VP Cheney discussing Iraq War in Ny Manhattan Institute -- now on tv ---
gottaknow |
01.19.06 - 9:49 am | #
Now McClellan is discussing bin laden's audio tape....
gottaknow |
01.19.06 - 9:50 am | #
Redd,
I suppose you have seen Howell's non-retraction retraction by now, in which she tells us what she should have said without acknowledging that she wrote something totally false.
Here is the response I posted.
Ms. Howell,
Your failure to print a direct retraction of your completely false statement is highly unprofessional.
Also very disturbing is that you used your previous article to promise that Democrats would be the subject of more "Abramoff-related" scrutiny in the future.
On what basis is the Post pursuing stories about connections between Abramoff and Democrats? Abramoff's crimes involve only Republicans, as far as we know. For you to report on criminal activity of Republicans, and Democrats accepting legal campaign contributions ---not from Abramoff---side by side is the worst sort of journalism.
Whatever legal activities Abramoff's clients were involved in has as much relevance to Abramoff's crimes as the fact that he is writing a commentary on the Talmud---precisely none.
If you want to improve the reporting, then why don't you distinguish between those actitivities of Abramoff which were illegal or suspected to be so, and those "Abramoff-related activities" which have no taint of scandal whatsoever.
Oh, and you should resign... but if you don't, I think your lack of credibility and professional standards leads me to inquire whether you have received any compensation from any organization besides the WaPo for any of your "journalism-related actitivities".
If you like it there is lots more at There’s lots more at H.L. Comics Links
Thank You
HL |
Homepage |
01.19.06 - 10:00 am | #
J S Daniel's proposed finance rules (zero chance of passage):
(1) No limit on contributions;
(2) ALL contributions must be reported;
(3) ALL contributors must be natural persons over 18 years of age.
Something for everyone to hate!
P J Evans |
01.19.06 - 10:01 am | #
Here we go- now we have the inevitable "war of the plans" from congresscritters to keep themselves from dishonesty--funny as hell!!
I'll vote for the one who advocates capital punishment for bribery! Buncha fuckin clowns-yeah I mean ALL of em!
rwcole |
01.19.06 - 10:02 am | #
Hey, all. i've been thinking - especially since some of you have reported cable blackouts - that this community is highly dependant on the continued existance of the internet. With that gone, so is this community. In the spirit of Farenheit 451, I would like to see us make some actual contacts so we could keep this going (by mail?) if necessary. In the spirit of this, I would like to meet my MA compatriots and maybe some in western MA could meet with NY, etc. How does this sound?
Kathryn in MA |
01.19.06 - 10:04 am | #
Here's another comment I posted.. I'm repeating here to check for truthiness.. hehe.
Actually I'm not sure if what I said in this comment is correct.. let me know if I could have made it truthier.
----------
Another point. I could be wrong about this, but my understanding is that Abramoff's crimes are not related to the campaign contributions of his clients, generally speaking. I think there are some exceptions---involving Ney for example---but isn't it generally true that Abramoff's crimes are money-laundering and fraud? The largest money transfers were the payments to Abramoff and his "charities", not the campaign contributions.
I don't understand the journalistic point of focusing on campaign contributions, except in one way: if you look at Abramoff's personal campaign contributions, they show that he was a thoroughgoing Republican, a fact your newspapers has taken pains to obscure.
Have I got that about right?
marky |
01.19.06 - 10:05 am | #
I think "fat cat" talk shouldn't be our first line of offense. It's obviously an important conclusion we hope people will reach--that this is supposed to help the rich stay richer, and to facillitate GOP reps' and their corporate buddies' interest in lining their pockets. But it's a conclusion, not a critique. When Dems lead with "fat cats" talk, they play to the stereotype of being anti-business and do Karl Rove's work for him.
The real primary message is "we hate these fucking cheaters." They broke the law. They cheated. They used their office to profit illegally. And the Dems will put a stop to it, and they'll make sure that it won't happen in the future. Disclosure, new penalties and restrictions. To stop CHEATING.
The next step is cronyism. This ties into Brownie, Miers, recess appointment bonanza, and shows that cronyism is the machinery of the cheating--the bribery and the back-room, pay-to-play politics. It only works because they have their guys on the other side running the show. That's what the K Street Project is all about. That's why Harry Reid says it looks like Gotti and the mob. They have an enterprise here that was the instrument of the crime. Point two--if people have made it this far, we're already in good shape.
Point three is that the result is government by the highest bidder. The people who can afford to pay, get their wish. Here we have to have specific examples too. The ones I've seen thus far are little snippets about the Medicare Bill and occasional things about Blunt and Phillip Morris or Randy Cunningham, and the Abramoff, Delay stuff (which is neutralized since they've both already been caught). We need more here. Diebold seems like a great candidate. The Iraq no-bid Ks are also useful here. One of the awesome recent ones was Conrad Burns lobbying for Michigan tribes instead of Montana tribes. Tie the whole mess together to show the litany of horrors that has been the awful governance of GOP-dominated D.C.
Point four is the program that shuts down the enterprise. 5 year ban. Disclosure, ban on gifts, etc, etc.
Point five is that this will lead to better government, more efficiency, better results, and a stronger economy, national security...country.
But above all the take home can't be some meaningless phrase like "cultutre of corruption." The average voter already thinks that D.C. has a "culture of corruption" as well as everything else in the universe--we all steal office supplies and snack in the bulk food aisle these days. It's too vague and weak-kneed. We need to say, no scream, that they CHEATED. Then we need to explain how they did it.
MSB |
Homepage |
01.19.06 - 10:05 am | #
I'm scared and I'm peeing my pants. Please let our CIC protect us! Don't question him!
Joe Sixpack | 01.19.06 - 9:57 am | #
Joe Sixpack: What is CIC? I assume you are lol.
gottaknow |
01.19.06 - 10:06 am | #
Speaking of peeing pants.. is it really true that you can see a wet spot on Bush's trousers after he is informed of the 9/11 attacks? This is thought to be the real reason he sat still for several minutes---to let his pants dry.
I'm not joking, but I don't know if this is true.
It's factesque though.
marky |
01.19.06 - 10:08 am | #
Goopers favor new laws that make bribes perfectly legal- as long as they are disclosed-- see if the american people have access to a list of the bribes- they'll all go down to the library- check out the congressional record- see who contributed to each crooked congresscritter's campaign- cross search this against the voting record and decide "aha- this guy's a crook- so I won't vote for him"
Goopers are also investing heavily in the flying pigs industry.
rwcole |
01.19.06 - 10:09 am | #
The comments today if anything are more scorching than the response to Howell's previous lying. She is using her position as ombudsman to traffick in propaganda. It's really disgusting.
marky |
01.19.06 - 10:10 am | #
Re: OBL speculation
Seriously, who cares if Osama is dead or alive? Even the administration has figured that part out.
If needed, the Carlyle Group can just arrange for another bin Laden to stand in for him, and there's no way in heck we would know the difference.
And I doubt if even that's necessary. Even luxury cave-dwelling must wear a bit thin after a few weeks. If there's not several bL's already taking turns at being Osama, that's pretty poor planning.
Tortoise |
01.19.06 - 10:10 am | #
"Joe Sixpack: What is CIC? I assume you are lol."
gottaknow
it's funny/pathetic how the Repugs are so quickly trying to clean house, mainly by sweeping the K Street Project under the couch, and the Dems are acting like their co-enabler with their own feeble plans...Feet need to be held into the fire, and this whole mess needs to be thoroughly investigated, and the time has finally come for an accountability moment from the Repuglican Revolutionaries, who so proudly swept in to office on a so-called 'reform' movement.
Now, we have little Ricky Santorum and his non-recall of the 'quote K-Stree project' and the WH denying that Bush and Abramoff never met (as if Bush wouldn't recall one of his base, er Pioneers), and various other pieties--we need to keep pressing on this issue all year, and shining a light into all the dark corners of this administration, because the Repugs will try to say next fall that they've addressed this issue and the 'moment of accountability has passed.'
Who's got the pics of Abramoff and Bush? I'd give anything for a WH pool reporter to hold one of those up at Baghdad Scotty's propaganda parties!
leftAhead |
01.19.06 - 10:13 am | #
Marky,
Thanks for the heads up on Howell. i used your logic in quotes to make my point, hope you don't mind. Thanks again
clare boothe lucid |
01.19.06 - 10:14 am | #
For clear eyed adult thinking on this you just can't beat Josh. The Promise of the "CEO President" has been revealed as shake down operation for the rich, and getting richer.
This year is already shaping-up, it's on C-SPAN now, and coming out on Google. Brent Bozo is in front of Ted Stevens talking about porn on TV. The Gov. wants Googles records to fight pedaphiles. The Sex card replaces the Race card. This phoney Horwitz deal over liberal bias in higher education. They don't want to talk about the price of that education.
But they're swimmin' against a really strong current. When Slaughter was on this morning, a wingnut caller was on screaming at her. The Scandal is starting to bite. The right will go to the same plays, lot's of dust in the air. And Phony issues like Plantations in speeches.
And cable will give us Rita Cosby taking Hostage training, that's on tonight, check your local listing.
colorado bob |
01.19.06 - 10:14 am | #
"Regardless of how you may vote, what do you usually consider yourself: a Republican, a Democrat, an independent, or some other party?"
So here's the continuing frustration of being a dem--if everyone who says that they are a dem went out and voted for dems- we would run the White House- the big house- and even the outhouse.
rwcole |
01.19.06 - 10:14 am | #
Rwcole,
Actually I think openness could work, but I want to take it a step further. Rule 1) there are no unofficial meetings with lobbyists.
Rule 2) All meetings with lobbyists are recorded and transcribed, with the transcription put on the web at the end of the day, or at some early convenient time.
If not these exact provisions, we need a mechanism which discloses what lobbyists are asking for. I actually don't have a problem with businesses lobbying--_I think it's perfectly appropriate for coal industry representatives to lobby Congress about energy legislation, since they are experts and they will be affected.
The problem is that secret deals affecting the public weal are made, to great profit for corporations. Just strip away the secrecy and better legislation will follow, IMO
marky |
01.19.06 - 10:15 am | #
Commander in Chief... come on guys -- give some of not-so-quick a break -- of course CIC is not to be trusted ...
gottaknow |
01.19.06 - 10:15 am | #
Thanks Clare, I don't mind at all.
marky |
01.19.06 - 10:18 am | #
Dems need to get off this "battle of the plans" thing as soon as possible--
People HATE one party claiming to be purer than the other. The "plan" had to be drawn up- and of course it will never become law- but if the topic switches from "what did the goopers do?" to "how can we fix it?" the goopers have won..this is a loser.
rwcole |
01.19.06 - 10:19 am | #
Apologies for the OT ~ but I just had another keyboard spewing moment reading the following on Eric Altermans' site...figured you all would appreciate it:
“Just how crazy do you have to be to be a New York Post columnist/much admired font of wisdom for ‘The Note’” Quote of the Day, here: “Ann Coulter represents the Democratic mainstream better than Al Gore on this one." —Dick Morris.
Susan |
01.19.06 - 10:20 am | #
P.S. They're gonna put a bag over her head.....Well it's a start.
colorado bob |
01.19.06 - 10:20 am | #
It's not time for legislation- it's time fer some hangings, floggings, and tar and feather parties.
rwcole |
01.19.06 - 10:20 am | #
Ya gotta love THIS:
SAN JOSE, Calif. - The Bush administration, seeking to revive an online pornography law struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court, has subpoenaed Google Inc. for details on what its users have been looking for through its popular search engine.
Google has refused to comply with the subpoena, issued last year, for a broad range of material from its databases, including a request for 1 million random Web addresses and records of all Google searches from any one-week period, lawyers for the U.S. Justice Department said in papers filed Wednesday in federal court in San Jose...
...Although Google pledges to protect personal information, the company’s privacy policy says it complies with legal and government requests. Google also has no stated guidelines on how long it keeps data, leading critics to warn that retention is potentially forever given cheap storage costs...
This will be interesting.
_
BobbyG |
Homepage |
01.19.06 - 10:23 am | #
Kira Phillips on CNN just a few moments ago: "And now our top story, a new and chilling audio tape by Osama Bin Laden."
If you have a chance, please let the fearmongers at CNN know that you don't care for their anchor's choice of adjectives.
In Need of Surveillance |
01.19.06 - 10:23 am | #
Little yellow feathers please RW - available at hobby stores very cheaply :-)
mark from ireland |
Homepage |
01.19.06 - 10:24 am | #
Re; Reform..... want to join a lobby, you forfeit your pension and retirement.
colorado bob |
01.19.06 - 10:24 am | #
The tools of oppression are in place and already waiting in the wings. Once Bush and Cheney "vanquish" Bin Laden, there are many more threats, most of them domestic that will be targeted using the new and improved laws.
*War on drugs
*War on illegal immigrants
*War on porn
Time for the war on Americans to begin.
-GSD
Granite State Destroyer |
01.19.06 - 10:26 am | #
Slightly OT:
I added to Marky's flogging of Howell:
Ms Howell:
You mis-stated the facts before. Why not just retract the comment instead of digging yourself in deeper? Now you say that Abramoff "directed his Indian tribal clients to make millions of dollars in campaign contributions to members of Congress from both parties."
Where is your evidence for this assertion? The fact that some Indian tribes contributed money to Democrats and these Indian tribes also had dealings with Abramoff in no way means that Abramoff "directed" any contributions to Democrats.
Now you've got two retractions to make! Please do so "with all deliberate speed!"
sonate |
01.19.06 - 10:28 am | #
Kaine to give SOTU response ?!?!?
right church, wrong pew
clare boothe lucid |
01.19.06 - 10:30 am | #
Way off topic - speaking of efficatious maggots (you can see how behind i am in my homework), someone posted a website of medicinal herbs. Could you repost it? i regret i didn't "favorite" it. Thanks.
Kathryn in MA |
01.19.06 - 10:30 am | #
"Dems Say Congress Should Not Be for Sale"
Sounds good, and we certainly all agree, but let's look at the facts. Here is but one example:
"Joseph Lieberman, an Enron Democrat who bagged Enron campaign contributions and who worked hard to block accounting reforms.
The Tyranny of Triangulation
One major reason Democrats have failed to get traction on the issue is that Lieberman has, so far, been unwilling to play hardball as chairman of the Senate's Governmental Affairs Committee. (It's not the only committee investigating Enron, but it has primary jurisdiction over fraud and corruption within the executive branch.) Three months after Lieberman said he would launch an investigation of Enron's collapse, the committee has held only a handful of hearings and has yet to subpoena a single Bush administration official. Instead, Lieberman recently sent "requests" for information to Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham, White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card, and others -- the congressional equivalent of "pretty-please-with-sugar-on-top." (They ignored the deadline for responding.)
Enron Democrats"
Lieberman's Slippery Slope
"Senator Joe Lieberman . . . is one of the faulty watchdogs and also a leading gatekeeper who blocked the timely reform of corporate finance. . . . he has shilled vigorously, sometimes venomously, for the very players who are new icons of corruption--major auditing firms, corporate executives who cashed stock options early while investors took a bath and, especially, those self-inflating high-tech companies in Silicon Valley that drove the stock-market bubble. As a New Democrat, Lieberman held the door for their escapades.
His most important crusade was protecting the loopy accounting for corporate stock options. . . . symptomatic of the deceptive bookkeeping that permeated corporate affairs during the boom and the bubble.
Back in 1993, when the Financial Accounting Standards Board proposed to stop it, Lieberman went to war. "I believe that the global pre-eminence of America's vital technological industries could be damaged by the proposal," he warned. The FASB, he insinuated, was politically motivated or simply didn't grasp the bright promise of the New Economy. Lieberman organized a series of letters warning the accountants' board to stop its meddling. In the Senate, he mobilized a resolution urging the Securities and Exchange Commission to squelch the reform. It passed 88 to 9. The regulators backed off--and stock prices soared on the inflated earnings reports. Whenever FASB tried to reopen the issue, Lieberman jumped them again. He was well rewarded by Silicon Valley and auditing firms. He is the New Democrats' favorite candidate for 2004.
Lieberman's victory was extraordinarily costly for the economy, not to mention duped investors, unhinging valuations and fostering the overinvestments that now hang over the tech industry. Accounting professor Itzhak Sharav of the Columbia University Business School describes Lieberman's intervention as the first step on "the slippery slope that got us mired in the Enron swamp. . . . "
Lieberman Caught in Political Bind
"Big pharmaceutical companies and health insurers have been among the most generous donors to Connecticut Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman . . . In his nearly 12 years in the Senate, Lieberman has been one of the strongest advocates for the insurance and pharmaceutical industries . . .
When Lieberman co-founded a campaign group called the New Democrat Network in 1996 to raise money for centrist Democratic candidates, drugmakers and health insurers stepped in as major supporters.
Aetna Inc., based in Hartford, Conn., and Citigroup Inc., which merged in 1998 with Travelers insurance, have been the two largest donors this year, contributing $50,000 each in unregulated soft money, according to new records released to The Washington Post by the New Democrat Network. American International Group Inc. and Cigna Corp., whose health insurance business is headquartered in Connecticut, each put up $25,000.
The New Democrat Network has also received financial backing from such pharmaceutical giants as Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., Schering-Plough Corp. and Glaxo Wellcome Inc., along with the industry's main trade group, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Association. . . .
Insurance and pharmaceuticals provide Lieberman with his fifth- and seventh-largest sources of support, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Lieberman is one of the few Democrats who supports limits on the liability of companies that are sued for injuries caused by products or services. He also supports one of the key goals of HMOs: limits on punitive damages and independent, outside review of judgments against health plans.
Lieberman also has lobbied hard for pharmaceutical companies on issues ranging from research and development tax credits to streamlined FDA reviews of applications for marketing new drugs."
Corporate America has strangle hold on both parties, and here is why most of the Democrats are so eerily silent on the subject of a filibuster:
"The President's new Supreme Court nominee has been a staunch proponent of limits on legal liability, employee rights, and federal regulation
It took mere minutes for a partisan divide to open over Samuel Alito. Even as President George W. Bush was introducing the Third Circuit Appeals Court judge as his pick to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court, political activists on the Right and Left were girding for battle over Alito's positions on civil rights, affirmative action, and abortion.
But one group is breathing a big sigh of relief: Corporate America. Of the dozen or so names on Bush's rumored short list of high court candidates, Alito ranked near the top for the boardroom set.
In the 800-plus opinions he has penned during his 15 years as a federal judge, Alito consistently has come down on the side of limiting corporate liability, limiting employee rights, and limiting federal regulation. "He would be a liability restrainer," says Stan Anderson, legal-affairs lobbyist for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce..."
"...As a judge, Alito has written numerous minority opinions making the case for setting a higher bar on claims of racial and sexual discrimination in the workplace. He issued a landmark decision upholding the free-speech rights and freedom of association of business trade groups in 1995's Pfizer v. Giles, and he backed commercial-speech rights in Pitt News v. Pappert.
OVERTURNED BY THE SUPREMES. In one case of key interest to business, Alito as a circuit judge claimed that the federal government could not apply the Family & Medical Leave Act to state employees. In Chittister v. Dept. of Community & Economic Development, he upheld a lower court ruling backing the state of Pennsylvania, taking Congress to task for enacting the Family & Medical Leave Act. This 1993 federal law, which requires employers to provide employees with 12 weeks of unpaid leave for various health or family reasons, including the birth of a child, was an unconstitutional abrogation of states' rights, Alito wrote.
Lawmakers who penned the law wanted to rectify what they considered "inadequate job security" for working mothers, who often bear the brunt of child-rearing responsibilities. But Alito disputed that reasoning. "Notably absent is any finding concerning the existence, much less the prevalence, in public employment of personal sick leave practices that amounted to intentional gender discrimination in violation of the Equal Protection Clause," he wrote in his Chittister opinion.
That was in 2000. Three years later, a 6-3 Supreme Court, with Chief Justice William Rehnquist and O'Connor in the majority, took the opposite view in Nevada Dept. of Human Resources v. Hibbs, upholding the right of Congress to mandate that states give their workers the same benefits the federal act grants to private-sector employees. The effect was to trump Alito's earlier decision..."
Alito is not a mainstream candidate, and a majority of people in our country do not want someone who holds his extreme views.
Will our Senators do the right thing and filibuster him? Heck, no!
What we is a government that, although democratic in name, is actually run by big money. This money comes from the corporations that contribute the millions of dollars needed to elect their candidates—candidates, who, in order to get elected and reelected must quietly serve the interests of their "sponsors."
Alito will be confirmed, and our Democrats will continue to be for sale.
susan |
01.19.06 - 10:30 am | #
Wasn't yesterday the big dem meeting in the sky on Alito? So what did they decide? Is it a secret?
rwcole |
01.19.06 - 10:30 am | #
Sorry, need to add a word:
What we *have*is a government that, although democratic in name...
susan |
01.19.06 - 10:34 am | #
If Hastert is Mr. Magoo, then Rick Santorum is a dead ringer for Mr. Magoo's nephew, Waldo.
kaleidescope |
01.19.06 - 10:34 am | #
Regarding Osama:
Did anyone notice he's wearing his same "I'm an angel" golden cape as he wore in his last video? Am I the only one who is increasingly convinced we've asked the Saudis to hold him in comfortable retirement (I'll be damned if he doesn't look spa fresh) so he can make a video to frighten up the sheep once a year.
And here's my anti-corruption plan:
All contributions must go through the FEC. You have to declare your total contributions (with a limit of $10,000), but your recipient will never know who has given to him. He'll know that a lot of people like him because he's rich. But he'll never be able to exchange the quid for the quo since he won't know who he owes.
The GOP did really badly with 527 donations for just this reason--they could tie donations to names closely enough to profit off of it.
emptywheel |
Homepage |
01.19.06 - 10:35 am | #
I would guess at least one, and probably nearer to two, out of five voters don't mind the cheating.
It's a sign of cleverness.
It's a sign of resolve.
It's a sign you 'want it more' than the other guy.
I had people -- by all appearences sane people -- tell me in the early winter of 2000-2001 that Bush deserved the Presidency precisely because he was willing to steal it.
It proved his fitness for office.
It proved he was tough and ruthless.
Gore, these people told me, didn't have the balls to steal it, and because of that didn't have what it takes to be president.
My favorite quote: "Democracy is for pussies."
The popularity of fair play is exaggerated.
Davis X. Machina |
Homepage |
01.19.06 - 10:36 am | #
MSB (10:05 a.m.),
If you read the actual proposal, your points are mostly addressed. The problem with addressing too many issues, as my acquaintance in Congress told me, is that you end up diluting everything. Mostly that the media fails to cover each issue adequately. If you harp on the same thing over and over, they have no choice but to do more analysis instead of the usual he-said she-said nonsense.
On that vein, the message that seems to be emerging is that the "culture of corruption" lead to a "pay to play" game that has hurt America. People are most concerned about Health Care and Energy costs. The CoC/P2P way of doing things has resulted in an abhorrent Medicare law and rising medical expenses as well as poor energy policy that resulted in higher costs.
Connect the dots from the CoC/P2P to bad legislation that everyone despises (except loyal Bush apologists). This line of attack will help if Bush tries to push for S.S. reform, tax reform, etc. If Dems can make this stick, Bush and the GOP will be really lame lame ducks. I just wish they'd tie Alito ino this.
gq |
Homepage |
01.19.06 - 10:37 am | #
EW - you're referring, of course, to Internal Revenue Code Section 527, aren't you?
Stephen Parrish, CPA |
01.19.06 - 10:38 am | #
Redd -- excellent post --
There is a very good opinion piece on todays NYT op-ed pages by Norm Ornstein and Thomas Mann that dovetails nicely with the Dem's message. They focus no so much on Abramoff but on the Repub's ignoring the rules in Congress, especially the house -- giving example after example of how "they cheated." The Dem's focus on breaking the rules strongly distinguishes their package from the Repubs, but the trad med missed this last night. E.g., K. Holman on PBS Lehrer last nite listed the common features between the two plans, but didn't focus on the differences.
Strongly recommend the NYT piece, but don't know how to get by the NYT wall; other bloggers tend to pick up on these and quote them a length -- it's a long piece -- so I hope John Casper, Wilson and other who do such a great job of scouring the sites for articles can find this one and post here. If I can get in, I'll try to cut/paste key paras.
scarecrow |
01.19.06 - 10:39 am | #
Right on target.
Anonymous |
01.19.06 - 10:41 am | #
BTW: Ornstein piece not behind NYT's wall.
Anonymous |
01.19.06 - 10:41 am | #
RE: Just saying "culture of corruption" over and over isn't enough.
I just finished reading Haynes Johnson's book The Age of Anxiety: McCarthy to Terrorism. The parallels to today are eerie. In the 50's Democrats thought Americans would see right through McCarthy so they sat back and lost control of Congress. We need to identify the crimes that have been committed but more importantly we need to, in the clearest terms, explain the consequences of the incompetence and corruption of Republicans and the administration now in power. We need to spell it out clearly and stop making the assumption that people "get it."
katjam |
01.19.06 - 10:42 am | #
Emptywheel, my concern with your plan is that the quid pro quo will still happen, with photocopies of checks being privately shown to the leaders, and no way for the general populace to find out who's quid is going in who's quo.
Primordial Ooze |
01.19.06 - 10:42 am | #
Scarecrow -- that's on my list of discussion topics for today. And it dovetails very well with both the Dem message and some things I've been contemplating recently. (I just need time to sit down and work on it, and I've been dealing with Destruct-o-Girl this morning, which hasn't lent itself to serious thought. lol) Hopefully, if we can get a nap...
ReddHedd |
Homepage |
01.19.06 - 10:42 am | #
Oops, grammar self-policing: should be whose, not who's
Primordial Ooze |
01.19.06 - 10:54 am | #
"Now we're going to say you can't have a meal for more than 20 bucks," said Senator Trent Lott, Republican of Mississippi. "Where are you going, to McDonald's?"
This goes with the link I posted last
Kathi |
01.19.06 - 10:55 am | #
Anonymous -- thanks. Ask and ye shall receive. Owe you one.
scarecrow |
01.19.06 - 11:00 am | #
Dunno 'bout you Kathi but IMO a spell behind the counter in McD's or stacking shelves in WalMart might do *ahem* some politicians a lot of good. (It might do you a lot of good too as you'd have the peace of mind that comes from knowing that they'd be too damn busy and too damn exhausted to stitch up ordinary people with their cronies.....)
and who knows with any luck he might be able to get a discount on porch building materials .
mark from ireland |
Homepage |
01.19.06 - 11:00 am | #
Larry Johnson has a new post up. It's on waterboarding, but it's not that kind.... It's on contracts to supply the CIA bottled water in IRAQ, and the trail leads thru Duke Cunningham's office to his suger daddy Wilkes.
If you read the actual proposal, your points are mostly addressed. The problem with addressing too many issues, as my acquaintance in Congress told me, is that you end up diluting everything. Mostly that the media fails to cover each issue adequately. If you harp on the same thing over and over, they have no choice but to do more analysis instead of the usual he-said she-said nonsense.
On that vein, the message that seems to be emerging is that the "culture of corruption" lead to a "pay to play" game that has hurt America. People are most concerned about Health Care and Energy costs. The CoC/P2P way of doing things has resulted in an abhorrent Medicare law and rising medical expenses as well as poor energy policy that resulted in higher costs.
Connect the dots from the CoC/P2P to bad legislation that everyone despises (except loyal Bush apologists). This line of attack will help if Bush tries to push for S.S. reform, tax reform, etc. If Dems can make this stick, Bush and the GOP will be really lame lame ducks. I just wish they'd tie Alito ino this.
gq |
Homepage |
01.19.06 - 11:02 am | #
Hey, Did Okrent really get a "big fat check from a right wing front group" when he left the NYT?
This was in a comment over at WaPoo. Is it true? If so, it's prima facie evidence of payola.
marky |
01.19.06 - 11:04 am | #
Re Susan's post regarding Lieberman which had this...
Back in 1993, when the Financial Accounting Standards Board proposed to stop [bad accounting for stock options], Lieberman went to war. "I believe that the global pre-eminence of America's vital technological industries could be damaged by the proposal," he warned. The FASB, he insinuated, was politically motivated or simply didn't grasp the bright promise of the New Economy. Lieberman .... mobilized a resolution urging the Securities and Exchange Commission to squelch the reform. It passed 88 to 9."
This "reform" was a requirement for firms to expense the value of stock options to managers. Since they are tax deductible (in the year of exercise), the accounting body thought (for many good reasons) that it made sense to treat them similarly in the annual report. But [expletive deleted] Joe came to the rescue of firms and shafted the public.
I believe that the resolution was only the third time in history that a congressional body had a directive on a specific financial accounting practice.
sonate |
01.19.06 - 11:05 am | #
Oh. My. God.
The Democrats are actually learning how to play this game. Their "Democratic Declaration of Honest Leadership and Open Government" is pitch perfect, the graphic is perfect, and for the first time since I can remember when, there is hope our team will be in the game.
Two messages for the Democratic Leadership:
A) "We now know that the 'GOP Contract with America' was a contract to SELL OUT America, to the most corrupt GOP bidders."
B) Please, Please, Please -- STOP saying the GOP reached a level of corruption in ten years that it took the Democrats to reach in forty. The level of GOP corruption is far worse than ANYTHING the Democrats ever did, or even dreamed of.
The corruption of the Modern GOP has led to the MOST CORRUPT Government in the History of the United States.
ck |
01.19.06 - 11:11 am | #
I thought Kate O'B was "Destuct-o-Girl."
One day, you'll miss these moments.
scarecrow |
01.19.06 - 11:12 am | #
This is interesting.. a comment by "Celo" at WaPoo got me thinking.
Celo writes:
You want to know why people are so upset at your incompetence? This is what Scott McClellan (SM) said today on the subject:
(SM): Like I said, people are insinuating things based on no evidence whatsoever. And remember, this is a gentleman who contributed, either through himself or through his clients, to both Democrats and Republicans. This was not --
(Q): Not many Democrats.
(SM): Oh, there's significant amount, if you look at some of the media reports, that has been contributed by his clients to Democrats.
See that?!?!? You are now responsible for this lie
_---
to which I responded on the blog:
Celo,
That's a very interesting catch.
Remember what we know of Judy Miller: she was fed propaganda which the NYtimes put on the front page, and then the White House would cite the NYtimes to complete the "alley-oop"
play.
This is very suspicious
-----
How can we connect the dots to prove that the WaPoo is helping the White House out in the same was as Judith Miller?
marky |
01.19.06 - 11:13 am | #
THIS UPDATE ON RITA COSBY "LIVE AND DIRECT":
RITA'S HOSTAGE TRAINING SESSION WILL BE HELD AT THE WORLD FAMOUS MUSTANG RANCH!!!
RITA WILL STILL HAVE A BAG OVER HER HEAD, SO IT'LL BE SAFE FOR CHILDREN UNDER 10 TO WATCH.
colorado bob |
01.19.06 - 11:14 am | #
"Armstrong Williams for Washington Post ombudsman" is the latest comment. HAHAH
marky |
01.19.06 - 11:17 am | #
sonate @ 11:05 am - "I believe that the resolution was only the third time in history that a congressional body had a directive on a specific financial accounting practice." What were the other two? I remember the controversy then over expensing stock options. Now stock options must be expensed, according to this Wikipedia excerpt:
It has been announced that by the beginning of 2006 employee stock options will have to be expensed under US GAAP (generally accepted accounting principles) in the US. The stock option expensing rules will be effective for reporting periods beginning after Jan 1, 2006 or in practice the 1st quarter of 2006. This is a delay from a March 2005 proposal to introduce option expensing per Jun 15th, 2005. This is due to a lobby by many companies that they needed more time due to multiple significant accounting changes (like Sarbanes-Oxley). As a result, companies that have not voluntarily started expensing options will only see a P&L effect in fiscal year 2006. Companies will be allowed, but not required, to restate prior-period results after the effective date. This will be quite a change versus before, since options did not have to be expensed in case the exercise price was at or above the stock price (intrinsic value based method APB 25). Only a comment in the footnotes was required. Intentions from the international accounting body IASB indicate that similar treatment will follow internationally.
I would add one more to the three suggested below:
4. If you can't vote for them, you can't give them money.
If nothing else, it would get rid of a lot of advertising money.
J S Daniel's proposed finance rules (zero chance of passage):
(1) No limit on contributions;
(2) ALL contributions must be reported;
(3) ALL contributors must be natural persons over 18 years of age
Jamie |
01.19.06 - 11:19 am | #
What were the other two times in history a congressional body had a directive on a specific financial accounting practice?
Stephen Parrish, CPA | 01.19.06 - 11:19 am |
There are only two others that I am familiar with. One the 1960's requirement by the APB to defer the investment credit and take it into (financial) income over the life of the related asset. This was before my time, but I believe that even the SEC favored the recommended treatment and Congress passed a law allowing the "flow through" method for financial purposes.
The other was the 1979 oil accounting standard. The FASB eliminated "full cost" accounting in the extractive industries. Within a year Congress rescinded the FASB and passed a law that allowed "full cost" accounting for financial purposes.
sonate |
01.19.06 - 11:31 am | #
Amazon has "disappeared" well over 150 reviews of "the book"
It's still tanking though...
Average Customer Review: based on 322 reviews. (Write a review.)
Amazon.com Sales Rank: #166 in Books (See Top Sellers in Books)
Yesterday: #133 in Books
Jane's got a new one...and she's on a roll
RBG |
01.19.06 - 11:40 am | #
"...But [expletive deleted] Joe came to the rescue of firms and shafted the public."
Yeah, and he is outraged that anyone would think that he deserves a primary challenge.
Until we can clean up the problem of corporate money in politics, statements like, "Dems saying Congress should not be for sale" are simply headline grabbers and photo ops devised to impress the gullible masses.
The corruption runs deep. Slogans and "nibbling around the edges" legislation will not purge the rot.
susan |
01.19.06 - 11:45 am | #
there needs to be a serious “ethic” cleansing in Congress... yet no one is making some of the most obvious suggestions when it comes to lobbying reform!
Watching the coverage of this issue, I'm screaming for someone to complete the circle so people can understand that they're getting ripped off in order to make rich people richer.
We get the one arc that's "Republican lobbyists" and we get the other arc that's "earmarking" and never the twain do meet. Like on the News Hour last night-- not even Reid linked them.
It's simple to do. Interested parties pay enormous amounts of money to lobbying firms, which are made up of Republican operatives who are getting filthy rich. These operatives also direct political contributions through PACs and fake charities, so they control the flow of money to Republican congresscritters.
Earmarks are the payoffs to the interests who shovel money at the lobbying firms which shovel money to Congresscritters. That's what the huge explosion of earmarks is all about.
It's a complete circle that uses taxpayer money to fund Republican election campaigns, think tanks, propaganda outlets, and you name it.
From the interests' point of view, they get the earmark goodies and instead of paying taxes or doing something socially constructive with all that money, they rake off a percentage for the Republican lobbying machine that controls these earmarks. So it's just like the old Tammany Hall graft and kickback system.
This has to be said in simple ways. Code terms like "pay for play" don't mean anything to an average person.
But telling people that their tax dollars are being stolen for political kickbacks is easy for them to understand.
What I don't understand is why Harry Reid didn't say that last night. He had the chance, and generally he's very good on this kind of stuff.
But this is the single biggest problem of Dems-- they can't get outside of beltway-speak into the language ordinary people use. Louise Slaughter did some of that yesterday. Most of them can't. But they have to if they want to connect with people who actually aren't political junkies.
Altoid |
01.19.06 - 1:26 pm | #
ideas? here's an interesting read from tom hartmann on tools for activism. i recommend. we need to frame a simple message w/embedded language. this is short and sweet.
annie |
01.19.06 - 1:32 pm | #
"And here's my anti-corruption plan:
All contributions must go through the FEC. You have to declare your total contributions (with a limit of $10,000), but your recipient will never know who has given to him. He'll know that a lot of people like him because he's rich. But he'll never be able to exchange the quid for the quo since he won't know who he owes."
emptywheel 01.19.06
If you could hide the checks, so the politician would never know who gave, then you'd have something. Of course, then contributions would drop significantly. No quid no pro.
MarkH |
01.19.06 - 2:27 pm | #
What makes me sick is Harry Reid apologizing to the GOP for exposing their corruption.
I mean, he had them where he wanted them and then he let their tail go.
What was the point, then?
jurassicpork |
Homepage |
01.19.06 - 4:18 pm | #
The Rick Santorum ad from the DSCC is one of the worst pieces of crap I've ever seen.
If you're gonna make ads, even cheap ones, make them look professional. It's not that hard.
And if you need help, just call.
www.itaintrocketscience.ca
Steve Denvir |
01.19.06 - 6:41 pm | #
