Bob Schieffer outrage, Part II

Kudos to Crooks & Liars for noticing this and posting the video...

I was watching Face the Nation on Sunday, and for the second week in a row, I was up out of my chair complaining about the nature of Bob Schieffer's questions. Recall last week that it was Schieffer who single-handedly began the pseudo-scandal regarding Gen. Wesley Clark's "comments" regarding John McCain's patriotism and his POW experience. Schieffer asked Clarke if he was saying that "getting shot down in a plane doesn't qualify someone to be president," and when Clark repeated the phrase in his answer, the press pounced. You would have thought that Clark was burning the American flag while calling McCain a traitor, all thanks to Schieffer's outrageously leading question.

This Sunday, Schieffer was at it again, and this time it was Sen. John Kerry. While criticizing the many flip flops of John McCain and dozens of issues, Schieffer came right out and asked Kerry if he "was questioning John McCain's integrity."

Outrageous. I'm sick to death of the leading questions that our so-called journalists keep asking the candidates and their supporters, and there's pretty much no end in sight. I would expect this sort of media handling of questioning on Faux News or on a show that clearly identifies itself as a liberal or conservative talk show. But, these types of leading questions from a supposed unbiased journalist are beyond the pale.

Schieffer ought to be ashamed of himself. I can only wonder what in the world he's going to do this Sunday for an encore for the last two weeks.

Clark defends his McCain comments; Why?

Ladies and gentlemen, I bring you the latest installment of Al Gore "claiming" that he "invented the Internet." (Which he never said) - and it's General Wesley Clark's comments on Face the Nation on Sunday. The media firestorm that has been generated by Wesley Clark's comments (see video clip above) on Face the Nation this past weekend are amazing (but not at all surprising). It's yet another pseudo scandal - taking media time and coverage away from the issues that matter to voters most in their everyday lives. The media is now doing exactly the opposite of what it did to John Kerry in 2004. When Kerry was criticized for his military service in '04, it was said by many (and everyone on State TV Faux News) that it was "fair game" because he was running on his war record.

Now that McCain is doing everything but shooting campaign commercials inside the Hanoi Hilton, it's all supposed to be off limits. Wrong. I'm tired of writing it over and over (and I'm not going to any longer, even though society makes people feel like they have to), but I'll repeat it one more time - no one questions John McCain's patriotism, or his service to his country. But, that doesn't make his foreign policy positions bullet proof, especially when he advocates continued war in the Middle East, and he advocates torture of terrorism suspects.

What's more, the phrase that has the media in full-blown fury was given to him by Face the Nation host Bob Schieffer, but that part is conveniently cut off during the endless replays on cable news. Give me a friggin' break.

What's more, Clark is ABSOLUTELY RIGHT - getting shot down in a plane doesn't make you qualified to be president. What's even more astonishing is Schieffer's response: "REALLY?!?!?"

This is hardly even worth spending more time on, but Clark sure is - he appeared on Dan Abrams' show last night to explain himself, and to try to douse the media firestorm that's erupted because someone dared to criticize the media's darling candidate, John McCain...

Clark's comments above are totally, absolutely unnecessary. I was happy to at least hear Clark mention that the words were given to him by Schieffer, although Clark doesn't mention him by name. Clark should have been much more forceful on that point, however.

Gallop poll on The Bush Factor

Here's a very interesting report about The Bush Factor in the upcoming election.

The most telling stat from this Gallup report - 49 percent of adults are very concerned that a potential McCain Presidency will continue the policies of the Bush administration. I'm amazed that it's only 49 percent. Only very recently has McCain attempted to distance himself from many of the enormously unpopular policies of Bush, with the noted exception of the War in Iraq.

But, blogs like this one and many others will certainly pick up the slack, because people do need to be aware of the fact that McCain has changed positions so many times, I'm going to start calling him John McKerry. You remember Kerry, '04 Democratic Presidential Nominee who most famously (and tragically) said, "I voted for the war before I voted against it." Okay, the proper context of that quote was not provided when it was rerun literally thousands and thousands of times leading up to election day, but it's amazing to me that Repubes are now turning a blind eye to McCain's "evolving issue positions" now that their candidate has a full blown case of it.

Actually, last night Keith Olbermann did a segment on McCain's changing positions, which I'll post in a bit.

Scalia: "Get over" 2000 election decision

The insipid Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia appears Sunday night on 60 Minutes, and Leslie Stahl asks him about Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court decision that effectively stopped the Florida recount in 2000. His response: "Get over it," and he also gives a similar answer to a small group, and afterward, says, "So there."

What a clown. Scalia represents another of the disastrous legacies of President Reagan that we all should be so grateful for. It's too bad that Supreme Court justices are appointed for life, because if they weren't, he probably would've been bounced from the bench a long time ago.

I'm amused by Scalia's disingenuous retort that "Gore brought it [the 2000 election] into the courts. What were we supposed to do?" I obviously haven't seen the whole interview yet, but I hope that Stahl pressed him on this point - the reason that Al Gore did just that is because he was getting royally screwed in Florida by faulty voting machines, and many, many voting irregularities.

It almost is too obvious to mention that if the Supreme Court case in 2000 involved Bush's supporters being disenfranchised, as Gore's supporters actually were, you can bet that recount would have happened.

Another side note about judges - it will never cease to amaze me how Dubya puts down lawyers and judges - especially judges. Any judge who renders a decision he doesn't like is an "activist judge," but when a judge rules in a way Bush approves of, his mouth is taped shut. I wish someone would have pointed out to Our National Embarrassment a long time ago that it was judges and lawyers who put him into office in the first place, so before he goes putting them down, he should consider that. (A great time to do this would have been in '04, when Bush mocked John Kerry's running mate, John Edwards, as a "trial lawyer" in just about every debate, especially during questions about tort and medical malpractice reform. Another missed opportunity by Kerry. Sadly, there were more than a few of those.)

Despite the smug Scalia's dismissive comments, we aren't getting over it, and the biggest reason, at least for me, is because I can't help but wonder what kind of a country we would be living in had Gore become president in 2000. Some things very well may have happened, including 9/11, but the War in Iraq almost certainly would not have, along with a laundry list of other unfortunate events these last 7+ years.

Anyway, I bring up issues like this, because if McSame is elected, we are going to have a Supreme Court with plenty of more judges like Scalia.

And that's one scary thought.

New anti-McCain ad hitting airwaves

Greg Sargent over at TPM has the latest on the new anti-McCain video above, which began airing today:

Here's a first look at the first ad being run against John McCain by Progressive Media U.S.A., the new pro-Dem third-party group headed by David Brock that's planning to raise $40 million to bloody up the GOP nominee in advance of this fall's election. The ad, called "Out of Touch," will be running on cable beginning tomorrow and can be seen in D.C. on CNN and MSNBC — which is to say, it's a small buy aimed at an insider audience of potential future donors, political operatives, and the like.

My first thought when I saw this - "Excellent." In years and elections past, I might have thought to myself, "that's playing dirty." But, after seeing what the GOP shamelessly did to Al Gore in 2000 and most notably the Swiftboating of John Kerry in 2004, I hope there are many more efforts just like this one. When Democrats try to take the high road by being the "better party," they become the better, MINORITY party. Democrats won't retake the White House until they learn to fight Republicans on their turf. Is it dirty and nasty? Sure, but there's too much at stake right now to be worried about being portrayed by some as being just that - Republicans have been doing it for years, most notably since the early 1990s when an Arkansas governor decided he'd like to run for president.

It's also good to see that David Brock isn't resting on his laurels with all of his Media Matters success, although no one could blame him if he did. The more people like Bill O'Reilly hate people like Brock for what he is doing - exposing the lies and distortions of the right-wing media - the more I love and am thankful for guys like Brock.

h/t Crooks & Liars

We're been waiting for... this?!?

This one gave me a laugh in the middle of a very hectic day - a just-released ad from the McCain campaign, telling us that McCain is "the president we've been waiting for." I find it interesting and just a bit sleazy that McCain uses footage from his time as a POW in Vietnam. He's a hero, and I'm not questioning whether he is or not, but I AM pointing out the hypocrisy in the Republican ranks; after all, John Kerry was vilified for bringing up his Vietnam service during the '04 race.

But hey, we all know from experience that Republican opinions don't transfer from one election to another. After all, Bill Clinton's draft dodging was fodder for the GOP cannon in 1992, but in 2000 then-candidate George Bush "served his country" by dodging the draft and "serving" in the Texas Air National Guard, leapfrogging over hundreds of men on the waiting list.

We're already seeing it this year, too; now, McCain's experience counts for everything in the world, but Bush's inexperience was "no big deal" in 2000. I will always feel for and admire McCain for surviving in the hellhole called the Hanoi Hilton, but I fail to see how being a POW for five years makes you an expert on foreign affairs. And based on his comments last week, the proof is in the pudding. This is a guy that's gotten everything wrong about Iraq, but now we're to believe everything he says?

Preposterous.

When is the next "Kerry" photo-op?

With all of the attention that Pennsylvania is getting from both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, I'm wondering who will be the first to have a photo-op backfire like John Kerry did in the summer of 2004, when he tried to prove to Philadelphians and Pennsylvanians alike that he was not a rich Boston Brahmin who didn't know what cheesesteaks were all about.

Oops.

He went to Pat's King of Steaks in South Philly (my favorite, by far - I wouldn't buy a stick of gum off of Geno's across the street - see my Boycott List).

Kerry's first mistake - trying to order a cheesesteak with swiss. I can only imagine the reaction from the guy at the counter - Pat's employees are notoriously cranky if you don't know "how to order" a steak the Philly way.

Kerry's second mistake - his handlers asked photographers who were along for the ride to "not take pictures" while Kerry was eating, which was tantamount to saying, "Hey! Photographers! Have you cameras ready when the Senator tries to eat a cheesesteak!"

Kerry's third mistake (pictured) - Not knowing how to pick the thing up to eat it. This pic got plenty of play in the local press for some days, and most of it was in good fun. (Must have been the "liberal media" giving him heat, no doubt.)

In my humble estimation and lay opinion, the bottom line with photo ops is this - people know that nearly all politicians try to be many things to many people, especially during high-profile campaign stops. But, the effective politicians do their homework ahead of time, which Kerry and his staff clearly did not do. The only way this could have gone worse would have been Kerry's wearing a Dallas Cowboys cap to Pat's.

Now that would have been funny.

Photo from Attytood

Sunday Cartoons

The more active and controversial the week in politics, the better the political cartoons, and this was a good week for cartoons. I'm slowly getting back on track after being away for a few days, but in the meantime, here are some of the week's best...

I've probably already written this too often this year, but the above cartoon is the most sage I've seen so far about the '08 campaign. Most people in NASCAR Nation have the attention span (and memory) of about three months, so many people, conveniently forget the '04 election, when Kerry was crucified for his "evolving opinions" on issues. But, Mitt Romney, America's Mayor and John McCain have taken virtually no heat for their well-documented reversals on a host of issues. Only time will tell if they pay any sort of discernible political price.

Judas John McCain's campaign continues to sink like a stone, and no one is more thrilled than me. He's getting exactly what he deserves, especially after abandoning political moderates and his Straight Talk Express MO in order to mollify far-right critics to secure the GOP nomination. This past week, he laid off 50 campaign workers and severely curtailed campaign activities, because he's short on money. Now, all I have to wait for is Captain 9-11's campaign to implode; once Rudy is out of the race (or out of contention), I'll be at least mediocre on the remaining field (unless Newt Gingrich and/or Fred Thompson enter the fray).

I wrote it earlier in the week and I'll write it again - it was no accident that Bush announced the Libby pardon when he did - while Russian President Vladimir Putin was visiting the Bush bunker in Kennebunkport. Putin must have been laughing to himself, thinking that Bush stole a play from his playbook. After all, ignoring the legal system and acting like a dictator is normally something we would associate with the world of Russian politics, not our own. But, Bush has managed to change that.

The truth about Rudy continues to seep out.

Bonds needs four dingers to catch Hank Aaron, and five to "achieve" the all-time home run record. However many career HRs Bonds ends up with, he will always have an * next to his number in the eyes of many, including mine.

Right-wing roundup: 8 minutes of laughs

This is a fantastic round-up of stupidity in the media, most of it from the political right. However, it certainly isn't exclusive to right-wing media - but conservative personalities are just the most noteworthy.

I got a kick out of Ann Coulter not knowing her facts about the Vietnam War, and Michelle Malkin suggesting that John Kerry shot himself to earn a purple heart. And then, there's always Bill O'Reilly. His theatrics and phony tirades always make for fantastic footage. I'd rant on Nancy Grace if she were anything other than completely irrelevant. I have no idea how this woman has a television show on any channel anywhere. She gives mediocre, semi-attractive people hope. Glenn Beck? Words defy me on this guy. It's CNN's pathetic attempt to siphon off viewers of Fox News. He's got as much talent as toe cheese. Michelle Malkin is on television for one reason and one reason only - she's an attractive hate monger presented by Fersatz News to all of the horny, white, conservative men in America for ratings. She's not even good at reading the hate mongering off of the teleprompter.

Anyway, it's all good stuff. Watch it, laugh and watch it again.

Gary Hart to Rudy: zip it

I don't like to copy/paste whole articles or letters, but this one is not very long, and I believe this one is important and hard hitting enough to bring it all to you.

The following is a letter from former Colorado Senator Gary Hart to GOP Presidential Candidate Rudy Giuliani. I read it on HuffPo a little while ago. Honestly, it's just another reason to love The Huffington Post - it's one of the best liberal blogs on the Internet.

Anyway, here it is. I've highlighted a few passages I feel are particularly strong.

Dear Mayor Giuliani:

Since you have based your presidential campaign almost exclusively on your reaction to terrorist attacks on New York City, and since you have recently accused Democrats of being on the defense against terrorism and therefore guilty of inviting more casualties, I have one question for you: Where were you on terrorism between January 31, 2001, and September 11th?

The first date was when the U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century issued its final report warning, as did its previous reports, of the danger of terrorist attacks on America. The George W. Bush administration did nothing about these warnings and we lost 3,000 American lives. What did you do during those critical eight months? Where were you? Were you on the defensive, or were you even paying attention?

Before you qualify to criticize Democrats, Mr. Giuliani, you must account for your preparation of your city for these clearly predicted attacks. Tell us, please, what steps you took to make your city safer.

Until you do, then I strongly suggest you should keep your mouth shut about Democrats and terrorism.

You have not qualified [sic] to criticize others, let alone be president of the United States.

Gary Hart
(co-chair, U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century)

P.S. You might ask these same questions of George W. Bush while you are trying to find a better reason to run for president.

Not bad. This is a sound, valid criticism of Rudy Giuliani about 9-11.

I don't think that Giuliani could have prevented two airplanes from flying into both WTC towers on 9-11. For that, I blame the federal government and the president whose boots Rudy never misses a chance to lick - George W. Bush.

But, there's plenty of room to criticize Rudy, too. For instance, after it was recommended that NYC's emergency response center be put underground, why did he have it put in the World Trade Center anyway? (Especially in the aftermath of the 1993 bombing of the WTC complex.)

And, why didn't Giuliani take steps to improve and coordinate the city's various departments' response to a terrorist attack? It's well-documented that the radio system used by both the FDNY and NYPD were less-than-first-rate on 9-11.

We'll never know, but perhaps a better response would have resulted in fewer than the 343 firefighters lost when both towers collapsed. What's more, once the south tower collapsed, a more coordinated response may have saved more lives before the north tower collapsed.

I know what some might think - why go back and look at all of those things now? My response to that valid question is that Giuliani is cavorting from coast-to-coast, bragging and preening about his 9-11 leadership skills, so his actions as mayor leading up to and during 9-11 bear scrutiny. Republicans and Giuliani cannot have it both ways - if he's going to run on 9-11, he'd better be prepared to answer questions about some decisions that were made before, during and immediately after 9-11, all on his watch.

Does this line of thinking sound familiar? It should - it's precisely how Republicans justified their attacks on John Kerry in 2004. I certainly hope that Democrats (and organizations associated with the DemocratIC party) don't Swiftboat Giuliani like Republicans did to Kerry, but if Rudy is going to run as the "9-11 candidate," then his record should be examined and discussed.

And in light of his arrogant, inexcusable comments last week, he'd better be ready.

"Progress" continues in Baghdad

If this is progress, I'm praying for no setbacks.

Earlier today, a bomb ripped through the Iraqi Parliament cafeteria in Baghdad's Green Zone, killing three lawmakers and wounded many more.

In a separate attack, a suicide bomber blew up a bridge over the Tigris River, sending scores of cars into the water, killing 10 people and injuring dozens.

No word from Senator John McCain on whether he went over the now destroyed al-Sarafiya bridge with General Petraeus during his feel-good tour of the Iraqi capital.

And the debate to continue funding this disaster continues. It's amazing to me that there's any debate at all. This is about Republicans not wanting to admit defeat abroad, which will lead to a political loss at home. Period.

The only thing remarkable about yesterday was that President Bush didn't do another cheap, disgusting photo-op to let everyone know for the 29th time that he will veto the bill passed by both Houses of Congress that sets a deadline for troop withdraw.

On Tuesday, Bush went to a Fairfax, Virginia, American Legion to blabber on and on about Democrats not funding the troops, cliché, cliché, cliché...

Was Bush's trip on Tuesday really necessary? We GET IT. Democrats get it. The American people get it. You're going to veto a bill that will fund the troops.

What did Bush and Cheney say about political theater again? It's slipping my mind when I look at the absurd photo above (from gop.com).

I'll have plenty more to say about this later today when I have more time.

Yesterday also brought more great news for the troops - all 145,000 troops were told that their tours of duty are being extended.

Just wondering - I wonder which direction the support for this war will go now? If I'm a soldier in Iraq or Afghanistan, I would totally resent the fact that the only people who are sacrificing in this war are the soldiers and their families and friends.

It turns out John Kerry was right in 2004 - if this isn't a Back Door Draft, I have no idea what is.

Top photo AP via The New York Times, second photo from gop.com, bottom photo from HuffPo
Information for this piece was taken from The New York Times Website

Ex-Bush aide: Kerry was right

This was pretty big news this past weekend - ex-presidential aide Matthew Dowd has spoken out against President Bush, and in a very unequivocal, public way.

Dowd, a former Democrat who was not happy with many things during the Clinton Presidency, was taken in by Bush's messages of "restoring honor and integrity to the Oval Office" and bringing bipartisanship and cooperation to Washington. Dowd switched parties and remained with Bush for the next six years, serving as Bush's chief campaign strategist during the 2004 election.

However, many events began to change his mind - Abu Gharib, Bush's refusal to meet with Cindy Sheehan, the decision to keep Donald Rumsfeld on after a number of missteps, and the renomination of former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton.

"I really like him, which is probably why I’m so disappointed in things," he said during an interview with The New York Times. He added, "I think he's become more, in my view, secluded and bubbled in."

During his NYT interview, Dowd stated his faith in Bush's ability was misplaced, and he called for a withdraw from Iraq. In retrospect, Dowd says his faith in Bush was misplaced. You've got plenty of company, Mr. Dowd.

He asserted in the interview that Bush "still approached governing with a 'my way or the highway' mentality reinforced by a shrinking circle of trusted aides." What a surprise.

Dowd said he decided to go public with his disagreement with the administration because his disappointment was so great. He also reasoned he felt an obligation to speak out now because he played a part in Bush's electoral victories.

The most powerful passage from the Times article comes here:

Mr. Dowd, a crucial part of a team that cast Senator John Kerry as a flip-flopper who could not be trusted with national security during wartime, said he had even written but never submitted an op-ed article titled "Kerry Was Right," arguing that Mr. Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat and 2004 presidential candidate, was correct in calling last year for a withdrawal from Iraq.

"I'm a big believer that in part what we're called to do — to me, by God; other people call it karma — is to restore balance when things didn’t turn out the way they should have," Mr. Dowd said. "Just being quiet is not an option when I was so publicly advocating an election."

Even more outrageous, and in retrospect, sad, it what Dowd had to say in the interview about Kerry's qualifications to lead a strong national defense:

In television interviews in 2004, Mr. Dowd said that Mr. Kerry’s campaign was proposing "a weak defense," and that the voters "trust this president more than they trust Senator Kerry on Iraq."

But he was starting to have his own doubts by then, he said.

He said he thought Mr. Bush handled the immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks well but "missed a real opportunity to call the country to a shared sense of sacrifice."

The two events that hardened Dowd's resolve to speak out against Bush happened during the summer of 2005, said Dowd: the president's poor decisions regarding Hurricane Katrina, and Bush's refusal to meet with Cindy Sheehan around the same time that he was entertaining Tour de France Champion Lance Armstrong at his Crawford ranch, said Dowd during the interview.

His thought process was further influenced by working with California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger during his 2006 campaign, which had a theme of broad, bi-partisan appeal. (I can relate to Dowd's thinking here - Arnold is most definitely a Republican I would consider voting for were he eligible to run for president, which he is not.)

"I think we should design campaigns that appeal not to 51 percent of the people," said Dowd, "but bring the country together as a whole.

"If the American public says [it's] done with something, our leaders have to understand what they want," Dowd said. "They’re saying, 'Get out of Iraq.'"

Pretty powerful statements from one of Bush's inner circle. This is by no means a crippling blow, but it comes at a time when Bush needs as few of these stories as possible in the media.

While it's about three years too late, I applaud Dowd for his courage - it's not a stretch that Bush's Rasputin, Karl Rove, will avenge Dowd's change of heart in whatever way he can.

Photos from AP via The Huffington Post

Update: Swiftboat benefactor's ambassadorial nomination 86'd

I guarantee this bit of news gets lost in the news shuffle, considering all that is taking place on Capitol Hill these days.

I previously blogged about Sam Faux (I mean, "Fox" - sorry - it's a habit), a Swiftboat Veterans for Truth benefactor, who had to go before Congress and explain himself when he was nominated by the Bush Administration to be U.S. ambassador to Belgium.

Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, the 2004 Democratic nominee for president and target of Fox and the Swifties, didn't miss his opportunity last month to call out Fox for his involvement with the SBVT. Kerry made the most of it.

Yesterday, the Bush Administration withdrew Fox's name from consideration for the ambassadorship. Good. Finally, the Bush teams gets one right. He never should have been nominated in the first place.

"His nomination would not have passed today if the vote had been called up," said White House spokeswoman Dana Perino, as reported by AP.

During Fox's hearing last month, Kerry raked Fox over the coals about his $50,000 donation to the SBVT, saying the group was "smearing and spreading lies" about him. Kerry was after an apology, but didn't get one. No matter.

"Sam Fox had every opportunity to disavow the politics of personal destruction and to embrace the truth," Kerry said Wednesday, according to an AP story. "He chose not to. The White House made the right decision to withdraw the nomination. I hope this signals a new day in political discourse."

Keep dreamin', Senator. It's a victory for Kerry, albeit a very, very small one when compared to the damage Fox and his minions did in 2004.

Justice delayed is justice denied, but at least Kerry got his day with Fox by outing him as the partisan hate monger he really is.

Since I always hear Bill O'Lielly whining and complaining about the likes of George Soros and the money he donates to Democrats, I wonder if BOR has anything to say about Sam Fox? I already know the answer.

Olbermann uncovers facts behind Gore Swiftboating

Speaking of global warming, I've been meaning to get to this one.

It took less than 24 hours for the smear mongers to come after Al Gore following his big night at the Academy Awards. Pretty impressive, actually. Unfortunately, pretty predictable, too. Haven't we seen this play before? John Kerry knows the answer.

By now, it's pretty obvious the neocons weren't about to let Gore enjoy even the slightest adulation without attacking him in some way.

Enter stage left - the Tennessee Center for Policy Research. On its Website, the TCPR presents itself as "an independent, nonprofit and nonpartisan research and educational institute dedicated to providing concerned citizens, the media and public leaders with expert research and timely free market policy solutions to public policy issues in Tennessee."

It takes less than 30 seconds of poking around on its site to quickly figure out that the TCPR is about as nonpartisan as Rush Limbaugh.

What really irked me about the Gore smear campaign is how it was reported as hard news (Read: fact) by so many new organizations. This is a case study about how a smear migrates to national news. A right-wing think tank issues a smarmy smear, which of course leads to Matt Drudge putting it on a plate and sopping it up with a biscuit. And the road from Drudge, a known right-wing shill for the Republican Party, to the national media is a short one. It's amazing how much credibility Drudge has. Funny how the stories he gets wrong don't seem to get reported, but that's another post for another time.

Anyway, media such as CNN, The New York Times, The Washington Post, NBC, ABC and a host of other highly visible, popular media outlets reported the "facts" without obviously doing much, if any, reporting, unless you consider reporting as reading what Drudge and the TCPR Websites published and presenting it as news.

Here's an example of tertiary reporting at best, which took me inside of 10 minutes: Drew Johnson (right), the president of TCPR, has this line in his biography on TCPR's Website: "Johnson’s work has appeared in over 300 publications including USA Today, the Wall Street Journal, National Review, and Human Events."

Any journalist who can find his rump with his own two hands should have raised a red flag when reading that in his online bio. Considering the coverage, I doubt anyone decided to read it. Does anybody actually investigate anymore, or is that something looked upon as quaint or old fashioned? One can imagine some of these "reporters" sniping, "That was something that Woodward and Bernstein did, but I don't have time for that - I've got deadlines to meet!"

USA Today aside, the other three publications mentioned in Johnson's bio are known right-wing publications; National Review and Human Events make Rush Limbaugh look liberal, and the Wall Street Journal's editorial page reads like a press release from the RNC.

One person who did bother to do some research was Keith Olbermann. If you haven't listened to the clip above yet, click on it and listen.

Olbermann ticks off some great facts about Johnson, highlighted by his work for the American Enterprise Institute, a right-wing think tank which denies global warming exists. The AEI has received funding from these credible, non-partisan sources: ExxonMobile and the Sarah Scaife Foundation. Anyone familiar with the Clinton witch hunt in the 1990s knows the name Scaife.

The number that sticks in everyone's mind is that Gore's electric bill is "20 times the national average." Nevermind that the average home in the United States is about 2,500 square feet. Gore's house has 20 rooms, two offices and a guesthouse, as well as other security measures that are necessary as a former vice president. Why would a house like that use more electricity? It escapes me.

As usual, let's not let facts get in the way of a good 'ole fashioned Swiftboating.

This is PR 101, as well as a well-used page out of Karl Rove's playbook: Put out the smear, knowing that it might be debunked by anyone who bothers to perform 20 minutes of actual reporting. But, the lie will stick more than the facts that come out after the smear is widespread.

In a sick, twisted way, you almost can't blame the GOP and its supporters. This tactic has worked before - remember "I invented the Internet"?

My favorite part in the Olbermann clip is when he wonders how the global warming deniers get around the fact that even President Bush, one of our most anti-environmental presidents ever, has acknowledged that global warming is a problem, as well as evangelical clergymen.

What we are seeing here is the pathetic, last gasps by big business and its donors against a global problem that just about everyone who isn't to the right of Ann Coulter on the political spectrum has acknowledged - is that global warming is here to stay. And it really is an inconvenient truth to some.

Global Warming is the New Big Tobacco

Global warming is beginning to remind me of big tobacco. For decades, the cigarette companies denied, denied, denied and paid hundreds of millions to keep their big lie going. Eventually, the house of cards (or should I say, cash) collapsed around them, and they had to acknowledge what scientists had been saying for years - that smoking cigarettes kills.

I really hope Gore gets in the '08 race. I'd love nothing more than to see Gore settle the score from the 2000 race, and to trounce whomever the GOP nominates.

Urge Al to run by clicking Here.

It's too early for prez polls

People from all walks of life have been carping and complaining that our next presidential election is starting earlier than ever. You'll get no argument from me; we can now officially debate which begins much to early - the Christmas buying season or our presidential elections.

Anyway, call me crazy, but even though the candidates, declared and undeclared, seem to be getting a fair amount of press these days, isn't it a little early for polls? At least six months early? The first primary is about nine months away, so polls are meaningless now, right? Yea, sure.

This is a cover that the Philadelphia Daily News ran on February 28, pimping a poll proclaiming that Pennsylvania is turning red. More specifically, that McCain or Giuliani would beat Hillary or Obama, according to the latest poll.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but what a meaningless cover story. I'm not saying it because I'm no fan of Giuliani or McCain. I'm saying it because nine months is an eternity in American politics.

While Pennsylvania is a closely divided state, recent history has it trending it blue; the DemocratIC nominee has carried the state during the last four presidential elections, and Democrat Ed Rendell just began his second term as the state's governor. And it's not exactly like Republicans haven't tried, either; President Bush visited Pennsylvania more than any other state (aside from Texas) during his first term, and the state still went to John Kerry in 2004. (Democrats won the "Battle of Pennsylvania," but lost the war.)

I wonder if the motive for the Daily News running the above cover on Feb. 28 has anything to do with the paper's chief executive, Brian Tierney (right)? The former PR flak and Republican operative led a group of investors that bought both of Philadelphia's newspapers in March 2006.

So far, the jury's out on Tierney's influence over editorial content, (so that rates as a positive)but there's no question that the 2008 presidential election will be the biggest test of Tierney's leadership.

I'm no fan of Tierney's, and never will be. He has a checkered past as a PR executive when it came to the press. It's more than a little ironic that he became the chief executive of Philadelphia's two daily newspapers and philly.com. I certainly don't miss his ridiculously partisan election night diatribes on Comcast. (How a PR executive qualifies to give prognostications about politics is beyond me, but Comcast doesn't have a good track record of picking commentators at all; having Ed Rendell do post-game analysis of Eagles games is equally stupid.)

My point is that polls are a waste of time and money right now. It's much too early, but that's not likely to stop the media from conducting them anyway and reporting the results like the 2008 election hangs in the balance.

Kerry grills major SBVT donor

Well, this came nearly three years too late, but better late than never, I guess.

Sam Fox, the Bush Administration's nominee for ambassador to Belgium, had to face the fire recently from the man he helped slander, defame and attempted to politically destroy - John Kerry, the Massachusetts Senator and 2004 Democratic Presidential Nominee. Fox donated $50,000 to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (SBVT), a tax-exempt 527 founded in 2004 by long-time Republican benefactor John O'Neill. (More on O'Neill in a bit.)

I got a particular kick out of Fox's blatant ass kissing of Kerry toward the end of the video clip in the face of Kerry's steady, unyielding questioning. Kerry wouldn't let him off, and Fox had nowhere to go. Evidently, Fox at one point called Kerry "a hero," but it's not in this clip.

Unbelievable.

There's no freakin' question that Fox was lying through his teeth - who would donate $50,000 and not remember where it went? Anyone who donated that much to the SBVT certainly was very aware of what that organization was saying about Kerry. Clearly, he supported the lies and slander that were being spread (truth be damned), or he wouldn't have donated the $50,000.

There were some left-leaning 527s in the 2004 campaign as well, most notably MoveOn.org. MoveOn aired some anti-Bush ads and were working against Republicans and the Bush campaign, no question, but there were no established ties between the Kerry campaign and MoveOn that I've read about, anyway, and I've done a fair amount of reading on the subject.

Anyway, the bottom line is that MoveOn and the SBVT paid whompin' fines last December for campaign finance violations. The SBVT paid the highest fine, which was around $300,000.

The founder of the SBVT, John O'Neill, is human garbage who can't seem to let go of the fact that Kerry has been a success despite the '04 campaign. He has long ties to the Bush family (as does Sam Fox) and is a regular contributor to Insanity and Colmes.

Following Fox's testimony and grilling by Kerry on the Hill a little over a week ago, O'Neill, of course, appeared on Insanity and Colmes. Just a tidbit:

HANNITY: So are you wondering if Senator Kerry is bitter? Joining us now is the man who created the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, John O'Neill is back with us.

John, first of all, your reaction to the overreaction and this real bitterness of Senator Kerry?

JOHN O'NEILL, SWIFT BOAT VETERANS FOR TRUTH: Sean, he just won't let it go. You know, he spent 37 years obsessed with three-and-a-half months in Vietnam. Everybody else went about their business, had jobs, you know, did other things. Our kids didn't even know we were there. You can see it again the same way.

But the retaliation by Kerry follows a very — a pattern that's gone on ever since the election. They went and picketed my home during my daughter's wedding.

Kerry's commanding officer in Vietnam was a Captain George Elliott. Immediately before — while his wife had cancer, he received an e-mail, she did, wishing, hoping that she died. She did die three weeks later. He really should be ashamed for what he's done.

HANNITY: Well, I want to ask you this, because you talk about the politics of personal destruction. Clearly, you're the victim of this here.

More importantly, you know, here's a guy that's up for a position. He has a different political point of view. Now, my take is that, if the real liar the person that really smeared individuals, well, that was John Kerry. John Kerry smeared the good character, the good name of Vietnam vets like yourself, and he lied about them, and he made accusations that they were murderers, and that they were terrorizing people, and cutting off head and arms and limbs, etc.

We don't have to rehash all of it here, but it seems to me it's John Kerry. But the important question is here, because somebody dared to disagree with him, donate money to a campaign that was against him from president, he now is using his position, or misusing his position, to take revenge. Is that what you saw in this?

[...]

COLMES: Mr. Fox, by the way, who John Kerry was questioning, just referred to John Kerry as a hero. Do you agree with your contributor, Mr. Fox, who said that?

O'NEILL: Mr. Fox and 155,000 other people, but, no, the great heroes we had, Alan, are all back in Vietnam. They all died there. I think if you talk to the people in our unit, you would find that we believe those are the great heroes we had. And I think you'd find also that most of us don't live on our experience there like Kerry does.

HANNITY: I don't know if George Bush would have won re-election but for you guys telling the truth. And as far as I'm concerned, you're all heroes. John O'Neill, you're a great American. Thank you for being with us.

O'NEILL: Thank you, Sean.

Oh, what the hell - take a look at the Insanity and Colmes video - here it is - see for yourself. I'm warning you though, anger is sure to follow.



This video clip just enrages me, although I know it shouldn't. Hannity is a gutless, uneducated, soulless person who does or says anything to advance the cause of Fox News and his hero, President Bush. I couldn't believe my ears when I heard Insanity say to O'Neill, "Clearly, you are the victim here." I'll let that one stand on its own.

Does anyone really believe that John Kerry, or someone in John Kerry's stead, really e-mailed a dying wife and wished death on her? O'Neill is the lowest form of human filth who will say or do anything to smear Kerry. It's well documented that part of O'Neill's animosity toward Kerry stems from Kerry's anti-war activities once he returned from Vietnam. Never mind the fact that Kerry was exercising his constitutional right to speak out against a war that he felt was immoral and unjust. (Score Kerry right on both counts.)

O'Neill has a long and storied history with the Republican Party, going all the way back to the Nixon White House, who recruited him to combat Kerry in the court of public opinion. Kerry's Congressional testimony and anti-war activities infuriated Nixon.

Secondly, college drop-out Insanity calling O'Neill a hero is about what I'd expect from a right-wing ideologue who would spin President Bush murdering someone into it somehow being the Democrats' fault (and if he could tie in Bill Clinton somehow, all the better). If I were to ever meet Insanity, I'd have a hard time controlling my absolute, right-down-to-my-bones hatred for him.

It's not a stretch to say that the SBVT played a pretty significant role in Kerry's defeat in 2004. In a close election decided by less than four million votes, it could have made the difference. It's just too bad that Kerry waited nearly three years too long to aggressively combat the SBVT's lies, slander and falsehoods. O'Neill and his band of liars did have an impact, and I witnessed some of it personally - a few of my Republican best friends bought into the SBVT's lies and distortions hook, line and sinker.

Now in his early sixties, Kerry has probably missed his chance to ever be president. For what it's worth, I still have a tremendous amount of respect for Kerry and his wife, Theresa Heinz Kerry, despite the campaign Kerry ran in '04 that was beleaguered by poor decisions and even worse advice from incompetent advisers. Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, enough people bought into the SBVT's b.s. to have an impact on the election.

Score another phony Mission Accomplished for President Bush.

I wonder about Down Under

I was shaking my head in disgust today when I read a story on Google News about Australian Prime Minister John Howard.

In it, Howard, a noted sycophant of President Bush, is quoted as saying this about 2008 DemocratIC presidential candidates, specifically Barack Obama :

"If America pulls out of Iraq in March 2008 [as Obama has called for] it can only be in circumstances of defeat,'' said Howard. "If I were running Al-Qaeda in Iraq, I would put a circle around March 2008 and be praying as many times as possible for a victory not only for Obama but also for the Democrats.''

First off, wanker, mind your own country. Howard Stern makes more sense than you do, Mr. Howard.

Do I even need to discuss how outrageous it is that Howard would make such a claim? Who did this guy call for political advice, Dick Cheney? (Who can forget Cheney's remarks in the fall of 2001 that legislators who dared to vote against the USA Patriot Act were "siding with the terrorists." I know I won't let people forget.)

To his credit, Obama didn't take those remarks sitting down.

"I would also note that we have close to 140,000 troops in Iraq, and my understanding is Mr Howard has deployed 1,400, so if he is ... to fight the good fight in Iraq, I would suggest that he calls up another 20,000 Australians and sends them to Iraq,'' Obama told reporters in Iowa.

If Howard did not take up the invitation, Obama said the comments would become nothing more than "empty rhetoric.''

Good call, Obama. Australia's criticizing Obama and our DemocratIC presidential candidates? Who's next, Poland? (Remember Bush in '04? He snickered, "You Forgot Poland!" to John Kerry in a presidential debate when Kerry was talking about the War in Iraq and the "massive" coalition Bush had gathered before the war.)

"I think it's flattering that one of George Bush's allies on the other side of the world started attacking me the day after I announced [I would run for the 2008 Democrat presidential nomination]," said Obama.

Ya heard?!?

Two things were very clear about Obama on the very day his 2008 campaign officially kicked off - this guy is no John Kerry, and he's not going to be Swiftboated.

Quick! Run for your lives! Hillary's in!

You never forget your first, and I got my first "Hillary is the sign of the devil" forward since she declared her candidacy for president in 2008 from one of my aunt's friends a few days ago.

I'll let the idiocy speak for itself, other than to quickly note that I discovered, after a little research, that Betty Ford, Nancy Reagan and the senior Bushes also still have Secret Service protection (as they are entitled to, as all ex-presidents and their wives are). In 1997, the Republican-controlled Congress passed, and President Clinton signed into law, a bill that limits Secret Service protection to 10 years after leaving office. This was done for a good reason - former first families were essentially using the Secret Service as a limo service. (I have this on pretty good authority - I personally know a former Secret Service agent who was on presidential detail.)

Former first families of both parties are guilty of this. Does anyone honestly think that the Carters, Betty Ford, Nancy Reagan or Lady Bird Johnson are really in any danger? They are not.

Also, the forward below mocks the Clintons for moving to New York so Hillary could run for the Senate. Didn't the Bushes used to live in Connecticut? In fact, or current prez was born there. This is America - people are free to move and live where they like.

Anyway, enough from me - check out this gem. I tried to recreate the forward with the colors, and of course, the priceless pictures. I replied to all the recipients with my brief thoughts on this truly eloquent forward (and I actually kept those thoughts brief, even though this post is not. Sorry.) and asked the sender to refrain from sending me any more of this garbage.

Well, enjoy. My comments appear in parenthetical references, in red. ...

"United We Stand!!"

"The real definition of Rotten"

You really should be sitting down when you read this one.

Gold Star Mothers (G.S.M.) is an organization made up of women whose sons were killed in military combat during service in the United States Armed Forces.

(Too bad GSM has 3,000 new members, and growing, on President George WMD Bush's watch, all for a lie in Iraq. Anyone with a plan on how to get out of this mess, write to the president at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., Washington, D.C. 20081-0001. Trust me, he needs the advice, but it's doubtful he'll listen.

Just like he didn't listen to the Baker-Hamilton Commission, a bipartisan group that made over 79 recommendations, with a report that was 160 pages in length. But, all I ever hear is the president and Congressional Republicans (but the number of the latter is shrinking) who whine that the Democrats have no plan. The last I read, Nancy Pelosi and Congressional Democrats want to put most of those recommendations in place, but Bush and Cheney continue to ignore those recommendations. How much taxpayer money was wasted there?)

Recently a delegation of New York State Gold Star Mothers made a trip to Washington, D.C. , to discuss various concerns with their elected Representatives.

According to published reports, there was only one politician who refused to meet with these ladies. Can you guess which politician that might be?

Was it New York Senator Charles Schumer?

Nope, he met with them.

Try again.

Do you know anyone serving in the Senate who has never showed anything but contempt for our military? Do you happen to know the name of any politician in Washington whose husband once wrote of his loathing for the military?

(The Clintons grew up in the 1960s and went to college during Vietnam. Despising the military then was about as exclusive as the white pages. How dumb does the author of this e-mail think I am? I guess pretty dumb.)

Now you're getting warm! You got it!

None other than the Queen herself, Hillary Rotten Clinton!

(Rotten? Wow, that's original - almost as original as my admittedly lame "Bill O'Lielly" [thanks, Al Franken]. And the picture is priceless - God, I love Photoshop and people who have this much time on their hands. Hey, I guess I have a lot of time on my hands, too. Oops.)

She refused repeated requests to meet with the Gold Star Mothers.

Now, please don't tell me you're surprised. This woman wants to be President of the United States -- and there is a huge percentage of voters who are eager to help her achieve that goal.

May you sleep in peace always...and please...hug or thank a veteran for that privilege.

(So, I guess people should not hug or thank Senator John Kerry, the '04 Democratic Nominee who was Swiftboated and made to look like a traitor for winning three purple hearts and a bronze star medal. At right, a churlish rube at the GOP 2004 Republican Convention shows her thanks to Kerry by wearing a purple heart Band-Aid. Does that qualify as thanking a veteran?

What about hugging Dick Cheney, the beneficiary of five deferments, who is one record as saying he had "other priorities" during the Vietnam War, or the president himself, who, in the words of Maureen Dowd, so famously leapfrogged over thousands of other applicants to get a spot on the Texas Air National Guard to "protect Texas from Oklahoma.")

Think about this one!!

Don't forget, our girl, Hillary Rodham Clinton, as a New York Senator, now comes under this fancy Congressional Retirement and Staffing Plan. It's common knowledge that, in order for her to establish NYS residency, they purchased a million+ dollar house in upscale Chappaqua, NY. Makes sense.

Now, they are entitled to Secret Service protection for life. Still makes sense.

Here is where it becomes interesting. The mortgage payments hover at about $10,000 per month. BUT, an extra residency had to be built within the acreage in order to house the Secret Service agents.

The Clintons now charge the Secret Service $10,000 monthly rent for the use of said Secret Service residence and that rent is just about equal to their mortgage payment, meaning that we, the tax payers, are paying the Clintons' mortgage, their transportation, their safety and security, their 12-man staff, and it's all perfectly legal.

(So, if it's legal and you're upset, Commander, write your legislators and press to have the law changed. Quick! Before another Democrat gets in the White House and we have to needlessly spend taxpayer money to keep said Democrat and the first family safe.

I wonder how much the government has paid and will pay for the extra facilities on the president's Crawford Ranch, during his presidency and after? And Nixon's Western White House? Or Reagan's?

If you do some research, [unlikely that Sean Hannity, the probable author of this forward, did much research or that he even knows the meaning of the word - he didn't even finish college] there are some interesting figures out there, specifically with Nixon's improvements to his homes, all at taxpayer expense, while he was president. But hey, let's not let numbers and facts get in the way of a Hillary Swiftboating.

Anyone who wants to complain about taxpayer money being wasted should read about the Starr Report - $70 million, all to investigate a blow job. For you mathematicians, that's 7,000 months of the government's alleged payments to the Clinton's for the Secret Service's facilities at their Chappaqua home, but I digress.)

Sincerely, Cmdr. Hamilton McWhorter U.S.N. (retired)

P.S.: Please forward this to as many people as you can. We don't want this woman to even think of running for President. (Too late.) So, just how many people can you send this to? (None.) It will take no more than 2 minutes. Thanks. (Now that I didn't forward it, will something bad happen to me in 10 minutes?)

##

Thanks for your service to our country, Commander. However, since you have so much time on your hands, if, in fact, you are the author of this e-mail, perhaps you have time to write to the president to implore him to end this idiotic and stupid war. While you're at it, maybe you can illustrate to him the real costs of combat in terms of human sacrifice, much less the hundreds of billions being spent to rebuild a country we were so intent on destroying. Because the president has no idea about combat, since he and his vice president took pains not to go when their generation was called to fight.

Ultimately, I don't know if Hillary is qualified to be president or not - that's what I hope to find out during next year's presidential primaries - who the best qualified candidate is. However, I'm reasonably confident that she's more qualified and a great deal brighter than the current occupant of the oval office.

And I'm not forwarding this e-mail to anyone, but it sure was fun debunking it. If I get any more like this, my DELETE button is one keystroke away. Let's quit fighting the pseudo-wars of the 1990s against the Clintons, and let's turn our energies to finding Osama bin Laden, the man responsible for the 9-11 attacks, and also toward ending the War in Iraq.

Have a nice day.

Is Iran next?

Will this bumper sticker prove true after all?

There's plenty of talk that it's a strong possibility. I haven't read enough about it yet to write at length, but I certainly will, soon.

You can bet your butt that if we do go to war with Iran, there will be a draft. We absolutely do not have the troops for operations anywhere else. If we do go to war in Iran though, Bush had better schedule the invasion or bombing around American Idol, because can you imagine the civil revolt if Fox broke into Idol programming with news of war?

I sincerely hope that people who constantly say, "I don't care about politics" are reconsidering their position. Because everyone should care, especially now, especially if there's a draft. If the draft is reinstated, you can bet everyone will care, fast.

The bumper sticker above, and many others, are available at CafePress, truly a cool Website. Check it out. I was there today, and they've got a whole menu of great new products.

A quick sample...

I love the one on the left *ahem*, but wouldn't a Cheney/Satan ticket be redundant? Okay, okay, I'm getting a bit carried away, but Dick scares me. Call me crazy, but I pray for the president's health on a daily basis, because heaven help us if Cheney were to become president. I can tell you one thing, though - there would be plenty of high fives at Halliburton headquarters. With a Cheney presidency, the new Hallie corporate slogan would write itself: "A no-bid contract in every pot."

I love this one, too. I kind of miss Tom DeLay, though. It was fun kicking him while he was down. This one would make a great t-shirt. After I sell my old computer monitor, maybe I'll spring for one. My car is about maxed out on bumper stickers. In fact, I may thin out the ranks soon. One of my stickers, "Don't blame me, I voted for Kerry" rings kind of hollow now that he's opted out of the '08 race.

Lastly, I found this one - ITMFA - which stands for "Impeach The Mother F----- Already." Too funny. We impeached President Clinton for a consensual affair, but Bush gets a pass on... a laundry list of crap.

I think impeachment should be a last resort, not a first one, but my point is that if Congress could wrongly go after Clinton for what he did, how's Bush get a pass?

It will be interesting to see how the I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby trial plays out. (I'll be blogging more about this over the weekend.)

Incidentally, I'm sooo sick and tired of the media saying his whole name. Who goes by the nickname "Scooter," anyway? That sounds like a nickname from the playground in fifth grade. Hey, I go by RJ, but, I have to pat myself on the back - it's a lot cooler than "Scooter." And what's with the "I"? I never get the whole first initial thing, like "H. Ross Perot." Why not just "Ross Perot?"

One of my favorite initialed-monikers is the football player R.W. McQuarters, a defensive back for the New York Giants. "RW" is a lot to say, but his full name is Reginald Willingham McQuarters II. (There's two?) Yikes. I'd go with "RW," too.

Okay, from now on, I'm R. Joseph "Moped" Corby.

Or not.

One great American

AP Photo/Eric Paul Zamora

I didn't know this, but Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., is one of only four people in the United States who have holidays all to themselves, along with George Washington, Christopher Columbus and Jesus Christ.

It's a fitting and a special honor that should be rare. But, without question, King is deserving of the distinction.

Above, Arianna Yanez, 8, holds a portrait of MLK during the annual Martin Luther King Jr. Day parade in downtown Fresno, Calif., earlier today. Just imagine how unlikely that picture would have been just 50 short years ago - a white child holding a portrait of an African-American who was awarded a national holiday. It speaks a great deal to the progress we've made on race in America, but we have a long way to go, too.

AP Photo/Jerry Lara

Faron Lockridge carries the flag during the Martin Luther King march in San Antonio, Texas, earlier today.

Today, as I saw lots of tributes to King on TV, I thought back to one of his speeches that I read in college, Letter from Birmingham Jail. He wrote it in response to a statement made by eight white Alabama clergymen on April 12, 1963 titled "A Call For Unity," which agreed that social injustices were happening, but they believed the struggle against segregation should be fought in the courts not, the streets.

King wrote it while in jail in the city of Birmingham. It's a remarkable piece of work - if you haven't read it (or even if you have), I highly recommend it. It really captures the essence of what King stood for as a pioneer during the Civil Rights Movement.

Today also got me to thinking, shouldn't we have a separate way to commemorate two people who are connected to King, and not how they would like.

Is there some way we could honor Vice President Dick Cheney (right), who voted against the creation of a holiday for King in 1979, but then voted for it in 1983. (Wait, let's modify a quote Republicans loved to use against John Kerry in 2004: "First I voted against the holiday before I voted for it.") I won't even get started on Cheney's spotty record on civil rights while in Congress -- a that's a topic for another blog posting at another time.

How about Evan Mecham (left), the former Republican governor of Arizona, who was impeached, in part for cancelling a paid MLK Day holiday for state employees shortly after his inauguration.

I suppose we could even throw in President Reagan's opposition to the holiday, too. He was opposed to the holiday until it was passed by Congress with a veto-proof majority in 1983. He then signed it into law.

Kind of makes you laugh when you consider President Bush's remarks that Democrats haven't earned African-Americans' votes, huh?

Anyway, this is a day to remember King, but also a day to remember those who opposed him, and also those who were opposed to creating the holiday in the first place.

I'm thankful that more intelligent heads prevailed in Washington, and our government decided to rightfully honor one of the greatest Americans in history.