It is remarkable that there's nary a mention of George Bush, the chosen one and savior of our country by the conservative movement.

Given how things were from 2001 until the presidential campaign heated up, it's really quite stunning how George W. Bush is utterly missing from our discourse. The conservative movement was for that period all about elevating Dear Leader, and now he's just gone.

Some of it is because Dick Cheney has been so outspoken about his love of torture, but it's also the fact that Cheney had almost as much power as Bush himself. That was, until things started blowing up in GW's face.

Here we go again. ABC's resident Glenn Beck wannabe, John Stossel, whines in a recent blog entry that all critics of President Obama are labeled racists by his supporters. To prove his point, he cites an article by a right wing pundit who has been consistently wrong about issues of race -- Jonah Goldberg.

During the presidential campaign, Barack Obama’s supporters promised that his election would allow America to “transcend race."

But of course that hasn’t happened. Jonah Goldberg writes:

It was Obama’s supporters who hinted, teased, promised, and prophesied that Obama would help America “transcend race.” But now, it is they who shrink from their own promised land…

From Day 1, Obama’s supporters have tirelessly cultivated the idea that anything inconvenient for the first black president just might be terribly, terribly racist.

Without one shred of evidence to back up his assertions, Stossel ends his screed with this:

Come on. Every president eventually is criticized by the media – even one as “transcendent” as Obama. The President’s supporters should engage his critics with facts, not charges of racism. Read on...

Facts? If Mr. Stossel wants facts, he sure picked the wrong person to quote on his blog. The fact is, that racism is driving the heavy resurgence of right wing militias in this country. It is a fact that threats against our newest president have skyrocketed, and his race plays a huge role. The Minuteman movement is based on extreme racism and xenophobia, and all of this is being perpetuated daily by Republican politicians, Fox News and the titular head of the Republican Party, Rush Limbaugh, who gleefully aired a parody about President Obama called "Barack the Magic Negro."

I'm not trying to say that all critics of President Obama are racists, but there's no denying the fact that racism permeates much of the Republican Party, it's punditry and media. Oh and there's this, this, this and this -- and that's just the tip of the iceberg. Hey Stossel, if you're going to make these broad allegations, you need to come to the table with more than just quotes from Doughy Pantload wetting himself over Janeane Garofalo.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1394)

PLAYS: (2806)

(h/t Heather.)

I, for one, am thrilled that Dr. Dean is outside the White House, agitating for real healthcare reform. He's much more effective out here than on the inside, being back-stabbed by Rahm:

Howard Dean has emerged as President Barack Obama’s chief antagonist from the left on healthcare reform, raising questions over whether Obama made a mistake by snubbing Dean for a position in his administration.

Dean’s strong advocacy for creating a broad government-run health insurance program, known as the public option, has become a headache for Obama while at the same time giving liberals a powerful spokesman with national credibility.

Dean, who once declared himself a representative of the “Democratic wing of the Democratic Party,” has been traveling the nation this summer offering his own views on Obama’s healthcare proposal. His uncompromising stance is reminiscent of his 2004 presidential campaign that took many Democrats by surprise, and has begun to symbolize a rift between the president and those activists who played a major role in electing him.

Oh, yeah. Yoo hoo, over here! Remember us?

“Howard Dean has been the bully pulpit for the grass roots, expressing what the majority of Americans across the country are feeling but using his profile to make it newsworthy,” said Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC), a liberal activist group that supports the public option.

“It might have been a blessing in disguise that Howard Dean was not brought into the admin because it has allowed him to be bully pulpit for the overwhelming majority of American people who support the public option.”

Soon after Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said in a television interview that the public option is “not the essential element” of healthcare reform, Dean took a strong opposing stance.

“You can't really do health reform without it," Dean said of the public option in a television interview Monday, calling a major government role “the entirety of healthcare reform.” His comment spearheaded a week of liberal criticism of the administration’s mixed messages on healthcare reform. (Obama insisted on Thursday that his position on the public option has not changed and described it as “a good idea” but “not the only aspect.”)

His potential to torpedo the administration’s signature domestic proposal is somewhat ironic given Obama’s efforts to enlist potential adversaries in his administration rather than face their wrath.

Dean was once considered a candidate for secretary of Health and Human Services. Obama passed him over while appointing former rivals and potential adversaries to Cabinet posts. He named his primary rival Hillary Rodham Clinton as secretary of State and asked Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), a longtime critic of Democratic fiscal policy, to serve as secretary of Commerce.

Continue reading »

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1277)

PLAYS: (2481)

In his new book, Tom Ridge will say that members of the Bush administration pressured him to raise the terror alert level for political reasons. A former Bush White House communication director has resorted to name calling to refute the charge.

"During the 2004 presidential campaign we were having a very political discussion about terrorism," said Nicolle Wallace. "But that is quite different from what [Tom Ridge] very, I think in a very wussy way alleges."

Wallace appeared as a panel member on "Fox News Sunday."

(click here to see Mark's very revealing video about the phony terror alerts back in the Bush years)

This is a big deal because it's coming from the horse's mouth. Tom Ridge admits in his new book what we've known for a long time and what has been reported years ago.

Former US homeland security chief Tom Ridge charges in a new book that top aides to then-president George W. Bush pressured him to raise the "terror alert" level to sway the November 2004 US election.

Then defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld and attorney general John Ashcroft pushed him to elevate the color-coded threat level, but Ridge refused, according to a summary from his publisher, Thomas Dunne Books.

"After that episode, I knew I had to follow through with my plans to leave the federal government for the private sector," Ridge is quoting as writing in "The Test of Our Times: America Under Siege ... And How We Can Be Safe Again."

Some of Bush's critics had repeatedly questioned whether the administration was using warnings of a possible attack to blunt the political damage from the unpopular Iraq war by shifting the debate to the broader "war on terrorism," which had wide popular appeal.
-
He later publicly acknowledged that much of the information underpinning the new alert was three years old, stoking Bush critics' charges of political manipulation.

Ridge also charges that he was often "blindsided" during daily morning briefings with Bush because the FBI withheld information from him, and says he was never invited to sit in on National Security Council meetings.

Here's what Ridge's book says:

Former Bush Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge is releasing a book on September 1 titled, “The Test of Our Times: America Under Siege…and How We Can Be Safe Again.” U.S. News’ Paul Bedard reports that, in the book, Ridge reveals that he considered resigning because he was urged to issue a politically-motivated security alert on the eve of Bush’s re-election:

Among the headlines promoted by publisher Thomas Dunne Books: Ridge was never invited to sit in on National Security Council meetings; was “blindsided” by the FBI in morning Oval Office meetings because the agency withheld critical information from him; found his urgings to block Michael Brown from being named head of the emergency agency blamed for the Hurricane Katrina disaster ignored; and was pushed to raise the security alert on the eve of President Bush’s re-election, something he saw as politically motivated and worth resigning over.

This was first reported way back when by the Washington Post in 2004:

The mixing of anti-terrorism policy with the 2004 presidential campaign is becoming destructive. It is creating a vicious cycle of hype, skepticism and mistrust that puts the country's security at risk.

The dangers of politicizing terrorism were clear in this month's announcement about potential attacks on financial centers in the New York area and in Washington. When Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge disclosed the threats on Aug. 1, he faced immediate skepticism about whether the intelligence was valid. Sadly, the Bush administration had helped create this climate of public suspicion by overusing its elaborate, color-coded system of terrorism warnings. After a terrorism advisory by Attorney General John Ashcroft last spring was pooh-poohed the same day by Ridge, some people wondered whether these warnings were being used for political effect.

Bush used the terror alerts to win the election against John Kerry and it's a breach of his oath of office as far as I'm concerned.

And don't forget about the release of the Osama Bin Laden tape right before the election. As we were getting closer to Nov. 4th, Kerry was picking up momentum before this happened.

On October 29, 2004, at 21:00 UTC, the Arab television network, Al Jazeera, broadcast excerpts from a videotape of Osama bin Laden addressing the people of the United States, in which he accepted responsibility for the September 11, 2001 attacks, condemns the Bush government's response to those attacks and presents those attacks as part of a campaign of revenge and deterrence motivated by his witnessing of the destruction in the Lebanese Civil War in 1982.

John Kerry admitted as much on MTP:

Senator John Kerry said on Sunday that the attacks of Sept. 11 were the "central deciding thing" in his contest with President Bush and that the release of an Osama bin Laden videotape the weekend before Election Day had effectively erased any hope he had of victory.

Continue reading »

Of course...

According to WRAL News, sources expect former U.S. Sen. John Edwards to admit that he is the father of his former mistress' 18-month-old daughter.

Edwards confessed last August to an affair with Rielle Hunter, who worked for the Edwards presidential campaign in 2008. Edwards has denied father her daughter, saying the relationship with Hunter ended before the child was conceived.

I will reiterate again that it is my belief that the extramarital activities of any one is not of interest. However, I do think it's instructive to note the character of someone who would break so callously the promises made to those closest to him.

However, let me also say (and I do this as a former HUGE John Edwards supporter), WHEW!!!! I'm so glad his campaign blew up when it did. It's bad enough that he took his marriage vows so casually, but to be dumb enough to do so without taking precautions against this kind of eventuality does not speak well for Edwards' intelligence at all.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: 215

PLAYS: 15

(FDR - answering the well-upholstered whiners)

During the last few days of the 1936 Presidential campaign, FDR spoke at a rally in Wooster Massachusetts on October 21, 1936, answering Republican charges he mishandled the recovery that pulled the country out of depression. It was a familiar complaint:

FDR:

“Three and a half years ago we declared war on the Depression. And you and I know today that war is being won. But now comes that familiar figure, the well-upholstered hindsight critic. He tells us that out strategy was wrong, that the cost was too great, that something else won the war. That is an argument as old as the remorse of those who had their chance and muffed it.”

You'd think, 73 years later there would be a different story. But no.

I guess the upholstery just doesn't change.

If the president was more passionately engaged in the fight to achieve the goal (instead of announcing he's rather have something bipartisan than legislation that, you know, actually gets the job done), and Congressional leaders were more focused on actually getting us affordable health care instead of placating the insurance lobby and other members of Congress, this would be a moot point.

But they're not.

And if the Democrats had shown they're actually looking out for us, and not their powerful sponsors, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

What the president doesn't seem to understand is, to us, this is an economic Hurricane Katrina. The water is rising and we're stranded on the roof, praying and waiting for help. Seems to us that you're more interested in looking bipartisan than getting us off the roof. Don't you know how scary it is, watching the water rise? Are you actually telling us to wait on the roof and mind our manners?

Mr. President, will you help us - or the insurance lobby? History has shown that you can't do both.

President Obama, strategizing yesterday with congressional leaders about health-care reform, complained that liberal advocacy groups ought to drop their attacks on Democratic lawmakers and devote their energy to promoting passage of comprehensive legislation.

In a pre-holiday call with half a dozen top House and Senate Democrats, Obama expressed his concern over advertisements and online campaigns targeting moderate Democrats, whom they criticize for not being fully devoted to "true" health-care reform.

"We shouldn't be focusing resources on each other," Obama opined in the call, according to three sources who participated in or listened to the conversation. "We ought to be focused on winning this debate."

Specifically, Obama said he is hoping left-leaning organizations that worked on his behalf in the presidential campaign will now rally support for "advancing legislation" that fulfills his goal of expanding coverage, controlling rising costs and modernizing the health system.

Remember when candidate Obama's campaign was urging big donors and other contributors to give directly to his campaign instead of liberal activist groups? I didn't trust it then, and I don't trust it now. I'm not all that interested in allowing what is far too often a corporatist, right-leaning agenda to go unchecked.

That said, there's a legitimate case to be made that we should focus on positive goals rather than negative attacks. I'm not saying I agree (certainly not in all circumstances), but we could at least have a reasonable discussion about that. (In fact, I just had one the other day from a friend who's working in health care reform, and she said the same thing. But see, I trust her.)

In the call, leaders of both chambers expressed optimism that they will hold floor votes on legislation to overhaul the $2.2 trillion health system before Congress breaks in early August.

For his part, the president vowed to use his strong approval rating with voters to continue making the case for sweeping reform, according to one congressional staffer with knowledge of the conversation. Obama also hinted that efforts are under way to discourage allies from future attacks on Democrats, according to the source, who did not have permission to speak on the record about the discussion.

"Sweeping"? I think that word does not mean what he thinks it means. Because until we sweep greedy insurance companies out of their seats at the right hand of the throne, this will be a reform in name only, just like Massachusetts.

I wonder how they're going to "discourage" us? Cut off our internet access?

Photo by Thomas Neff.

Theoretically, the Obama administration could bring some integrity to the process. But practically speaking? I think the tribunals are too tainted to retain, and I don't pretend to understand why this is happening:

WASHINGTON — - The Obama administration will announce plans Friday to revive the Bush-era military commission system for prosecuting accused terrorists, current and former officials said, reversing a presidential campaign pledge to rely instead on federal courts and the traditional military justice system.

Word of the imminent decision infuriated human rights groups, who argued that any trials under the system created by former President George W. Bush would be widely viewed as tainted and said the Obama administration was duplicating the mistakes of former administration.

[...] White House officials insisted that Obama was not overturning a campaign vow. The president "never promised to abolish" military commissions, an administration official said. However, during his campaign Obama repeatedly called for change.

[...] The administration still intends to prosecute some Guantanamo Bay detainees in federal courts, as Obama had pledged. But officials have concluded that a small number of detainees can be tried only in the military commissions, said a U.S. official familiar with the changes, speaking on condition of anonymity in advance of Friday's announcement.

The administration on Friday also will outline major changes to the military commission system that will be used in future trials.

Gabor Rona, the international legal director of Human Rights First, said military commission trials are unlikely to be seen as legitimate forms of justice.

"Everyone knows the military commissions have been a dismal failure," said Rona. "The results of the cases will be suspect around the world."

But Charles Stimson, a former Bush administration official who oversaw detainee affairs at the Pentagon, applauded Obama's proposal as one that would bring needed change to the military commission system while keeping it intact.

"It is a good start. The closer they get to courts-martial the better," Stimson said. "They should learn from the mistakes the Bush administration made, then proudly defend the military commissions.

"

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1451)

PLAYS: (3843)

While the GOP struggles to find someone -- anyone -- to be the leader who'll get them out of the political wilderness, their current leader, and the man who did more to lead them into that wilderness, is starting to make it clear he's chosen the figurehead to replace George W. Bush:

Sarah Palin.

On Monday's Rush broadcast, he dissed the GOP's current "reconnect" efforts, and said they were all missing the boat -- because Palin wasn't there:

If Jeb wants to run around and say that they've got something and we don't have anything -- I mean, the Democrats got something. We have to admit it. If we don't have something, it's the fault of the people that Jeb is meeting with in Arlington, Virginia, not conservatives and not conservatism and not the grass roots!

Ah, the -- what's -- I have to laugh. Specter and all these people talk about how far right the party's moving? It's the exact opposite. This party has muddled its identity to the point that they have to do this tour to come up with a new brand, that they're rebrand the Republican -- why? Because in many places, you can't distinguish it from the Democratic Party.

Something else you have to understand. These people hate Palin, too. They despise Sarah Palin. They fear Sarah Palin. They don't like her, either. She's -- according to them, she's embarrassing. A lot of this is aimed at Sarah Palin. When you -- when you -- when you strip all the talk that the Reagan era is over and we got to stop all this nostalgia and stuff, clearly, in last year's campaign, the most prominent, articulate voice for standard run-of-the-mill good old-fashioned American conservatism was Sarah Palin.

Now, everybody on this "speak to America" tour has presidential perspirations. Mitt Romney's out there. He wants to be president again. Jeb may some day. Eric Cantor, some of the others, McCain -- I don't think he does, but you never know. So this is -- this is -- this is an early campaign event, 2012 presidential campaign, primary campaign, with everybody there but Sarah Palin.

And then, yesterday, he was even more explicit:

Continue reading »

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1639)

PLAYS: (1687)

Lou Dobbs and Co. (in this case, "reporter" -- and we use the term very loosely indeed -- Drew Griffin) have earned a new title: Masters of the Well-Beaten Mummified Horse Corpse:

In March, a House subcommittee looking into lessons learned from the 2008 election, heard from a Republican lawyer from Pennsylvania, accusing ACORN of a multitude of violations. In response, Democratic Congressman John Conyers, a fierce partisan who defended ACORN during the presidential campaign, surprised fellow members when he called the accusations a pretty serious matter. Conyers asked New York Democrat Jerrold Nadler to conduct a subcommittee hearing on ACORN. Here is what happened next.

REP. JERROLD NADLER (D), NEW YORK: Let me just say that I would certainly consider a hearing on ACORN, if I ever hear any credible allegations.

REP. JOHN CONYERS (D), MICHIGAN: Whoa. Wait a minute. This is a member of the bar here that got a successful partial injunction against ACORN.

NADLER: The chairman makes a good point and we will certainly consider it.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

GRIFFIN: Lou, they didn't apparently consider it very long. Congressman Nadler's office tells us there will be no hearing on ACORN. When we asked why, we were told Congressman Conyers changed his mind. When we looked for a statement there, this is what we got from Congressman Conyers' office.

"Based on my review of the information regarding the complaints against ACORN, I have concluded that a hearing on this matter appears unwarranted at this time." That's just about a month after he called the whole affair "pretty serious." Lou?

DOBBS: Obviously Congressman Conyers is not the only fierce partisan on that committee -- a stunning reversal and no further explanation.

GRIFFIN: Nope, we actually asked for an interview. We asked for an explanation of this very statement which says really nothing at all, what kind of evidence they reviewed that changed his mind. This is all we got in return, Lou.

DOBBS: Drew, thank you very much and ACORN is -- well I think we would have to say an interesting and unique organization that deserves a lot more attention, if not investigation on the part of all of us.

What Dobbs and Griffin seem to have trouble wrapping their little heads around is the reality that there's no there there.

Even in cases like the Nevada prosecution, the problem appear to be an issue regarding individual miscreancy more than organizational corruption. And how serious is the problem, exactly?

Continue reading »

DOWNLOAD (23)

PLAY (92)

The Tonight Show Nov. 11, 2008: John McCain does his first interview since losing the Presidential election.