William Bennett: another neocon with a warped sense of race relations

I forgot to get to this one following the election, but it's no less relevant.

Want to know why I no longer watch CNN? The network's employing conservative stooges like Glenn Beck (who will predictably move to Fox News in January) and GOP stooge William Bennett is one of the bigger reasons.

On election night, listen to this exchange between Bennett and CNN's Anderson Cooper (the latter being one of CNN's few bright spots):

Anderson Cooper: I mean, if he does become president, and it still is an if, does anyone know what this means in terms of change of race relations in the United States, or perception of?

Bennett: Well, I'll tell you one thing it means, as a former Secretary of Education: You don't take any excuses anymore from anybody who says, "The deck is stacked, I can't do anything, there's so much in-built this and that." There are always problems in a big society. But we have just - if this turns out to be the case, President Obama - we have just achieved an incredible milestone. For which the rest of the world needs to have more respect for the United States than it sometimes does.

Hmm, let's see, Obama will be our 44th president, and since we've had one in 44, now centuries of bigotry, racism and discrimination will all just magically melt away, right?

Here's another thought - maybe in regard to race relations, specifically Republicans, the rest of the world has a noted lack of respect because people like Karl Rove and Bennett himself have been proponents and architects of political tactics that have made it more difficult for African-Americans to vote or to have their vote count once it's cast. Or maybe it's the noted lack of African-American Republicans in Congress; the last time I checked, there were no black GOP Senators, and I with the retirement of J.C. Watts in 2003, there aren't any black Republicans in the House, either.

But, now that Obama has won the presidency, people like Bennett are quick to try and take the credit, but people of his political ilk so strenuously opposed his candidacy in the first place.

Pretty amazing, even by Bennett's often asinine standards and justifications.

McCain & Palin starting to self destruct

I love this - John McCain is surely ruing the day that he ever selected Sara-cuda - she's been a disaster in just about every way. In recent days, there have been numerous reports that the Palin and McCain camps are increasingly acrimonious toward each other about how she's being used on the campaign trail. I've also read some reports that she's been striking out on her own in her stump speeches and straying off message vis-à-vis what the campaign wants her to say..

Hmm - self-destruct much? I'm certainly not, in Obama's own words, "counting chickens before they're hatched," but as of right now, it's looking pretty good for Obama. And I love being a spectator to the finger pointing that has already started. Unfortunately for the supporters of McCain and Palin, all of the finger pointing in the world won't change one thing - that McCain has sold his soul in hopes of capturing the presidency. Think I'm being unfair? Do a YouTube search and see for yourself - when I look back at footage of McCain during the 2000 Republican Primaries, I see and hear a guy I hardly recognize, and I don't mean physically. I laughed out loud when McCain defiantly challenged people to name one issue that he has switched positions on. And yes, he was serious.

Anyway, here's a transcript of the video above, and it's pretty damning about Palin's striking out on her own, and talking about her future before the election.

From CNN:

BLITZER: And this just coming into the "Situation Room," the Republican Vice Presidential Candidate Sarah Palin now speaking out openly about her intentions in 2012 if, if she and John McCain were to lose this contest next Tuesday. In an interview with ABC News, Sarah Palin is now saying, she would be interested in remaining a serious national political figure, going ahead to 2012. She was asked what happens in 2012 if you lose on Tuesday, would you simply go back to Alaska? Elizabeth Vargas of ABC News asked her and Palin said this, and I will read it to you verbatim according to an ABC News transcript: "Absolutely not," Sarah Palin says. "I think that, if I were to give up and wave a white flag of surrender against some of the political shots that we've taken, that ... that would ... bring this whole ... I'm not doin' this for naught," and that is a direct quote from Sarah Palin. Clearly, leaving open the possibility that she would be interested in leading the Republican Party in 2012 if she and John McCain were to lose this presidential contest right now. Let's go to Dana Bash. She has been covering the McCain campaign reaction from the rather blunt statement from Sarah Palin that she would in fact be interested in leading the Republican Party going forward after Tuesday if they lose?

BASH: I just got off of the phone, Wolf, with a senior McCain adviser and I read this person the quote and I think it is fair to say that this person was speechless. There was a long pause and I just heard a "huh" on the other end of the phone. This is certainly not a surprise to anybody who has watched Sarah Palin that she is interested in potentially future national runs, and she is being urged to by a lot of people inside of the Republican Party if they do lose, but it is an "if" and people inside of the McCain campaign do not want any discussion that has an "if" in front of it six days before the election, they don't want any discussion at all, any kind of hypothetical talk about running for the next time around. So certainly, this is not at least initially being received well inside of the McCain campaign.

BLITZER: I am not surprised, not surprised at all. It is one of those "wow, she is talking about 2012 if we lose," that is not supposed to be something that you say. You are supposed to say, "well, I'm not looking ahead, I'm not looking ahead only to Tuesday," and those are the talking points she's supposed to be saying, but she is obviously blunt and she is looking ahead if something were to happen on Tuesday that she wouldn't be happy with.

That last point about how Palin should have responded is spot-on by Blitzer, and it's another illustration of how much of a political neophyte Palin is (lucky for Obama & his supporters). She's very naïve when it comes to how she should handle herself in a national campaign. Her manner, annoying accent and gaffes may play well in Alaska (and in many cases might be viewed as quaint), but her appeal has worn off with undecided and independent voters. And her lack of depth and knowledge on the most basic of issues, in my estimation, has been the most damning and damaging of all.

h/t to Crooks & Liars for the video & transcript

McCain's interesting family tree

I have sooo much to get to tonight and this weekend, but before I get to the very current stuff, I want to clear the decks of a few things in my queue. Please stay tuned all weekend - this weekend promises to be the most active one so far this year for Count Me Blue, and I always enjoy reading your thoughts. On to some new posts. ...

I know this is a non-story, but I did find this very interesting. Evidently, McCain's ancestors were slave owners. I don't think the fact that his ancestors were slave owners matters one iota regarding McCain or his candidacy, but I do find it interesting that he's not willing to acknowledge that his ancestors were slave owners.

Having said all of that, there are plenty of other things that CNN could be spending its time on. I've heard of going and digging into the candidates' backgrounds, but this takes it to a whole new level. We haven't had what most would consider to be a "slow news day" for months now - since way before the political conventions - so I'm thinking that this story shouldn't have even seen the air, in my humble opinion.

Just another in a seemingly infinite number of examples available for all to see that demonstrates how far the once respected and admired network has fallen.

But, there was a bit of positive news for the network this week, as far as I'm concerned, but I'll get to that in a minute.

Debunking the b.s. lie about our media

I really don't know what happened to Lou Dobbs, but he's become the biggest braying jackass on a once great network. To hear Dobbs, the most notorious walking, talking xenophobe on a network not named Faux Noise Channel say that the media is largely "liberal" is a joke of the highest order (this footage is from a week or so ago). It's also worth noting that Dobbs has a partisan history going back to his earliest days at CNN, where he hosted Moneyline, later leaving the network after refusing to interrupt his precious show to air a speech delivered by President Clinton at Colombine just days after the shootings.

Anyway, what's been most evident since John McCain selected Sarah Palin as his running mate is the Republicans' return to their dog-eared playbook of Richard Nixon, which on page one says, "Slam the media for being overly liberal whenever there is news that's unfavorable to us."

And it's been parroted by every single Republican ever since when unflattering or bad news (much less a scandal) has befallen someone with an "R" behind his or her name.

I was listening to Thom Hartmann the other day, and he brought up an excellent point about Sun Tzu's centuries-old famous tome, The Art of War. The world-famous work deals with the art of military strategies and warfare. As Hartmann mentioned, in it Tzu reasons that a principle tactic of warfare is to present your biggest strength as your biggest weakness to your enemies, and that's precisely what modern-day Republicans are doing with our mainstream media - decrying the presence of a phantom "lib-rul media" whenever there is unfavorable coverage of their party or their candidates. Not only is the presence of a "liberal media" a fallacy, but it's unarguably on of the GOP's largest strengths.

To wit, there are over 1,000 radio stations in the United States that offer predominately conservative programming. How many liberal/progressive stations are there? Less than 100; and according to Hartmann, there are 70-80 He should know, since he's arguably the premiere liberal radio voice in the United States, and he has had a very difficult time getting on terrestrial radio stations in some leading media markets primarily because there are no stations to get on. The tide is starting to turn ever so slightly, but it largely favors hate conservative radio.

Some other interesting facts:

• Every major television network in the United States is owned by a multinational corporation - CBS, NBC, Fox Network, ABC, CNN, Fox Noise Channel, Clear Channel Radio, Comcast, and on and on. These giant corporations could hardly be considered Democratic (large D) leaning companies.

• One of the most visited Websites on the Internet, and the most visited political Website is The Drudge Report. According to his Website, here are the stats from the last year: "27,151,658 IN PAST 24 HOURS, 723,014,663 IN PAST 31 DAYS & 6,455,462,513 IN PAST YEAR." (And no, I'm not linking to Drudge's GOP tip sheet Website.)

• Faux News Channel is the most watched news channel in the United States, by far, whether on cable or on regular TV.

• The top three most listened to radio talk show hosts in the United States are Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Michael "Savage" Wiener, in that order - hatemongers all, and most importantly, purveyors of GOP talking points, and often, lies and hate messages of their own.

• As far as newspapers go, there are plenty of them out there of all stripes, but the Rupert Murdoch-owned Wall St. Journal has the second highest circulation in the United States, just behind USA Today; the WSJ's circulation is just over two million per day.

Some other newspapers...

#1 - USA Today - owned and operated by Gannett.

#2 - Wall St. Journal - see above.

#3 - The New York Times - owned and operated by the Sulzberger family - liberals by anyone's definition.

#4 - The LA Times - corporate owned and operated.

#5 - The Washington Post - also a liberal paper.

#6 - The New York Daily News, owned and published by Mort Zuckerman, whose conservatism is well known.

#7 - Chicago Tribune - a traditionally conservative paper operated by the Tribune Company.

#8 - The New York Post - a Rupert Murdoch rag - what is understood, needn't be discussed.

#9 - Long Island Newsday - is about to be purchased by Cablevision. Hmm, a newspaper that's going to be owned by a cable company. Just wondering where those loyalties lie?

#10 - Houston Chronicle - owned by The Hearst Corporation, a huge media conglomerate, and it's no mystery where that company's loyalties lie.

Other highlights...

#11 - San Francisco Chronicle owned by Hearst.

#12 - New York Newsday - See #9.

#20 - The Philadelphia Inquirer is now controlled and effectively owned by the insipid Brian Tierney, the CEO of Philadelphia Media Holdings. He is a well-known conservative "commentator" and also a failed GOP campaign manager. This same company also owns the only other major Philadelphia daily newspaper, the Philadelphia Daily News.

As you can see, it's quite obvious that you can find liberal and conservative media outlets if you look hard enough, but with the exception of newspapers (where it's relatively balanced, but a medium that's rapidly declining in circulation and reach), our media is anything but "lib-rul," despite what Repubes would have all of us believe.

As I've mentioned, Republicans just slam the media the minute some bad news hits - we are seeing it on an almost hourly basis with McCain, and especially with Sarah Palin. Their strategy is simple - just cry "liberal media," and said media outlet(s) will quickly fold under the scrutiny. If history has proven one thing in the first decade of this century, it's that virtually all outlets in the media go soft the minute they are accused of being "liberal." And when that doesn't work, just spread lies - it never takes them long to go from a conservative pundit/commentator/columnist to the mainstream media; just in the past few days, examples abound of conservatives doing just that to try and steer press coverage toward McCain.

The truth is, it's the media's duty to scrutinize all candidates, no matter what party they are from, including independents.

Chronicling the McCain reversals

Maybe it can become a new play in the NFL - the McCain reverse, on two!

This is yet another great example of a McCain flip flop - this one on the dim-witted idea of privatizing Social Security. (I won't get into my thoughts on that right now.) Just add it to the long list of issues that McCain has reversed himself on in the name of political convenience (Read: What he thinks will get him the most votes.)

CNN's Jack Cafferty, no fan of President Bush or John McCain, took aim at McCain's flip flops the other day, and it's pretty entertaining.

Cafferty is right, too - McCain in '08 really is giving John Kerry in '04 a run for his money.

McCain could fill in a whole bunch of issues in the sentence that made John Kerry famous:

I was before __________ before I was against it.

So far, you could fill the blank in with Social Security privatization, offshore oil drilling, the Bush tax cuts, and a windfall profits tax for Big Oil. The list is growing and growing.

CNN points out McCain's oil flip-flop

This one is sweeter than light-sweet crude oil - CNN's Dana Bash pointing out John McCain's 180-degree reversal about drilling for oil off our coasts.

When I first saw this footage, I uttered out loud, "Wow." Finally, the press is starting to dig into McCain's many contradictions. His reversal on Big Oil exploration on our coasts is one example; his reversal on the Bush tax cuts is another. It's no surprise that running for president can go pretty far in modifying one's views, and McCain embodies that, to a T.

This all but signals an end (as Blitzer notes) of McSame's chances in The Golden State, and it will no doubt hurt his chances in Florida, too. Just how much remains to be seen, but there's no doubt that it will have an effect.

Hey, there's 138 days until the election, and that's plenty of time for McCain to reverse his opinion yet again, so stay tuned.

The bottom line is that oil is so 20th century - if that's McCain's solution to our energy problems, that Obama should take full advantage of McCain's myopia and use it as a political cudgel to do lots of damage.

But, Obama needs more than simply rhetoric on this issue - he needs a bold alternative energy plan. I think I'll write his campaign later today to urge him on.

One final note about this piece - McCain seems to have a Jimmy Carter fetish lately, which is beyond lame. Last week, in response to Obama calling a McCain victory a "third Bush term," McCain said it sounded as if Obama is "running for Jimmy Carter's second term." And Republicans wonder why McCain doesn't connect with younger voters, many of whom weren't even alive when Jimmy Carter left office in January 1981. Sure McSame, keep putting Carter down - it sounds so... so... contemporary.

Also, history shows that Carter was a leading proponent of energy conservation, even going so far as to install solar panels on the roof of the White House. He also gave a very famous speech in 1979 about the energy crisis in this country, which could be given again today almost verbatim, and it would still be applicable. (Please stick with the video below - I know the audio is bad, but it's only about a minute long - turn up your volume) ...

A pretty sage prophesy, at it turned out. Would Carter have really turned America around and got us off of our foreign oil addiction? We'll never know, but he at least addressed the issue. He never had a chance to carry out his plans, as he was defeated in the fall of 1980, but at least he discussed the issue, which is more than his successor Ronald Reagan did during his eight years in the White House. In fact, almost immediately after moving into the White House, Reagan had the solar panels removed from the building's rooftop.

I'm not naïve enough to believe that Congressional Democrats, along with President Clinton, deserve some of the blame about the energy crisis we are mired in. They certainly do share in the blame. But, the fact is that for 20 our of the last 28 years, a Republican has sat in the White House, and all three of those presidents have offered zero leadership on the issue of alternative energy technologies, including President George W. Bush.

Where am I going with this? McCain wants to drill more, threaten our coasts, and line the pockets of Big Oil. This is NOT the answer to our energy crisis.

I hope Obama comes up with a far and wide-reaching plan for combating this energy crisis, a crisis that will not go away, no matter how much we want it to. This crisis threatens our economy, our way of life, and our country's prosperity (or should I say prosperity in memory, because God only knows we haven't had much recently).

Get going, Barack - merely criticizing McCain's absurd proposals is not nearly enough - we need to hear what your aggressive, bold and sustainable solutions are to our addiction to foreign oil.

Oh, and way to go, CNN. Recently, I haven't had much reason to type that, but pointing out McCain's inconsistencies (to be kind) regarding energy policy is a start to what the network ought to be doing from now until the election.

Hell, I wish CNN would go more liberal. They've been called it for years, so they might as well live up to it now and act as a counter-balance to the detestable Fox "News."

Update: McCain doesn't even know his own energy policy. From his press conference yesterday:

QUESTION: The European Union has set mandatory targets on renewable energy. Is that something you would consider in a McCain administration? [...]

McCAIN: Sure. I believe in the cap-and-trade system, as you know. I would not at this time make those — impose a mandatory cap at this time. But I do believe that we have to establish targets for reductions of greenhouse gas emissions over time, and I think those can be met.

Oops. Crooks & Liars has the rest:

As Kate Sheppard explained, McCain new position is "completely out of line with his own proposal for a cap-and-trade scheme, both the plan he proposed with Joe Lieberman last year and his own presidential plan, released last month. They both would, by nature, be mandatory — hence the 'cap' in the name."

In other words, McCain doesn't understand his own policy. Or, as hilzoy noted, "The best you can say for McCain, on this point, is that he is completely unfamiliar with what is supposed to be one of his signature issues. Not knowing what 'mandatory cap' means, in this context, is like not knowing what a 'strike' is in baseball."

I love it.

McCain needs to take a long look in the mirror & be honest with himself, which would go something like this: "Well, my friends, it looks like I need to go back and study my proposals, which have been released on the Internet, before I go make an ass out of myself again."

:o)

CNN's Jessica Yellin on our corporate media

For all of the heat the former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan is taking for his book, What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception, there's little question that a great deal about what he says in the book is true, and I'm only going from memory going back to the beginning of the Iraq War. The press simply laid down and reported what the administration wanted it to support, in the time of militant and belligerent patriotism. People like CNN's Jessica Yellin (and McClellan) are now beginning to step forward to reveal to what extent this took place.

Good for her. I really do like Anderson Cooper - he's one of the few shining stars that CNN has right now, but his surprise at Yellin's comments is borderline laughable. Surely he was exposed to at least a little pressure from network bigwigs at CNN to cover the GWOT in a favorable light during the run-up to the War in Iraq. I can't think of a domestic-based major media outlet that raised sufficient questions about why we were going to war. I may be wrong, but I can't think of any. And I'm including traditionally viewed "liberal" outlets as well - the New York Times, WaPo, CNN, etc. Okay, Air America Radio is one, but that doesn't have the reach that major media outlets enjoy.

This will be an emerging story in the years to come, without questions. Especially now that the Bush administration is coming to a merciful end, and there's money to be made selling tell-all books.

I believe I'm stating the obvious here, but I haven't heard this point nearly enough in the media, but it's now pretty clear that Iraq is to Bush as Vietnam is to LBJ. The Vietnam War left the Johnson presidency in tatters, along with his presidential legacy. I don't think there's any question at this point that Iraq will do the same thing to Bush in the years to come (with a big assist from lots of smaller failings, led by Hurricane Katrina).

Lou Dobbs gets cotton mouth

Here at CMB, I try to not focus so much on the trivial, nonsensical stuff, but every once in a while, something funny comes along in our political world that's simply too good to not at least comment on.

Take a look at this footage as Lou Dobbs banters with Wolf Blitzer about race in this country when Sigmund Freud pays his mouth a visit. Too funny ~ "Cotton Piiiiii... Arrrgggh!" What was that, Lou?

Something else I've noticed about CNN lately (when I rarely watch it these days) - the American flag is seemingly everywhere. In this clip, it's all over the background, with of course the requisite lapel pins, etc. CNN tries to become more and more like Fox News every day, no doubt so it can recapture the lost glory it held long ago of being the number one cable news network.

Buh bye, bow tie

I'm still catching up from with a few old items, so please forgive me, but I still think some things from the past week or so bear mentioning.

When I found out that MSNBC canceled Tucker Carlson's show, Tucker, last week, I had mixed emotions. (Okay, I know, he recently ditched the bow tie, as evidenced by the picture above.)

Carlson is a guy I so desperately want to like - he seems nice enough, he's a family man, and best of all, he doesn't kowtow to the rest of the Republican pundits like Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, Bill O'Lielly, etc. He's a guy who dared to oppose the War in Iraq (after initially supporting it), and he had plenty of unflattering things to say about then-candidate Bush in 1999 following some time with him on the campaign trail. He subsequently had a dust-up with Bush's communication director at the time, Karen Hughes.

So, there are plenty of things I like about Carlson. But then, he comes out and says something really stupid, right out of the Limbaugh play book. For instance, recently on the Bubba the Love Sponge Show on Sirius (he's a weekly guest), I heard him say this about Hillary Clinton:

"I'm convinced that if she were to become president, a million people would die."

Oh, you mean like our current occupant of the Oval Office, Tucker? I guess Carlson hasn't been paying attention since the war began five years ago; an estimated 600,000 to 1 million Iraqis have lost their lives, to say nothing about the estimated 4 million who have fled the country, as well as the nearly 4,000 Americans who have lost their lives and countless more who are permanently maimed physically and mentally.

Even more outrageous, what proof does Carlson have that that would happen? He doesn't, and it was just a flat-out stupid thing to say (And it wasn't the first time I'd heard him say it, either). So it appears that MSNBC's attempt to be the next Fox News has hit a roadblock. Good, because having one channel that endlessly spews propaganda in America is enough; we certainly don't need two of them.

Now, if only CNN would get the message. I'm sure not holding my breath. The network seems desperate to recapture the fame and ratings it achieved in the first Gulf War in the 1990s, even if that involves hiring conservative hosts hacks like Glenn Beck, who is an absolute disgrace. Take one week and listen to his show on CNN Headline News (I have), and if you're even close to being a fair- and open-minded person, you'll see how this guy has zero credibility. The scary part about it is that more than a handful of people watch this fool - after all, he's on the air.

To be clear, I don't advocate CNN kicking off Beck, or MSNBC kicking off Carlson, because I disagree with their political views. (Or any talking head I disagree with.) The bottom line is that I'm just not going to patronize the advertisers that support these shows. I'll have more on this in the coming weeks - I'm going to TiVo these shows and just watch the commercials. I'm sure I'll have plenty of companies to add to my Boycott List.

The lunacy & stupidity of Glenn Beck

I try my hardest to never hate anyone - it's the way I was brought up. But, with the poisoned political atmosphere these days, especially among the moronic political talking heads on TV, I find it harder and harder to not despise the intolerant rubes on the right.

There is no better, shining example of this than CNN's Glenn Beck, the hate monger who once called Hurricane Katrina survivors "scumbags," and who also once said he "hates" 9-11 families, is the embodiment of why I'm politically active, and why we can never give up the fight against xenophobic, anti-government zealots.

I'm constantly reading blogs on both sides of the political aisle to shape and even modify my opinions, and one of my favorite blogs is Tom Tomorrow's This Modern World. A few days ago, he had a short but sweet post about Beck. I can think of little to add, so here it is...

The World According to Glenn Beck

Obama will move us to One World Government in the blink of an eye, and environmentalists are Nazis.

Glenn Beck also spends a lot of time mocking people who — in his phrasing — say "help me, government, help me, I'm scared!" — (i.e., people who believe that government programs to help the needy are actually a good thing.)

That's when he’s not saying, in all seriousness, "Please build a fence along the Mexican border, government, I'm scared!"

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is a one reason why I read the This Modern World blog every day, and why Tomorrow's comic strip is my favorite, ever.

Oh yea - and Beck is the #1 reason (but there are many others) why I've refused to watch CNN for years now. Talk about being a Fox News wanna-be. Glenn Beck? The network couldn't do any better than that? I guess CNN said to itself, "We can't catch up to Fox, so we'll try to beat Rupert Murdoch at his own game." Cool - now there are two major cable news networks that I won't watch. It makes choosing where I get my news on TV pretty easy.

Glenn Beck, CNN's pathetic and absurd attempt to pander to the mindless Fox News crowd, is little more than a silly hack - a Bill O'Lielly wanna-be. But, it's still worth pointing out the infinite number of times that lies flow from his puss. One of the latest and greatest examples - the discussion of religion regarding Mormon Mitt Romney's religion.

Beck, who is a Mormon himself, has dismissed Romney's religion as irrelevant. I can't believe I'm typing this, but, heaven help me, I agree with Beck on this one, mostly. Too bad that Becker head had plenty to say about Joe Lieberman's candidacy for vice president in 2000 (Lieberman is Jewish), or, most outrageously, asking Democratic Rep. Keith Ellison, a Muslim, to assure him that he doesn't work with our enemies.

Keep stoking those flames of intolerance, Glenn - it's a noble service you're performing.

Iraqi soccer captain: "I want America out of Iraq, tomorrow."

I found this pretty compelling - Iraq wins a soccer match, but two very different versions of reporting. This is classic example of an American version of a story and the rest-of-the-world version of a story.

Take a look and see how CNN and Reuters (the British version of AP) cover the same story. Pretty different angles, aren't they? Of course, the following excerpt received virtually no coverage, at least on TV, where an overwhelming majority of Americans get their news. From AP via Yahoo: (H/T C&L)

Iraq won the Asian for the first time Sunday, a beacon of hope for a nation divided by war.

Iraq's 1-0 victory over Saudi Arabia on a 71st-minute header by captain Younis Mahmoud was an inspirational triumph for a team whose players straddle bitter and violent ethnic divides. After the game, Mahmoud called for the United States to withdraw its troops from his nation.

"I want America to go out," he said. "Today, tomorrow, or the day after tomorrow, but out. I wish the American people didn’t invade Iraq and, hopefully, it will be over soon."

Mahmoud also said he will not return to Iraq to celebrate.

"I don't want the Iraqi people to be angry with me," he said. "If I go back with the team, anybody could kill me or try to hurt me."

If you think I'm exaggerating about Iraq media coverage, check out the news on any non-Fox News station the next time there's major news from Iraq. Yes, there has been some unflattering stories in the American media about the war, but it's been nothing compared to what the rest of the world is seeing. Since the War in Iraq began, whenever bad news from Iraq is in the American media, Republicans and the neocons have constantly, bitterly complained about how the media hypes all the bad news. Unreal. Maybe it's because there's not much good news, but also it's just flat-out untrue. There are so many examples of how the American media has virtually gone to sleep during this war, all in the name of...

Wait for it...

Wait for it...

SUPPORTING THE TROOPS.

The Iraqi soccer victory is just one example of an American media that has its head where the sun doesn't shine.

Yesterday, I read an extensive news report about how the number of American combat troops killed in action in July were the lowest in eight months. Of course, this will no doubt be flogged by the American press and Republican politicians as "progress" and maybe even "winning the war" or "turning the tide" or "the surge is working." However, the fact still remains that 75 Americans lost their lives last month for a civil war in Iraq. Period. And for what?

Oh, and one more thing about last month - How many Iraqis died? Has anyone in the American media reported it? That's a big fat NO. Many Americans probably don't even care, either, and that's the saddest thing of all. I know more than a few people who would say, "Who the (blank) cares? They're just rag heads."

And we wonder why many in the world hate us. We've brought more destruction and death upon the citizens of Iraq than three Saddam Husseins, yet the neocons and Bush still keep beating away on their drums that we are "bringing Democracy to the Middle East."

The skinny on Stevens & ethical reform

Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AL) has had quite an impressive week, for a senator who's corrupt at worst and ethically challenged at best.

First, his home was raided by FBI agents who are investigating his ties to a company whose officials have pleaded guilty to bribing Alaskan public officials. Considering his history of supporting some of the most ridiculous projects in the history of government, including a Bridge to Nowhere, which costs over $300 million, it's a more than interesting accusation. (How can a U.S. Senator support such an idiotic project? He's either one of the most asinine people ever to hold office in the U.S. Senate, he's getting paid, or both.)

Anyway, above is footage of a CNN reporter trying to catch up with Stevens to get a comment about the raid on his home, and he gets all angry and uppity: "Do you understand English? That's the only statement I'm going to make!" Touchy senator, awfully touchy. (By the way, I wish someone would tell Wolf Blitzer that the proper verb tense is pleaded guilty, not pled. I'd think a broadcaster with his experience and prominence would have verb tenses down by now.)

Even more interesting is how Stevens and other prominent Senate Republicans appear on the verge of opposing legislation passed overwhelmingly by the House that overhauls ethical guidelines for Congress. One unidentified Republican senator stated, "there will be plenty of holds on this bill." Of course there will be - why in the would Republicans want ethical reform? They don't want to turn off the sources of their largess since gaining power in Congress in 1994. Now that the Democrats are in control of Coingress, GOPers are probably afraid their money and privilege might dry up.

I've no doubt there are plenty of Democrats in Congress who are corrupt, too; in fact history reveals plenty of them (how's life these days, Dan Rostenkowski?). But, at least Democrats are taking steps to clean things up, which is more than I can say for Republicans when they were in control of Congress.

Anyway, Democrats want ethical reform, the public wants ethical reform, and the only way we're not going to get it is if Republican senators or President Bush prevent it from happening. In all fairness, I should note that I read yesterday that the ethical reform bill that passed the House did so with over 400 Representatives voting Yea, so that included a great deal of Republicans.

The bill that passed the House should do more, but it's a pretty good start. According to The New York Times, the bill will:

...let the public see for itself how much money is being traded for access. For the first time, the lavish torrent of campaign money from eager lobbyists to grateful politicians would have to be reported quarterly to the public via the Internet, with tighter scrutiny and penalties for violators. The reports would highlight lobbyists' so-called bundling, the massing of individual donations into eye-popping packages for politicians and their party committees.

And the bill would require that all earmarks — those budget-busting pet projects that fall like manna from heaven — as well as who’s sponsoring them be identified on the Internet before final passage. The bill would also curb such abuses as corporate-paid gifts and travel. It would end lobbyist-sponsored galas "honoring" ranking politicians at national conventions. It would even ban the ludicrous pensions now being paid to Congressional alumni doing prison time for felonies.

At least if this bill doesn't pass, we'll know who's responsible.

Live Blog: The Democratic Debate

Photo from AP

The Democratic Debate is about to begin. This should be a very interesting format - it's certainly one that reflects technology's growing impact on our political process. I'm glad the debate is being hosted by CNN's Anderson Cooper (above, rehearsing for tonight).

It's about to begin, so here we go...

7:09: The first weighty question of the night is about the war, and Kucinich, Obama and Clinton all take their turns. If you are a "peace-at-all-costs" voter, Kucinich is your candidate. However, I'm not a one-issue voter, even though there will be a great many of them in the '08 election, and that one issue will be Iraq.

7:11: Uh oh - a "liberal" question! How would Hillary define liberal? "In the last 30-40 years, it's been turned on its head, and twisted to mean 'big government,'" says Hillary. Not a bad answer. She goes on to describe herself as "Progressive."

7:11: Gravel and Obama get in a little testy exchange, but, to me, it falls flat. Gravel has about as much name recognition as a presidential candidate as I do. Although, I'm in favor of having all of these candidates here. The more candidates we have, and the more voices we have to choose from, the better.

7:12: Joe Biden sounds a bipartisan note by saying he would pick Chuck Hagel as a running mate. Hmmm. An interesting choice, and remarks like that aren't going to court any more Democratic voters, I suspect.

7:14: A Chris Dodd white hair video is sort of funny, and I'm not against humor, but c'mon - there isn't enough time for all of the serious issues that need to be covered.

7:15: I cannot believe that CNN chose to air a question about reparations for slavery. I'm a true, dyed-in-the-wool liberal, but this is the most ridiculous question I've seen yet during any debate this year. I'm not saying this because I'm white - I'm saying it because I'm an American who wants issues that are relevant to Americans who are living today. Is there one survivor of slavery today? A son or daughter of someone who survived slavery? No. The only candidate who is for reparations is Kucinich - what a surprise - a desperate candidate who will pander to anyone who could vote for him. A truly pathetic answer to a patently absurd question.

7:19: Good - a Hurricane Katrina question. Richardson is kicking butt and taking names answering this question. He slams President Bush for "posing for photo ops," that more should have been done, even before the storm.

7:20: A question to Clinton and Obama about gender and race. It's a fair question, but really, Cooper phrases the question to Obama by asking him, "What about the charge that you are not black enough?" which is outrageous. Honestly, I didn't hear how the questioner phrased the question, so maybe Anderson was just repeating it, but that's despicable. Just because someone asked something stupid doesn't obligate CNN to repeat such a question.

7:21: Hillary responds to a similar question about her gender by saying, "I can't run for anything other than as a woman." Slam dunk - that's right, and I'm really getting tired of her gender and Obama's race being an issue. I realize these questions aren't going away, however, so I'm just going to have to deal with it.

7:23: Edwards and Hillary and having a virtual love fest when Edwards is asked a question about what his wife Elizabeth said last week, that John Edwards would be a better advocate for women's issues than Hillary would.

7:27: Kucinich just crashed the boards and came up with a nice rebound about gay marriage. Well said, Dennis - he believes gay marriage should be legal. Good for him.

7:29: "I would advocate full civil unions with full marriage rights," says Bill Richardson in response to the same question. It sounds like Richardson is for gay marriage, just not for calling it gay marriage. From my point of view, that's acceptable - he's just differs with language use. It sounds to me that in the Democratic Primary in 2008, gays have another candidate they can look to who are for their getting full rights, benefits and civil unions, and that man is Governor Richardson.

7:31: John Edwards is answering a question about using religion to justify his opposition to gay marriage. He seems to be answering it, but they go to the questioner, a Southern Baptist minister seating in the audience, who feels Edwards "didn't really answer the question." Interesting - it's the first time I can remember someone getting a chance to come back at a politician for not answering a question.

**
A commercial break. I'd love to see a question about Bush's new Executive Order giving him virtually unlimited powers in the event of another terrorist attack or national emergency. I'm completely outraged by this action, and I'll be blogging about it later tonight. I'd also really like to hear a question about media conglomeration, especially with the likely sale of The Wall St. Journal from the controlling Bankroft Family to Rupert Murdoch. I seriously doubt I'll hear either question, but it never hurts to hope.

Okay, back to the debate...

7:39: A Darfur question, and it goes first to Bill Richardson. "It's called leadership," is how he begins. I also like how he mentions that it shouldn't be just about our interests. Yes. (Read: Is there any oil there? If there were no oil in Iraq, we wouldn't be there, and if you don't believe that, you know nothing about American foreign policy during the last 30 years.)

7:42: "We haven't owned up to our responsibilities to a sense of global governance," says Gravel in response to the Darfur crisis. He tries to keep talking, presumably about another topic, and Cooper cuts him off. Some of the lesser candidates have complained about not getting as much time as the leading candidates. No debate format is perfect, but I don't believe they deserve as much time. Anyone want to hear Gravel talk for as much time as Clinton or Obama? I dunno, but I don't think I would want to.

7:45: Anderson Cooper acknowledges all of the people who have served from The Citadel in Iraq and Afghanistan, which is over 1,100 troops. That's a nice touch.

7:46: A question from Barry Mitchell right here in Philadelphia - "How do we pull out now?" he repeats over and over. First to Obama, and Cooper gets a little testy with him when he sense that he's not answering the question. Obama gets his footing when he cites White House Press Secretary Tony Snow excusing the Iraqi Legislature for taking off the entire month of August because "it's hot." Nice job, Obama.

7:48: Biden says it will take "one year" to withdraw all American troops from Iraq if we started right now. I'm not a member of the military and I'm anything but an expert on military strategy, but this seems patently absurd. A year to remove 165,000 troops? Maybe if they are walking to Paris. That just seems stupid to me.

7:50: Hillary is talking about a timeline for bringing the troops home, in response to a question from a mother of a son who's about to go back to Iraq for the second time.

7:50: Kucinich rightfully says that Congress does have the power to stop the war - "tell the president no more funds." Absolutely, but the Democratic Congressional leaders do not have the courage to "cut off funds" because of the GOP PR machine, period.

7:52: Hot diggity - a question to Mike Gravel from someone who was offended at his saying that our troops in Vietnam "died in vain." To Gravel's credit, he stands his ground and defends his comments. I think there's a pretty big difference between a candidate with zero hope of winning the White House, and the front runners, including John Edwards and Barack Obama, who won't risk offending a significant number of voters by saying any of our troops die in vain.

7:56: Should women register for the draft? I say yes, and just about all of the candidates agree. Women have proven that they can be every bit as effective in military combat as men, and that includes driving tanks or flying jets. Just as there are some men who aren't fit for combat, there are some women who are not, either, and the opposite also holds true for both genders; many men and women are more than fit and capable of doing extraordinary things in combat. One gender should not be included.

8:00: A question from California that mentions that Egyptian President Anwar Sadat travelled to Israel "in 1982." He was assassinated in 1981. Oops. Someone needs to fact check these questions, but it's a fair question. Clinton courageously states that she "will not pledge to meet with these leaders in the first year of my presidency" and "I will not be used for propaganda purposes," in response to a question about meeting with enemies of the U.S. such as Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, etc. A good question.

8:04: A powerful question by Gary Berry, who has three flags over his shoulders that covered the coffins of his grandfather, father and oldest son, and he wants to know when the troops will be home.

8:05: An irrelevant grammar observation - Chris Dodd doesn't know the "that/who" rule when referring to a person. (It's who, Senator.)

8:07: Biden is very strong on foreign policy - probably the strongest of all the candidates on the stage tonight. This guy should be secretary of state if a Democrat wins the White House. If I were president, that would be the first call I'd make, because Biden knows foreign policy, and he knows the value of diplomacy. Will he be president? Fat chance. But, I love how he highlighted the fact that funds to send IED-proof Hummers to Iraq were not approved, which I find just incredulous.

8:10: Thus far, Kucinich gets the zinger of the night (and the most powerful, accurate one) when he says, "It's not right to say that you were against the war from the beginning when you've voted to fund the war," and he's absolutely right.

**
Another commercial break - thank God. I don't like it when these networks go for two straight hours of debating with just one short break. If I remember right, CNN had one break in the middle of a two-hour talkfest last time. Okay, they're back...

8:16: "Who is your favorite teacher today, and why," is the next question. Really? This is lame - just a chance for the candidates to give a shout out to people from their past. I'm all for education (I'm a professor, so I'd better be), but a better education question should have been selected. Okay, looks like I'm getting one - a No Child Left Behind question.

8:18: Richardson wants to scrap NCLB, and I agree. It's a half-baked attempt by the Bush administration to address education, with a title that sounds like it was selected by a PR Agency. Let's put it this way - the best thing about NCLB is the name, but plenty are being left behind.

8:20: Public or private school? A good question. Edwards has sent all four of his children to public school, and Chelsea Clinton went to public school from grades K-8. Obama gave the best answer about this question - that "any U.S. Senator can get his or her child into a good public school, but I want to fight for people who can't game the system." Score a direct hit for Obama.

8:25: A sex education question, and I think it's an important one. It's very illustrative about the sexual repression in our country - Mitt Romney accused Barack Obama of "wanting sex education for five-year olds." I guess Romney has a lot of time on his hands. I loved Obama's response - that "Romney supported the same program while he was running for governor of Massachusetts."

8:27: Some global warming questions - excellent. "How do you get Americans to conserve energy?" Gravel mentions reversing the tax structure - snore. The government must do more than changing the way it taxes people by how much energy they consume - it has to entice alternative energy source development.

8:29: I like Dodd's answer about global warming until he mentions a carbon tax. I don't support the idea of "tradeable carbon credits" - I think it's a total crock. But, more on what I think about global warming at another time.

8:32: I'm delighted to hear Edwards slam the idea of liquefying coal - another horrible idea that the energy companies have come up with to use the internal combustion engine. It's time to come up with something completely different.

8:34: I'm very, very happy to hear a question about elections, and why there isn't a standardized way for people to vote. Richardson is calling for universal paper trails, same-day registration, and de-politicizing the justice department that has been used under this administration to suppress voters. A great answer, but the topic gets short shrift, because after Richardson answers the question, CNN cuts to commercial. That sucks, because it's an issue that has gotten shockingly little attention by the mainstream media. In fact, it's a miracle the question was aired at all tonight.

**
Another commercial - back in a minute. Waiting for CNN to come out of commercial. Again, it's too bad that election reform didn't get more coverage, because I will go to my grave believing that the 2000 and 2004 elections were hijacked by the Republican Party. And there's a very good chance that 2008 could be, too - Bush, Rove and Co. have had eight years to put the machinery in place to insure that a Republican wins the White House in 2008. Okay, the debate is back.

8:41: Would the candidates work for minimum wage if elected president? Most said they would. Hmm, store that footage away.

8:43: I'm delighted that a question has been asked about Social Security - why are earnings not taxed above $97k? Obama dodges the question - raising the limit is "an important issue on the table." It should be done, immediately. It's a burning question - why in the world do the rich get off without paying FICA taxes, other than their first $97K earned? The limit should be $5 million or maybe even $10 million. Or, how about no limit? It's outrageous that there's a cap.

8:45: Biden wants to eliminate the tax cuts to the top one percent. Good - and that's a matter of semantics (take that, Howdy Doody Frank Luntz) - it's not a tax increase, it's ending unnecessary tax breaks for the rich. A very good answer.

Now we are getting a buffet of health care questions. Let's see how the candidates handle these...

8:48: Obama states his plan does provide universal coverage. Anything has to be better than what we have now - 45 million people are without coverage. Obama rightly criticizes the lobbying effort on the part of the health care industry.

8:50: Edwards says that Obama's plan "is a very serious proposal," and that he's "not casting dispersions on his plan." It's a love fest tonight - the candidates are not attacking each other. I guess that's a good thing - I don't want to hear fights; I want to hear ideas, and we are hearing some of that tonight. Edwards, voice rising, nearly shouts that "it's about time we stand up to these insurance companies." That sounds good during a debate, but there's nothing to stop the insurance and medical industries from the same misinformation campaign that they did in 1993-1994. The way to stop that? Real, meaningful election finance reform - public financing of elections is the answer. If I live to 100, I doubt we'll see it, but we need to fight for it.

8:54: Another great answer from a candidate - Dodd mentions stem cell research, a topic that is firmly in the corner of the Democratic Party.

8:56: Gravel has a good point - that the Democratic Party has sold out and is not really about the working man (and woman) any longer. He's right - the Democratic Party doesn't take marching orders nearly as much as the GOP does, but that's because the GOP takes much more money from big business than the Democratic Party does.

8:57: A great question about a potential Democratic president "paying lip service" to the religious faction of the American public. I love Edwards' answer, that he will not let his religious views influence what he does as president. (I'm paraphrasing here.) In other words, I took that to mean that he won't try imposing his religious views on America, something that has become so commonplace under Bush that it barely even registers with anyone any longer.

9:00: Biden's got balls - a question from some loon who boasts that his gun is his "baby." Biden slams him and brags that he helped author the assault weapons ban that President Clinton signed into law. Well said, Senator Biden.

The debate is ending on a light note - what do the candidates like about the person to their left? Again, I like the light-heartedness, but why not one more issue question? I liked the exchange between Kucinich and Cooper - Kucinich joked that CNN didn't put anyone to the left of him, and Cooper gibes that "we couldn't find anyone to the left of you." Witty, Anderson, witty. I liked it.

Anyway, that's it - I'll have a little bit more in a minute. I'm going to be watching the "Wrap-Up Show" with Wolf Blitzer, but not for the analysis, but for the usual interviews of candidates, which I always enjoy - it's a chance to hear more from the candidates, and that's what this is all about and that's why we watch, right?

I forgot to mention this, but the ad of the night was, without a doubt, from Edwards, who poked fun at himself about the hair issue, but poked even more fun at the media coverage of this idiotic, moronic story. I've written it before, and it bears repeating - I'm already tired of the mainstream media's coverage of these non-story stories, and that's been on both sides - from the Edwards haircut to how much Mitt Romney spends on pre-debate cosmetics. Enough of this crap.

I did like the format though. However, this still has the stench of the mainstream media; after all, CNN still gets to pick which questions make it on the air. I realize that some moderation is necessary, or you would have ridiculous questions and even some pranks would get asked. In the end, though, I think the format is much better than a moderator picking and asking questions.

Anderson Cooper did a pretty good job keeping the candidates on topic, too; on more than a few occasions, he chided candidates to stay on message. I'm off to watch the post-debate interviews - hopefully there will be plenty of candidate interviews, and not just talking heads.

A little more quick analysis - the questions, for the most part, were pretty well-versed and appropriate, but again, the light-hearted stuff could have been 86'd. After all, we got nothing specific about stem cell research, immigration, impeachment or election reform (other than the one question election reform answered by Richardson right before a commercial).

Graham & Webb cross swords

Senators Lindsay Graham (R-SC) and Jim Webb (D-VA) squared off on Meet the Press this past Sunday, and it was as heated of an exchange as I've seen on that program in quite a while.

Needless to say, Graham made a fool of himself going up against Webb. However, I have to admit, I had thoughts of CNN's old show, Crossfire, when I watched this - just people trying to talk over one another. Very annoying.

Anyway, I can see why Republicans fear Webb - they have good reason to. He uses logic and doesn't talk in political soundbites, unlike Bush sycophant Graham, who uttered this laugh out loud phrase during their exchange, in his annoying southern twang:

History will judge us, ma freend, not when we left but what we left behind.

Hey Senator Graham, I believe history has already rendered its verdict, and that's that we never should have invaded Iraq in the first place. There's no easy way out now. But, It amazes me that there are still people like Graham who still insist that We can win in Iraq. Let 'em win.

As if the only reason we're not winning this war is Congressional Democrats (and an overwhelming majority of the American people) who want our troops home, NOW. I can just about guarantee that this war will somehow be blamed on Democrats when the presidential campaign begins in earnest next spring. In fact, you can put fat cash down on it, because I guarantee that's exactly what the GOP is going to do.

Graham's Let 'em win blarney is little more than political posturing to the far-right war mongers in the Republican Party. There is not a military expert or general alive who believes we can win there. The only generals who are saying we can win are the ones who are on the ground over there now. And what else would you expect those generals to say? "I know you put me in charge over here, but we have no chance in winning." Of course they aren't going to say that.

Graham embarrasses himself even further with these whoppers:

"I've been to Iraq seven times" (To which Webb replied, "No, you've been to the dog-and-pony show.") Well said, Senator Webb.

"It's not about winning an election." Really, Senator Graham? That could be the most blatant lie I've heard in 2007 on MTP. Wait, has Cheney been on this year?

The only, and I mean the only reason Republican senators are running for cover now is because there's an election in less than 18 months, and the GOP is hoping to retain control of the White House. If it were 2005 right now, Republicans would be in lockstep with Bush's disastrous Iraq policy.

I'd also like to point out that Webb has about 1000 percent more credibility than Graham does on military issues; Webb has actually served in combat and knows the cost of war. Graham's experience? Being recalled to active duty during Desert Storm and serving in... South Carolina. (Graham did serve on active duty in the 1980s.) Wait, another war-mongering Republican who has spent time in the Air National Guard? Hmmm - sounds familiar.

I love Senator Webb because he's not afraid of a street fight with Republicans over military issues. There aren't enough Democrats like him. However, toward the end of the duo's appearance on MTP last Sunday, Webb put his hand on Graham's shoulder and called him "my friend." He's not your friend, senator. That won't win you any points with Democrats who want to see the party toughen up to take on these Republican bullies.

I hardly watch the news on television anymore, because of full of politicians on both sides of the aisle spewing forth sewage, b.s. and lies, and Graham is the best example I've seen in the past week. Wait, there are others, too, and I'll get to them later today.

All we've ever heard from this president and Republican leaders is "give this surge a chance to work." And in six months, we'll be hearing it again.

It's been four-and-a-half years - the Iraqis have had enough time.

Rudy's oversimplifications & distortions are a tour de force following GOP debate

I've been meaning to get to this one, and before it's too after-the-fact, I have to mention it. After watching the Republican debate on Tuesday night, I left CNN on to listen to some of the post-debate interviews.

I was paying attention half-heartedly until Rudy Giuliani came on with Larry King. He immediately started dropping some whoppers. Here's an excerpt of his interview with King:

GIULIANI: If we have confusion about who is in the United States [referring to the immigration bill], then these situations like we've had in New Jersey, like the situation we had in Fort Dix with the attacks that take place - we're after September 11 now. And if this bill is going to be worth all the compromising that's necessary, it has to achieve a complete database of the people who are in this country.

KING: I think of all the candidates, you were the one attacking the Democrats the most, mentioning by name the debate of two nights ago.

Are you running already?

GIULIANI: Well, you know, I'm running against the...

KING: Have you got the nomination?

GIULIANI: I'm not running against the people on that stage. I mean we have some...

KING: Well, you are.

GIULIANI: Well, I'm not really. I have some disagreements with them, but largely, I hear things that I agree with. I mean, a lot of the things Senator McCain said, I agree with. Mitt Romney, at least three or four times, said, "I agree with Mayor Giuliani."

I probably disagreed with him most of the time.

My disagreements with are Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and John Edwards. John Edwards saying that the war on terror was just a bumper sticker, and not even amending that after this plot in New York was uncovered to attack Kennedy Airport.

It's not a bumper sticker. It is a real war. And whatever you think about Iraq, it's bigger than Iraq.

These people want to come here and kill us...

Unbelievable - it was predictable as the day is long that as soon as Edwards said that the War on Terror is simply a bumper-sticker slogan, his statement would be distorted and maligned by hawkish Republicans (with a nod to Ron Paul).

Here is what John Edwards said during the June 3 Democratic Debate:

I reject this bumper sticker, Wolf. And that's exactly what it is. It's a bumper sticker.

As president of the United States, I will do absolutely everything to find terrorists where they are, to stop them before they can do harm to us, before they can do harm to America or to its allies.

Every tool available - military alliances, intelligence - I will use.

But what this global war on terror bumper sticker - political slogan, that's all it is, all it's ever been - was intended to do was for George Bush to use it to justify everything he does: the ongoing War in Iraq, Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, spying on Americans, torture.

None of those things are OK. They are not the United States of America.

But, people like Rudy Giuliani and Bill O'Reilly have done nothing but distort and take out of context what Edwards said. And Rudy was right on message on Tuesday night. I should point out that Giuliani has appeared on Billy's show on numerous occasions, so people who want to paint BOR as someone out of the Republican mainstream need a reality check. (More on O'Reilly's Edwards distortions in a later post. Back to the Giuliani/King interview:

GIULIANI: I think the Democrats want to put us in reverse to the 1990s. All I heard on that stage two nights ago was to go back to the 1990s. The 1990s - when our taxes were 24, 25 percent higher. [No Rudy, when YOUR taxes were 24-25 percent higher, and any other millionaire - PECAD] The 1990s - when we weren't recognizing the Islamic threat against us, when they attacked the USS Cole and we didn't retaliate. We didn't do anything about it.

They attacked us in 1993. We had a criminal justice response, not a response commensurate with a terrorist threat.

KING: But we only have a minute left.

You will agree Iraq is the gorilla in the room, though?

GIULIANI: Iraq is...

KING: You can't escape Iraq.

GIULIANI: Iraq is very, very important. But how you deal with it is going to say a lot about how we deal with this terrorist threat. And to give the enemy a timetable of our retreat - when in the history of war has any army ever been required to do that? And that's why I think the Democrats are in denial.

So, if Giuliani is elected president, we can expect more of the same in Iraq? I'm wondering how the American public feels about that. Recent polls show that more than 2/3 of America disagrees with his position.

I also got a kick out of Rudy saying he's not running against the people on the stage with him, his fellow GOP presidential hopefuls. That's pretty arrogant. Polls right now show him in the lead, but I've also read that his lead is shrinking. Right now, he IS running against other GOP candidates, whether he likes it or not. Of course, every GOP candidate has to state what how his views differ from Democrats as well as fellow GOP candidates, but Giuliani seems to be simply dismissing the other candidates. That's no surprise - the arrogant candidate acting arrogant.

What outraged me most about his King interview was his vast, Reagan-like oversimplification of terrorism.

First of all, history shows that it was the BUSH administration that did not retaliate for the USS Cole bombing, not the Clinton administration. I've done some reading on this - Giuliani acts like we immediately knew who attacked the Cole and that we had airtight proof. That's simply not true.

From the 9-11 Commission:

Evidence of al-Qaeda's involvement was inconclusive for months after the attack. The staff of the 9-11 Commission found that al-Qaeda's direction of the bombing was under investigation but "increasingly clear" on November 11, 2000. It was an "unproven assumption" in late November. By December 21 the CIA had made a "preliminary judgment" that "al-Qaeda appeared to have supported the attack," with no "definitive conclusion."

Giuliani's also way out of bounds for deriding the Clinton administration for its "criminal justice response, not a response commensurate with a terrorist threat."

That's flat-out b.s. First of all, we caught who was responsible for the 1993 attacks. Following the '93 World Trade Center attack, ATF bomb technicians found the axle in the bomb crater with the VIN of the Ryder truck that carried the explosives. The ATF discovered the vehicle had been rented by a Palestinian named Mohammad Salameh.

On March 4, 1993 authorities announced the capture of Salameh. In March 1994, Salameh, Nidal Ayyad, Mahmud Abouhalima and Ahmad Ajaj were each convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for the World Trade Center bombing.

In a sweep the same day, Salameh's arrest led to the apartment of Abdul Rahman Yasin in Jersey City, New Jersey, which Yasin was sharing with his mother, in the same building as Ramzi Yousef's apartment. Yasin was taken to Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) headquarters in Newark, New Jersey, and was then released. (Great, but that's Clinton's fault? Try the FBI.) The next day, he flew back to Iraq, via Amman, Jordan. Yasin was later indicted for the attack, and in 2001 he was placed on the initial list of the FBI Most Wanted Terrorists, on which he remains a fugitive today. He disappeared prior to 2003's U.S. coalition invasion in Operation Iraqi Freedom.

The capture of Salameh and Yasin led authorities to Ramzi Yousef's apartment, where they found bomb-making materials and a business card from Mohammed Jamal Khalifa. Khalifa was arrested in relation to the crime on December 14, 1994, and was deported to Jordan by the INS on May 5, 1995. He was acquitted by a Jordanian court and lives as a free man in Saudi Arabia. Yea, the same Saudi Arabia that has such a cozy relationship with the Bush administration. The same Saudi Arabia that is responsible for 15 of the 19 9-11 hijackers. The same Bush administration that Rudy has functioned as a PR flak for since 9-11.

The 1990s also shows that the Clinton administration also prevented a number of intended attacks in the United States. Funny how those foiled plots never got very much press though. That's a 180 compared to today, when an FBI agent finding a scrap of paper on the street is heralded as "foiling a major terrorist plot." Anyone who needs great examples of that - the recent Fort Dix and JFK "terrorist plots."

Of course, since 9-11 is Rudy's "franchise" and because he's from New York, he's going to milk those two instances for all they are worth. Never mind the fact that he was mayor of New York City for almost all of the 1990s (and mayor during the entire time between the WTC terrorist attacks). I've read lots about how his arrogance and lack of preparation of the city made the immediate aftermath of 9-11 worse, not better. (I'm reading some books about this soon, and I'll blog more at length about it.)

Giuliani is beyond contempt - a man who has profited and made millions of of 9-11. Whoops - another inconvenient truth about American's Mayor that receives next to no press from our liberal media.

Wolf Blitzer has verbal diarrhea

As Crooks & Liars calls them, the Prez-Dispensers are back. Someone over at Chris Dodd's campaign HQ must be awfully angry at how the CNN debates were moderated. Taking this information at face value, Wolf Blitzer really earned his stripes as a Talking Head this week.

I have to say again though, that just like last Sunday's Democratic Candidate Debate, Blitzer gave the three leading candidates the most time, which, in my opinion, he should do. If he just closed his mouth and gave all of the candidates even more time, he would do an even better job.

Speaking of Blitzer - I bet if he hosts any more presidential debates, he won't be posing any more absurd hypothetical questions again. I'd like to think he's learned his lesson.

Larry King whines about Anderson Cooper

I got a kick out of this one - it's raw footage from CNN's coverage of the presidential debates. Larry King is apparently miffed that Anderson Cooper is getting more air time than he is, and he wants to know why.

Here's a thought - probably because he's not nearly as disturbing to look at, listen to, and he asks real questions of his guests. Just a few reasons off the top of my head.

I routinely TiVo Larry King Live, but more often than not, when I find out who the guest is about 30 seconds in, I delete the full hour. I realize every night isn't going to be some serious political figure, world statesman or noted author, but King seems to be trying too hard some days. Some weeks it will be all pop culture stars.

I'll never forget the day that Anna Nicole Smith died (Did I just bring her name up?!?) - King had on two D-List celebrities who claimed to be close to Anna. One was Chyna, and I don't remember who the other one was. But, the two ended up getting into a fight over whether Anna considered Chyna a friend.

Ahh, journalistic high points, eh, Larry?

A must-read book on cable news

This looks like a pretty good book I'd like to check out - Cable News Confidential: My Misadventures in Corporate Media, by Jeff Cohen.

Cohen has worked for MSNBC, CNN, and Fersatz News, so he has a fair amount of insight into not just how one cable news channel operates, but from a multitude of sources. I'm particularly interested in this book, since I've come to despise cable news so much recently. That doesn't mean I don't watch, but I'm extremely annoyed at what passes for news these days.

Hat tip to Truthdig for doing an interview with Cohen. Click Here to read an excerpt from the interview, and you can also download an MP3 file of the entire interview.

My favorite passage of Cohen's from the interview, and I found myself saying out loud "YES!" as I read it:

Schooled in the protocols of cable news, the Bush administration brilliantly exploited the medium's worship of live events. When I was at MSNBC in 2002/2003, I witnessed producers nearly orgasm at word that the White House would soon be serving up a photo-op or briefing. Upon hearing of these events—called "pressers" — all else is put on hold to assure that the second the administration event starts, MSNBC and the other news channels are ready to air it live.

Team Bush might schedule a White House press secretary's briefing ("the president stands tough against terrorism") ... followed by a Pentagon briefing ("war on terror is on track") ... followed by an afternoon speech from President Bush in front of a patriotic flag backdrop and cheering handpicked crowd ... followed by a briefing on the latest terrorism arrest or scare from the Justice Department or Homeland Security. Through its ability to dictate the rhythms of the news day, the White House's often singular view of reality would air at length in near monologue fashion.

I've got a specific, contemporary example.

When the hearings on the U.S. Attorney firings started, on the first day, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, was going to make an opening statement. At the exact moment Leahy was scheduled to begin the hearing, which was covered live on every cable network, Bush begins a press conference, and the networks cut away to him. Thom Hartmann talked about this at length on his show last week.

Yet another way that the Bush administration will do just about anything to control the news and to stay atop the polls. About the only thing this administration hasn't done to maintain popularity is use the military. Wait...

Anyway, this looks like a good book, and I'd like to get to it this year, but there are literally 20 other books ahead of it. I'm starting my political book reading schedule about 9 months ahead of time, and I've got a bunch to get to.

I'm also very behind on writing some book reviews, which I hope to get to in the coming weeks.

GOP Poll chat with Paula Zahn

This spring, I've been decrying the appearance of presidential polls in the mainstream media, but I've rethought that; so many big states have moved up their primary to February 5, which will be the single-biggest day during the campaign, save for election day. Super Tuesday (Some are calling it "Giga Tuesday") is only 10 months away, and it's all but certain that date will determine who the nominees are.

This is a few days old, but still relevant. I still find it very hard to believe that the religious right will be at all happy with Rudy Giuliani - his stances on abortion and guns, as well as his marriages, will ultimately cook him if a number of other differences with the right do not.

John McCain? GOP roadkill.

I'll put out a few fearless forecasts right now - neither McCain or Giuliani will even get the nomination. Both are problematic and not nearly conservative enough, and in McCain's case, not trustworthy enough.

On the Republican side, I think we are yet to see the candidate who could make a viable nominee in '08. Only time will tell.

I wouldn't be shocked if former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson did indeed jump into the race, but I would be surprised. He has more the feel of a cabinet member if, heaven forbid, the Republicans hold onto the White House in 2008.

I'd give my eye teeth for Newt Gingrich to get into the race. I believe most Democrats have been spoiling for a fight with that fool for a long time. I know I have. The Georgia Leech would get his ass kicked.