagon, meanwhile, has described the Interior Ministry's accounting of police equipment as unreliable.

Here in Italy, Razzi expressed puzzlement at the Iraqi officials' circumvention of U.S. supply routes.

"It seems strange that a pro-Western government, supported by the U.S. Army and other NATO countries on its own territory, would seek Russian or Chinese weapons through questionable channels," the anti-Mafia prosecutor wrote in seeking the arrest warrant that short-circuited the complex deal.

Healthcare reform....

California, the most socially advanced country in the nation is doing what it does best - leading the way in social reform.

I miss California but having been priced out and crowded out of the state of over 36 million people I can only hope that someday enough Californians will over-flow into Arizona to make it equally advanced as opposed to the old and decadent East Coast and the rabidly conservative desert states to say nothing of the mid-westerners most of whom live their lives out in quiet desperation.

Rule of thumb is that California has traditionally led the nation by five years in social structure and reform - here in Arizona it may take a bit longer....

Calif. lawmakers promise health reform this year
By Lisa Baertlein Sat Aug 11

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - California lawmakers on Saturday promised to send a health care reform bill to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger this year, even as the $145 billion state budget has stalled and the legislative session winds down.

Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata, Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez and Assembly Republican Leader Michael Villines made their vows to hundreds of people attending an eight-city, satellite-linked meeting focused on covering the state's 6.5 million uninsured.

Schwarzenegger, a former action film star, has made health care for all Californians a priority and has been publicly battering fellow Republicans in the state Senate, whom he also blames for the six-week budget delay.

Speaking at the same forum, Schwarzenegger told the Los Angeles audience that Senate Republicans "are holding up the budget so they don't have to deal with health care."

Nunez, who like Perata and others have proposed their own fixes for the state's burdened health care system, said lawmakers will get the job done.

"In the absence of real action on the part of the federal government and Congress ... we in California are going to deliver," he said.

But time is running out. California lawmakers do not expect movement on a spending plan until the state Assembly returns from vacation on August 20. They have until September 14 to pass a health reform bill this calendar year.

Rebuttal: A Gale is Blowing

I wrote this in a letter to the editor of the Kingman Daily Miner of Kingman, AZ in response to an editorial which indicated that young people are not satisfied with politics and politicians.... Duh!

I read reporter Gail Adams' fluff piece (Aug. 9th), rehashing the perpetual disjunction between the young and the old especially involving politics - where the young, driven primarily by hormones, complain about how lousy the world is, but expect their elders to do all of the work to fix it!

They probably were looking out the window in civics class when they were informed that one has to be over 35 to be elected president for the simple reason that until a person is about 25, she doesn't have the mental maturity (read: common sense) to drive a car, say nothing of run a nation!

Yes, we have a primitive two party system for the simple reason that a third party never has and never will win an election. We aren't set up Constitutionally for coalition (parliamentary) governments like most of the rest of the world. And yes, when running for office the two parties can get vicious - however, I don't see a "youth party" being all that different - and perhaps they'd be even more violent.

I suspect that if you drop in on either a local Republican or Democratic party meeting - which should be published regularly on page two here in the Miner, an adult (read: ‘volunteer') of any age would be welcome with open arms! However, I'm sure you'll find that the only ones who take the civic trouble to hobble in are well over fifty! They're all tired and hurt most of the time - but someone's gotta do it.

Yes, our government's a mess - we all know it! Supposedly in a Democracy (which we aren't) the majority rules! Right? Not so! Neither party can pass significant legislation in the Senate without the Aye vote of 60 Senators! Conversely, it only takes 41 Senators to block the measure. So the fact that the Democrats after many years finally have a majority of the members, they can't seem to scrape up enough Republicans to help them pass even so called "bi-partisan" bills co-written by senators from both parties!

And then, there is the war and the administration. A good 2/3rds to 3/4ths of the American people of all parties are opposed to the Iraq war, the lack of military aggressiveness toward Al Caida and the Taliban, and, in general, the fact that the Bush administration simply doesn't care what the people think from either party ("We don't watch the polls!"). There have been plenty of Republicans from Congress who have tried to get the President to heed their counsel, but he seems to think he knows best. And he holds the trump cards.

So what can we do? Well, not much. We could impeach the president and vice-president in the House of Representatives which would bring all legislative business to a halt - just as it did when the Republicans impeached Bill Clinton, and nothing would get done until about 2008. Or we can just wait it out and elect a new president in 2008. I'm not sure, but if we were to impeach the President he would still be in office until the Senate held a trial and, if found guilty, would throw him out of office. Problem is that there are probably enough of the president's men in the Senate to prevent finding him guilty. So besides besmirching the president's ‘legacy' which is already besmirched, where is the gain?

So, Ms Adams, did any of your young friends come up with any answers to the above problems? It is awfully easy to be a critic!

Mortgage market pandering....?

Hate to say this, but I think that in this case, Hillery is pandering the ‘po folk' vote by advocating setting up programs to help pay their mortgages.

The problem is, of course, that there was an irrational housing bubble coupled with a lot of criminal activity on the part of realtors, lenders and appraisers who scammed the system and sold homes to people who were not at all qualified either through credit history or income. Coupled with speculators who leveraged into houses with the idea of ‘flipping' and we had a disaster in the making when they simply walked away when the market topped.

Aside from putting a lot of those people in jail for fraud, conspiracy, etc. I agree that there should never be pre-payment penalties, ever, and variable rate mortgages should be outlawed simply because the low early rates are intended to lure buyers who then get in big trouble if and when the rates go up.

Perhaps legislation which would make an original lender still responsible for a loan after he spins it off to Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac in the secondary mortgage market would have a good moderating influence! Some legislation of home builders making them somewhat responsible for the properties they build after they sell them and liability for local governments who issue building permits simply for revenue without zoning concerns, etc.

In other words, the problem is regulation and responsibility, not billion dollar bailouts which is required to prevent future abuses! ... It really is that simple!

Clinton proposes crackdown in mortgage market
By Jeremy Pelofsky

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - With the U.S. mortgage market in turmoil, Democratic presidential front-runner Sen. Hillary Clinton on Tuesday proposed clamping down on lending abuses and providing more aid to families who face losing their homes.

Her proposals were a sign that America's brewing housing crisis has become an issue facing candidates in the November 2008 election, with thousands facing the prospect of losing their homes because they accepted mortgages that are now too expensive.

The New York senator, on the campaign trail in New Hampshire, also proposed a $1 billion fund to supplement state programs that help homeowners catch up on mortgage payments, renegotiate loan terms or provide financial counseling.

She pressed for eliminating penalties for early repayment of mortgages, which are often associated with less traditional home loans to individuals who fall short of qualifying for prime loans and turn to more expensive subprime mortgages.

The proposals come as world markets have been see-sawing in reaction to problems in the U.S. subprime mortgage markets and rising defaults among less credit-worthy borrowers. Lenders in recent months have tightened their loan standards as a result.

"We can look at the statistics, wring our hands, and continue to do nothing, or we can do what America has always done in times of difficulty: acknowledge that we face a real challenge, and confront it head-on with real solutions," Clinton said.

She has a 22-point lead over her closest rival, Sen. Barack Obama, according to the latest USA Today/Gallup poll. Almost half, 48 percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents, backed her, versus 26 percent for Obama.

Two major residential lenders who specialized in subprime loans have filed for bankruptcy protection this year, American Home Mortgage Investment Corp and New Century Financial Corp and dozens of lenders have closed.

The Bush administration has argued that the recent subprime mortgage market turmoil appeared to be contained and is not hurting the broader economy, but it is closely monitoring the situation.

"We need to help those facing the pain of foreclosure," Clinton said in a statement. "We need to secure the marketplace and put reforms in place right now."

Her proposal also includes requirements that mortgage brokers fully disclose their compensation to borrowers when they apply for a mortgage and require federal registration for mortgage brokers.

Additionally, Clinton said another $1 billion should be set aside to help state and local trust funds that help subsidize low-income housing. The New York lawmaker did not offer details on how she would pay for the programs if enacted.

Some lawmakers in Congress, including Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Chris Dodd, have been looking into overhauling regulations governing the subprime mortgage market, but no concrete proposals have advanced in the House of Representatives or Senate.

Rudy G.

Poor Rudy! Obviously he's not a good family man - even though he's tried several times. The following is in my mind not relevant to his running for President or his ability to perform the job. My reason for not voting for him is, of course, because he doesn't espouse the philosophies, policies nor have international expertise (especially what to do with Iraq) I think he should hold and have. However, there are a lot of very superficial voters out there who "focus on the man" rather than his qualifications.

In the long run, if he really wants to be a politician, I think he's in the wrong party! His daughter is a Democrat, obviously and he has backed many Democratic policies such as women's choice and gay rights. I also doubt that he is a ‘born-again Christian' - and actually, he may not be a Christian at all! After all, how many practicing Catholics have been married three times?

Anyway, this is sort of a fun read.

Giuliani's daughter backing Obama
AP

WASHINGTON - The daughter of Republican hopeful Rudy Giuliani has signaled she's backing Democrat Barack Obama for president.

According to her Facebook profile, Giuliani's 17-year-old daughter, Caroline, belonged to Democrat Barack Obama's Facebook group "Barack Obama (One Million Strong for Barack)." She left the group Monday morning after the online magazine Slate sent an inquiry.

Her profile can be viewed by Facebook users who have access to New York City's Trinity School or Harvard University networks. Caroline, who is Giuliani's daughter with his second wife, Donna Hanover, recently graduated from Trinity and will attend Harvard in the fall.

Slate posted a screen shot of her profile, which uses a slightly different last name. She lists herself as having liberal political views.

Giuliani, a leading Republican candidate, has asked for privacy to deal with strained relationships in his family. Son Andrew, 21, has said their relationship became distant after Giuliani's messy divorce from the children's mother and his marriage to third wife Judith Nathan.

"There's obviously a little problem that exists between me and his wife," Andrew Giuliani told The New York Times earlier this year.

In May, Giuliani attended his daughter's high school graduation but kept a low profile, sitting in a last row balcony seat with his wife and leaving without speaking to his daughter, the New York Daily News reported.

Neither the Giuliani nor Obama campaigns had any comment on Caroline's political preference.

Media Matters & Commentary

"Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media."

Granted, this is a progressive organization who watches the neocon writer's lies and inaccuracies but not those on the liberal side. However, my interest primarily involves slurs against the candidates I'm most likely to vote for. (I wouldn't vote for Jesus Christ if for some demented reason he'd come back to Earth as a Republican!)

On the other hand, I just pointed out gross innaccuracies in a posted left-wing article written by a David Swanson about GWB's grandfather's involvement in a plot to overthrow the US government in 1933 and aligning with Hitler in a post on Care2!

And so now I'm accused of being an "employee of Bushco" implanted in the thickets of Care2.. Prescott Bush was not a good honest patriot but he simply didn't go that far. By all accounts, he was simply a greedy 2nd tier American businessman! ....AG

August 3, 2007
The weekly update from Media Matters for America

Daily Howler writer Bob Somerby (among others) describes the media's relentless fascination with (Democrats') haircuts and (Democrats') earth tones and (Democrats') necklines as a focus on "trivia." As in, the cost of one of John Edwards' haircuts is perhaps interesting to some, but quite insignificant -- it is the answer to a trivia question, not something that should be considered the defining element of the man.

But over and over and over again, media treat these trivial matters -- what songs are on Hillary Clinton's iPod? What color shirt is Al Gore wearing? How much was John Edwards' haircut? What is Barack Obama's middle name? -- as deeply significant revelations about the candidates' character. We've tried -- over and over and over again -- to explain the problems with this form of campaign journalism. And we'll likely do so -- over and over and over again -- in the future.

But this week, we're struck by something else: How frequently reporters are wrong not only about the importance of these trivial matters, but about the trivia itself. They aren't Ken Jennings, racking up win after win on Jeopardy. They're more like Cliff Clavin, spouting off in the bar about a "little known fact" that is completely false.

For example: A July 22 New York Times article about candidates' clothing warned that candidates "risk becoming Al Gore in earth tones, in other words, to cite a famously lampooned misstep the former presidential candidate undertook on the advice of Naomi Wolf, then his image consultant." That was probably an inevitable line; media just love to snark about Wolf picking Gore's clothes out for him. This is classic trivia -- it couldn't possibly matter less that Al Gore wore a brown pair of pants, or that he did so on the advice of an image consultant. Indeed, since the media constantly tell us that candidates' appearances matter -- the July 22 Times article is but one of many examples -- they arguably should have considered Gore a savvy pol for seeking professional sartorial advice.

Oh, I almost forgot one little detail: Naomi Wolf didn't tell Al Gore to wear earth tones, and she wasn't an "image consultant," as the Times acknowledged in a correction on July 29.

Why it took the Times a full week to correct a claim that anybody who cares has known is false for the better part of a decade is anybody's guess. But perhaps we should just be grateful the correction eventually came. When Times columnist Maureen Dowd made the same bogus claims during the 2000 presidential campaign, her falsehoods went uncorrected. Take, for example, her November 3, 1999, column that declared "Time magazine revealed that Al Gore hired Ms. Wolf, who has written extensively on women and sexual power, as a $15,000-a-month consultant to help him with everything from his shift to earth tones to his efforts to break with Bill Clinton." Wrong and wrong again -- Wolf didn't have anything to do with "earth tones," as the Times now acknowledges, and Time magazine didn't reveal that she did. Dowd was playing trivial pursuit -- but she kept getting the answers wrong.

Now, another presidential campaign brings still more media insistence that trivial observations about candidates' clothing are somehow deeply revealing matters of great importance. After The Washington Post ran an article about Hillary Clinton purportedly showing some cleavage during a statement on the floor of the Senate, journalists rushed to defend the paper from predictable (and well-deserved) derision.

CNBC chief Washington correspondent John Harwood, for example, defended the article by suggesting that Clinton's cleavage was the result of "the calculation that goes into everything that Hillary Clinton does." Shortly thereafter, he decided he needed to defend himself, and explained his comments by invoking -- you guessed it -- Al Gore's earth tones.

Washington Post reporter Amy Argetsinger took to MSNBC to defend her paper's article. In doing so, she claimed the article was "very complimentary" toward Clinton and that it was "not critical of the cleavage display." In fact, as Media Matters for America noted, the article described Clinton's appearance as "unnerving," adding "it was more like catching a man with his fly unzipped. Just look away!"

Argetsinger went on to make a more telling false statement. Describing the article's genesis, Argetsinger said that the writer, Robin Givhan, "took note of the fact that Hillary Clinton was showing a bit of cleavage because she had been watching Hillary Clinton over the years and had noticed that she had never shown cleavage." Givhan's piece also indicated the cleavage display was a new development -- it was headlined "Hillary Clinton's Tentative Dip Into New Neckline Territory," and made much of how "surprising" it was to see "coming from Clinton."

The notion that this -- utterly trivial -- display of a little cleavage is a new and out-of-character development for Clinton is presumably the basis for the obsession many journalists have with the topic -- and for Harwood's insistence that it is the result of political calculation. It is also false. More than a year ago, for example, the National Review's Kathryn Jean Lopez noted, "Senator Clinton's blazer is a bit lowcut today" and predicted a Washington Post Style section article about the topic. She even posted a screen-capture of Clinton on the Senate floor, showing just as much (which is to say, very little) cleavage as that which inspired the current media obsession with Clinton's "calculated" neckline.

More Clinton trivia appeared in The Washington Post's coverage of the most recent Democratic presidential debate, during which Clinton said that she and her husband sent their daughter Chelsea to private school upon arriving in Washington because the Clintons had been advised that if Chelsea went to public school, "the press would never leave her alone."

The Post's Peter Baker wrote up Clinton's comments under the headline "CHELSEA'S SCHOOLING Blame the Media? Once It Wasn't So." Baker's three-paragraph report was full of snarky observations: Beginning "Ah, it was the media's fault," the report went on "Funny thing -- that's not what the Clintons said in January 1993 when they announced the decision. ... Nothing about reporters -- who, by the way, aren't exactly allowed to waltz into public schools any more than they are private schools. And who over eight years pretty much left Chelsea alone, regardless of school."

Now, the Clintons' reasons for sending Chelsea to private school are basically trivia. Neither the Clintons nor any other progressive I know of thinks private schools should be banned, so there isn't any hypocrisy at play here (though, of course, you can't expect reporters to understand that.) But whatever substantive merit there may be to exploring the Clinton's reasons, the question of what the Clintons said in January 1993 is purely trivia. Regardless of what they said when, it's hard to imagine that anybody really doubts that concern for Chelsea's privacy was a factor in the decision. That was perfectly clear to observers at the time - a January 1993 Newsweek report, for example, noted "Chelsea's privacy could be one factor" in the decision.

But Baker focused on the trivia of what the Clintons announced in January, 1993 -- according to Baker, a White House spokesman said "They chose Sidwell Friends because it's a good school." His Post colleague John Solomon declared it an "insightful catch of Sen. Clinton changing her story. ... Hillary Clinton may have had privacy in mind back in 1993 when she and her husband made the choice for Chelsea, but they didn't tell us that then, so noting it now is useful."

Well, no, it isn't particularly useful, or insightful. And it's also false to say that the Clinton's "didn't tell us" about privacy concerns "back in 1993." It's trivia, and it's wrong. In May 1993, the Associated Press reported:

Sending his daughter to a pricey private school gave her a chance to "be a normal kid," President Clinton said today. He insisted that the decision was not a rejection of public schools.

"My daughter is not a public figure. She does not want to be a public figure. She does not like getting a lot of publicity, and frankly she has more privacy and more control over her destiny where she is than she would if she were at public school," Clinton said in a two-hour "Town Meeting" broadcast on CBS.

"Back in 1993," President Clinton told a national television audience that concern for Chelsea Clinton's privacy -- her dislike of "publicity" -- was a factor in the decision to send her to Sidwell Friends. This is little more than trivia -- but it is trivia Baker and Solomon get wrong.

The defining characteristics of the 2000 presidential campaign were the media's focus on trivia over weighty matters -- Al Gore's purported fib about dog medicine received far more scrutiny than George W. Bush's lies about taxes and Social Security -- and its tendency to get even the trivia wrong. Al Gore didn't claim to have invented the Internet, he didn't claim to have discovered Love Canal, he didn't wear earth tones at Naomi Wolf's insistence.

If we're going have another presidential campaign dominated by media focus on this kind of trivia -- and, for the love of all that is good, let's not -- reporters should at least make an effort to get the answers right.

Then again, if they had the facts right about these things, there wouldn't be any reason to talk about them.

© 2006 Media Matters for America
1625 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Suite 300, Washington, D.C. 20036