Our would-be AG gets billboard love

I found this one last week and forgot to post it - it's a "billboard" of Utah Senator Orrin Hatch, but I assume the pic has been Photoshopped.

Evidently, Hatch has self-serving billboards all over Utah that get on some people's nerves, from what I've read.

I've never liked Hatch, ever, other than he's one of the few Repubes who is for stem-cell research.

I blogged last week about Hatch, jeering him for bucking for attorney general before Gonzo is gonezo. Give it a week or two, Orrin - you'll have your shot at getting shot down during Senate confirmation. All kidding aside, he'd probably get confirmed by the Senate if offered the job of AG, but it's just downright tacky to be campaigning for it, even if quietly.

Anyway, I like the billboard effort.

Ahh, the wonder of the Internet.

Rachel Maddow calls b.s. on Orrin Hatch

There has been lots of talk this week about Orrin Hatch's appearance on Meet the Press last Sunday. During his appearance, Hatch mentioned Carol Lam, a former U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of California and one of the eight attorneys recently fired by the Justice Department.

During his appearance, Hatch mentioned that Carol Lam worked for the Clinton campaign (see video below).

At the heart of Hatch's inaccuracies is this paragraph:

Carol Lam, it’s amazing to me she wasn’t fired earlier because for three years members of the Congress had complained that there had been all kinds of border patrol capture of these people but hardly any prosecutions. She was a former law professor, no prosecutorial experience, and the former campaign manager in Southern California for Clinton, and they’re trying to say that this administration appoints people politically? Of course they do.

Here's the video clip...



Rachel Maddow (top left), who hosts her own program on Air America Radio, did a little digging of her own and began poking holes in Hatch's lies and distortions, writing this letter to the Hatch:

Dear Senator Hatch-
You don’t call, you don’t write...

I’ve just about exhausted myself trying to get someone in your office to call me back this week. Please apologize to your adorable receptionist on my behalf – the poor man now gets audibly exasperated as soon as I say "hello."

What I’d like to talk with you about is very simple: on NBC’s Meet the Press this past Sunday, you said this about Carol Lam, the US Attorney for San Diego who was fired by the Justice Department in December:

"She was a former law professor, no prosecutorial experience, and the former campaign manager in Southern California for Clinton"

I checked the transcript against the video (or click here for the specific clip) and it’s clear to me that you weren’t misquoted.

Here's my question for you or your staff: what in the Lord's name are you talking about?

Here at Air America, we called John Emerson, who managed Clinton's California campaign in '92 and again in '96 to ask if Carol Lam had been the "campaign manager in Southern California for Clinton" – you might have thought we'd asked him if the sky was green.

First of all, uh, NO, she wasn't.

And second, Carol Lam was an Assistant US Attorney at the time of Clinton's campaigns, and she therefore couldn't have also been a campaign manager for any presidential candidate without violating the (ironically-named) Hatch Act, which restricts political activity by federal government employees.

Then we called a source close to Carol Lam in California, who expressed utter bewilderment at what old Orrin said on Meet the Press.

The source confirmed for us publicly-available documents about Lam's career which indicate that she is not a law professor, she's "been a federal prosecutor for nearly 18 years and [has] never been a fundraiser for any president."

Senator Hatch, what’s going on here?

Were you thinking of someone else? You seemed under the weather on Sunday - did you maybe fall asleep and wake up in the middle of what you thought was a totally different interview – an interview about someone who DID work for Clinton's campaign?

Don't you want to apologize and set the record straight? Won't you be embarrassed if Meet the Press has to run a correction about something you said, that you won't retract?

Or do you have secret information that no one else has, that will back up your off-the-wall claims about Carol Lam?

Senator Hatch, call me.

My voicemails have filled up the systems on all of your press guys' phones, so I know you know how to reach me.

When you call me back, I'll give you all the time you want on my radio show to either explain your top-secret Carol Lam information, or to apologize for your utterly outrageous, inexplicable smear.

I know it's difficult to have to defend the Bush Administration for their political purge of the US Attorneys - but that doesn't mean you get to make stuff up about the US attorneys that you think will make it seem like they deserved what they got.

Come on, come on, Senator Hatch. I caught you on this one. Return my calls - I'll help you make it all better.

All best wishes,
Rachel Maddow
Host, "The Rachel Maddow Show"
Air America Radio 6-8 PM Eastern

###

Who says that letters don't make a difference? Hatch has responded in a letter to Tim Russert. [Click on letter for larger image.]

###

And Maddow responds to Hatch's b.s. letter. ...

Apparently this open letter thing works!

Senator Hatch has now issued a letter climbing down from the pile of lies he told about Carol Lam on Meet the Press this weekend.

He now says thought he was talking about a person named "Alan Bersin" when the name "Carol Lam" accidentally escaped his lips instead.

Given the massive media attention and debate about "Alan Bersin" recently, I can understand his mistake.

For more on this weird controversy, tune into my next show, titled, as always, "Yet Another Two Hours of Talk Radio All About Alan Bersin."

Rachel

****

Bravo, Rachel - keep up the good work. For those of you who haven't listened to her show, I urge you to - visit her blog Here, where you can find out more about her, the show, get lots of opinion, and best of all - downloads of audio and video files from her show.

By the way, for those of you who don't think Hatch's mistakes are important, think again. They are, because all signs point to the fact that they were deliberately said. The fact is that Lam and the other dismissed U.S. Attorneys are having their reputations wrongly and needlessly smeared so this administration can cover its ass.

Orrin Hatch in denial more than Clay Aiken

This is a clip from a pretty combative Utah Senator Orrin Hatch during his appearance on Meet the Press on Sunday morning.

I really wonder what it would take for Hatch to criticize the Bush Administration for anything. I really can't think of anything.

Of course, toward the end of the show on Sunday, we get our answer - evidently, Hatch has been pimping himself all over town as a possible replacement once current AG Alberto Gonzales resigns or is fired.

Notice in the clip above that Hatch makes sure to mention that Gonzo "is the first Hispanic to serve as AG." Yea, we know, Orrin - quit trying to score points with voters on that point. If this keeps up, he's also going to be the first Hispanic AG who has resigned under fire, or dismissed.

Two wrongs don't make a right, but I find it very curious to hear Hatch intone that the "atmosphere on the Senate Judiciary Committee is so poisoned." I don't suppose that would have anything to do with the Clinton witch hunts in the late 1990s, would it?

For those who think I'm wrong to bring up Clinton, spend a few hours watching Fox News on any given day, and you'll hear Bill or Hillary Clinton's name come up at least once, but most likely multiple times. Repubes can't have it both ways - you can't bring up Clinton in one breath, and then decry someone bringing up the Clinton witch hunts in the next breath.

Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy showed remarkable restraint this morning on the same show, which I thought admirable, since Hatch was functioning as President Bush and Alberto Gonzales' press secretary.

A few final points...

Hatch mentions that there are over 100,000 people working at the Justice Department, thereby implying that it's tough for an attorney general to know what's going on all of the time. But, this scandal isn't about 100,000 people at the justice department, it's about decisions being made about federal prosecutors at the highest levels of the justice department. A nice try by Hatch to minimize Gonzo's fallibility here, but no cigar.

Hatch ridiculously mentions that "[Gonzales] isn't capable of lying." Are you kidding me? Sure Hatch, we'll just take your word for it.

Finally, Hatch mentions that he "sees no evidence of criminal activity" on the part of AG Gonzales. How does he know until the matter is fully investigated? Then, in the next breath, he opines that the Judiciary Committee should let Gonzo tell his side of the story, and that no one should rush to judgment on his guilt. That's a pretty wild contradiction.

What's more, I don't think Hatch has been paying attention to the document dumps the Justice Department has been putting out to the press, because there's plenty of evidence that Gonzo was involved in the politically motivated dismissals. Gonzo has changed his story at least twice, and from some things I've read, maybe more.

There's plenty of reason, and precedent, to have not only Gonzo, but Harriet Miers and Karl Rove testify, under oath and in public, before Congress.

Only time will tell if this happens. If President Bush chooses to prevent subpoenaed members of his administration from testifying before Congress, we are going to have a Constitutional confrontation with far-reaching implications.

GOP 101: Burn a fag, but not a flag

So, the predictable Karl Rove 2006 election strategy has come to pass: trivial, divisive issues that will fire up and distract an American public that is otherwise sick to death of this administration's disastrous policies.

First divisive issue - flag burning. This cartoon probably states my feelings on this better than any 50 paragraphs I could type:

I don't know what I find more incredulous: that Republicans have the balls to try this tactic again, or that the American public can't see right through it. A Constitutional Amendment to ban flag burning would cut right at the heart of what our democracy stands for, period. We have the right to express dissatisfaction with our government, and if a few wayward souls think burning our flag is the way to express those feelings, let them. Would I ever do it? Not a chance, but I'm outraged the government wants to outlaw it.

This is a replay of President Bush Sr., circa the early 1990s: His popularity was going in the toilet (and in the current case, the president's party as well), so he wrapped himself in the American flag. The amendment failed then, and it failed now, but there are two chief differences between then and now: the country is in much worse shape now, and the vote was much closer this time. The measure passed the House, and it failed in the Senate by a single vote. A single fucking vote, people. If this doesn't wake you up, I have no idea what will.

Spearheading the flag burning Amendment is this stupid ass:

Utah Republican Senator Orrin Hatch. This guy must really hate our Constitution, because since he took office in 1977, he's proposed amending it over three dozen times. It makes one wonder if this idiot has done anything other propose Amendments. Banning flag burning takes the cake, but a close second was his half-baked attempt in 2003 to tinker with the guidelines of who can be president as outlined in the Constitution.

Back then, Hatch proposed amending the Constitution to allow foreign-born citizens to run for president. A quick recap, if I may, with some research from the San Francisco Chronicle:

Sen. Orrin Hatch, a Schwarzenegger political friend, proposed allowing anyone who has been a U.S. citizen for 20 years and has resided in the country for 14 years to be elected president. Hatch denies that he proposed the amendment with Schwarzenegger in mind, but it turns out that the 56-year-old actor-businessman was naturalized in 1983. [Emphasis added]

Coincidence? Yea, sure. A little more from Hatch:

"I believe the time has now come to address the antiquated provision of the Constitution that requires our president to be a natural-born citizen," Hatch said. Hatch spokeswoman Margarita Tapia denied the proposal had anything to do with Schwarzenegger, who has raised money for Hatch. "It was a policy judgment. We didn't do it with one specific person in mind, " she said Monday.

Fucking liars. But, I digress.

Back to the issue at hand, and that's Hatch's idea to ban the burning of the American flag. When asked the day before yesterday if he thought this was the most important thing the Senate could be debating, Hatch deadpanned, "You're darn right." Really, Orrin?

Maybe you've heard of: the war in Iraq, exploding deficits, our porous borders, immigration problems, our deteriorating environment, stem cell research, energy problems, etc. I could go on and on. But this is what our leadership in Congress elects to spend its time on? Why am I not surprised?

Hatch continued, and I QUOTE:

"Bringing it up at this time is not an election year ploy. We have Democrats and Republicans who feel deeply about this issue. It is bipartisan. Last time we brought it up was the year 2000."

Was there an election that year, Orrin? And it's worth noting that yes, some Democrats supported this Constitutional Amendment proposal, and that's because they are pussies - too afraid of being painted as unpatriotic for not supporting such a measure. (Or perhaps it could be "not supporting the troops," it just depends on what the Republican slogan du jour is.)

Here's a pretty big issue Congress could be spending its time on - how about Hurricane Katrina fraud? How is it that some assholes of unspeakable morals and ethics always find a way to defraud our government, victims, and ultimately, taxpayers, in times of national crisis? And how is it that our government never seems sage enough to prevent it? 9-11 is the most horrifying example, but Katrina is the latest, to the tune of about $2 billion. Federal prosecutors estimate they will be prosecuting Katrina fraud for the next 6-8 years.

Take a look...

...at all of these new mobile homes that the government has spent $600 million on to purchase for Katrina homeless. I'm so proud that my government has procured these mobile homes to gather so much rust. They sit at this site, while people continue to struggle in New Orleans, many without homes. You're doin' a heckuva job, Dubya, a heckuva job.

***

On to wedge issue number 2, and that's gay marriage. Again, I turn to cartoon for laughter, and to finely illustrate my point:

Ahh, I could probably stop typing right here, and that cartoon says it all. Hell, all DNC Chairman Howard Dean needs to do is make this the slogan of the Democrats: "Republicans - the party that tried to write hate and intolerance INTO the Constitution." Yea, that would just about do it.

This is yet another election-year ploy to fire up the radical religious right. The only mystery about it this time is whether this trite red herring will be enough to distract right wingers into voting for a party that has failed miserably on so many fronts, or will this tried-and-true tactic of distraction work magic for Bush and his minions once again? Funny how we didn't hear much about gay marriage last year, but in the spring of 2004 it was an issue of vital importance.

I'm not going to trot out statistic after statistic about gay marriage and straight marriage again. The numbers are convincing, but there are some on the right who will never let go of the idea that homosexuality is for beasts and devil worshippers. And I have nothing but all the contempt and scorn in the world for people who believe that, most of whom have probably never even known a gay person.

How funny is it that the Department of Defense still classifies homosexuality as a mental disorder? That's something that mental health professionals stopped doing back in the 1960s. Hey, some year our government is bound to catch up.

***

The third wedge issue that the Republicans are trotting out to tremendous PR effect, because it's on the lips of many people at water coolers every Monday morning, is our language.

Aah, I love the smell of xenophobia in the morning. I heard similar sentiments like the one above come out of the mouths of many of my relatives this past weekend when we were all gathered at my aunt's house after my Nan passed away.

This hysteria that's sweeping the nation about English and Spanish is comical. Ohmygod! Unthinkable! Americans learn a second language, get cultured, and be open minded? The fucking planet could stop rotating and we could all fall off the other side.

Hey, this just in, you agents of intolerance - Latinos are now the number one minority in America (or will be by the beginning of next year, they are neck and neck with African-Americans). Imagine these same intolerant people in 1863:

"Niggers? Free?!? What are we going to do next, allow them to vote?!?"

Okay, a bit dramatic, but the connection isn't too obscure. I find people who oppose a bilingual society just about as offensive as the N word in the above paragraph.

So, Republicans are now trying to capitalize on this wedge issue, too, declaring that English is the official language of the United States. Wow, thanks, geniuses. I guess bilingual signs signal the impending collapse of civilization. I ask you, what would be so horrible about a bilingual society?

Need an example of a bilingual society that works? How about we look to Canada? In many parts of that country, there are bilingual signs.

What's so horrible about that? What's more, we have many bilingual signs here in America, too, and you may not have even noticed them, nor cared about them until politicians started beating the drums of intolerance. Here's one you probably see every time you are in a shopping mall or restaurant:

Know what? I actually like having signs like these around. They help me learn a language, Spanish, that any American who hopes to be successful this century will have to know. Put our having a bilingual society to a vote tomorrow, and I vote yes, just like I'd vote yes to gay marriage, and an absolute no fucking way to banning flag burning.

I'm sick to death of Republicans and their agents of intolerance on the right shoving their morality down the throats of us all. You see examples of it every day - in addition to the three wedge issues above, the "War on Christmas", "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance (that phrase was added in 1954 by a Republican controlled Congress - it wasn't even in the original version), The FCC dramatically increasing fines for people uttering swear words that I hear every day on the street, etc.

Hey Republicans, this is not a Christian nation, and God is not a Republican. Pick up a history book and you'll quickly find out - this nation was founded on religious freedom, not religious freedom as long as you are a Christian. Deal with it. I'm sick to death of Republicans getting election year amnesia by forgetting the Bill of Rights, which guarantee me the right to express my opinion and say what I like. Hey, Congressional Republicans - fuck you.