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.

McCain disses WSJ reporter

This is some pretty telling footage of John McCain dissing a reporter from The Wall St. Journal a few days ago, supposedly for coverage that he didn't find very flattering in the paper's pages.

First, check out Sen. Lindsay Graham's expression off to the right - hilarious!

On a more serious note, for the life of me, I'm wondering why McCain would do such a thing? I'll never understand why candidates and presidents do that - a smarter guy would realize that whatever coverage he's unhappy with, it's not going to stop if he refuses to take questions from a certain media outlet's reporter. In fact, it won't get him any favor with the WSJ, in all likelihood. I think it was Winston Churchill who once most famously said, "Never get in a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel."

What's more, since the WSJ was taken over by Murdoch, it's maintained its reputation as a very conservative newspaper, which is on McCain's turf, so that makes it all the more puzzling. If the snub was directed toward the New York Times, I could understand it better (but certainly not condone it).

WSJsells out; I get out

This morning, it appears to be official - enough members of the Bankroft family have voted to approve the sale of The Wall Street Journal to Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. It's all over but the paperwork now. In light of that, it was time for me to put up my nano-sized protest to the paper this morning.

I guess now's the time to write that I was a reluctant subscriber to the paper in the first place. Its blood-soaked editorial page was awfully hard to swallow, and while I was a subscriber, I largely ignored it. (For a flavor of just how bad the WSJ's editorial page is, go back in time to the idiotic, moronic, misguided and hateful pieces it did on Vince Foster, President Clinton's friend and legal adviser. Ultimately, those editorials played a small but notable role in Foster's suicide.)

Anyway, I became a subscriber because of the WSJ's first-rate reporting, but even that is not reason enough to remain a subscriber. Sooner or later (bet on sooner), the paper's quality and integrity will be eroded by Murdoch's meddling. It's not a question of will he meddle, it's a question of when. For solid proof of what Murdoch does to a publication, look no further than The New York Post, a paper the RM saved from bankruptcy, but also a paper that serves as a political tool to advance his right-wing agenda.

Anyway, here's the letter I wrote the WSJ's customer service this morning...

Dear Dow Jones:
Please immediately cancel my subscription and refund the remaining balance to my credit card.

With news of the impending sale of The Wall Street Journal to News Corp., my decision is easy - I will in no way support a Rupert Murdoch entity, if I can help it, and there are plenty of alternatives to the WSJ that Murdoch does not own where I can get my news. (Hello, New York Times)

Thanks for your prompt attention.

Sincerely,
RJ

Murdoch quashes China stories; let's let him buy the WSJ? No way.

I found a pretty interesting article in this morning's New York Times, which reports some scandalous behavior over at the Rupert Murdoch-owned New York Post. (Which I refuse to read - see the headline at right for a stark reason why.)

It contains some gossip about the paper's Page Six gossip column, which makes for some amusing reading, but one passage in particular caught my eye.

An excerpt:

Page Six, The New York Post's free-swinging showcase for gossip about canoodling celebrities and cheating spouses, ran a tell-all item yesterday about a subject it does not usually cover in eye-popping detail: itself. And it had some pretty juicy details: the editor of the paper patronized a strip club, and the longtime author of the column, Richard Johnson, once took a $1,000 cash gift.

And that was not all.

The item also raised anew long-heard allegations that Rupert Murdoch, The Post's owner, had directed the Page Six writers to avoid items that could be seen as critical of China, where he was trying to do business. [Emphasis Mine]

The 675-word item was the latest twist in the long-running dispute involving Jared Paul Stern, a former freelance contributor to Page Six. He was suspended in April 2006 amid allegations that he had demanded money for favorable coverage — allegations that the authorities later declined to prosecute.

But the fight rages on. Mr. Stern now says he might sue Page Six, and as part of the legal preliminaries, his lawyer obtained a statement by a fellow former reporter for Page Six, Ian Spiegelman.

That four-page blast opens with allegations about Page Six and the editor of The Post, including the strip club and the $1,000 gift. While confirming those assertions in the item, the editor, Col Allan, was quoted as calling Mr. Spiegelman's claims a "tissue of lies."

Gossip aside (is anyone surprised that a writer for the sleazy Post would take a $1,000 bribe of sorts?), what really got my dander up was how Murdoch allegedly told Page Six staffers to avoid unflattering stories about China, because he was trying to do business there.

This is exactly the reason why Murdoch should not only be prohibited from buying The Wall St. Journal, but he should be forced to sell off part of the media empire he already owns.

Media conglomeration is a direct threat to our democracy. The argument for media conglomeration is always "let the market decide" and "I/we [CEOs and corporate boards of these companies] don't interfere with the news departments and/or editorial decisions."

But this is simply the latest example that heads of media companies DO interfere with news and editorial decisions, and our government must put a stop to it.

Murdoch is hardly the only example. In the last 10-15 years alone, CBS and ABC have also been in the middle of some heady controversies about corporate talking suits and lawyers preventing their news divisions from reporting stories that didn't serve their corporate interests.

In the case of CBS, it was the high-profile case of Dr. Jeffrey Wigand, formerly of Brown & Williamson (a very large American tobacco company that has since merged with Phillip Morris), who decided to go public on 60 Minutes with the revelation that his former employers knew full well that tobacco was not only addictive, but that B&W was adding chemicals to its cigarettes to make them more addictive.

Faced with the possibility of an enormous lawsuit from B&W, CBS coerced the producers of 60 Minutes to air a sharply edited version of the story, which later became a huge story. (It's important to note that CBS in the process of being sold to Westinghouse, and the heads of the network did not want the sale jeopardized with a high-profile lawsuit.)

I digress, but the story of CBS is an amazing one, which was turned into a very good movie, The Insider, starring Russell Crowe and Al Pacino.

But, the angle of Wigand's story that didn't get nearly as much attention as it deserved is this - when should a sale or corporate merger override the public interest, in this case the health of tens of millions of Americans? Of course, the answer is "never," unless, in this case, you happened to hold thousands of stock options in CBS or Westinghouse.

Anyway, this is the cost of mega-mergers and media conglomeration with our supposedly "free" press.

Our press is only as free as the corporate boards who run our media companies want it to be. And that scares me.

Who among us thinks it would be a good idea for Rupert Murdoch to own ANY more newspapers, radio stations, television networks, etc.? The only people who like such a move are on Wall St.

Thankfully, it looks as if his purchase of the WSJ is not going to happen, but only because the Bancroft family who owns a controlling interest in the paper won't sell, not because our government is stepping in and saying, "Nice try, Rupert - you own enough."

It's time for our government to say "enough" when it comes to media conglomeration. But, unfortunately, we will probably have to wait for those changes to take place - does anyone believe the big business fetishists in the Bush administration would put a stop to Murdoch's purchase of the WSJ?

Uniter or divider? You decide.

I've written it before and I'll write it again - I dislike copy/pasting stuff to the blog, but this one must be read to be believed. After spending the last 6+ years dividing and conquering the electorate, suddenly President Bush is changing his tune, now that he doesn't have a rubber-stamp Congress at his beckon call.

All of a sudden, Bush is calling for bipartisanship and cooperation from a Democratically controlled Congress. I wonder if he'll get it, but more importantly, I don't really feel he deserves it. The president and his party have willfully ignored almost every Democrat in Congress during his entire administration, and now he offers a phony olive branch, so if Democrats begin to give the president and the minority party a difficult time, Republicans will paint the Democrats as the partisan party.

Phooey. I ain't buyin' it, and neither should Democrats or the American public. Of course, there will always be a certain amount of the populace who will buy whatever Bill O'Lielly or Rush Limbaugh tells them. Not much can be done about that, but this is classic Bush. Quick example, and I've written about it often.

Following 9-11, the president was steadfastly against the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. The Democrats and a few Republicans were on the other side of the debate, favoring a massive reorganization of the federal government to enable it to more effectively fight terrorism. When public opinion also came down on the side of creating the DHS, Bush (Read: Rove) abruptly not only favored a DHS, but Republicans structured the bill in such a way that there was no way that most Democrats would vote for it. How did they do that? By trying to take away the collective bargaining rights of the over 300,000 federal employees. Bush glibly claimed he "needed flexibility" when setting up the new department.

The result? Many Democrats voted "No" on the initial bill, and right away, they were "siding with the terrorists." And of course, anti-union Republicans ate this whole thing up like a sizzling South Philadelphia cheese steak. It was those "damn unions" again. Of course, that's not what's really happened, but few people I knew at the time cared to get beyond the political rhetoric.

It's just one in a long list of examples of Bush and Rasputin Rove changing tactics and trying to take the credit, just as they are now. The minute Democrats disagree with the president or try to to deny him his agenda, they will be painted as "obstructionists," a cry we heard from a desperate party a lot prior to the 2006 mid-term election. It ain't obstructionism, folks, it's accountability and oversight -- and this president has had precious little both.

Anyway, on to the president's editorial, which appeared in the Wall Street Journal this past Wednesday. Two quick thoughts, and then on to the piece.

First, the piece appeared with a graphic of a hand similar to the one on the left of a hand reaching down, as if toward reconciliation. Umm Hmm.

The piece should have appeared with the picture at right.

Bush running for president in 2000 with the campaign slogan "I'm a uniter, not a divider" is a lie that will take its place in presidential history alongside these:

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky"

"Read--My--Lips...No--New--Taxes!"

"People need to know whether or not their president is a cook. Well, I'm not a crook."

Second, it's pretty fitting that Bush's piece appears on the Wall Street Journal's blood-soaked editorial page. The WSJ's witch hunt against people in the Clinton administration, most notably Vince Foster, is well documented. It's also well known that the stories the WSJ printed about Foster sent him into a deeper depression, and it's not a stretch to say those pieces played a part in his suicide.

Anyway, here's the president's totally sincere piece. Read, enjoy, laugh, repeat.

What the Congress Can Do for America

Let them say of these next two years: We used our time well

BY GEORGE W. BUSH

Tomorrow, members of the 110th Congress will take their oaths of office here in Washington. I will have the privilege of working with them for the next two years--one quarter of my presidency, plenty of time to accomplish important things for the American people.

Together, we have a chance to serve the American people by solving the complex problems that many don't expect us to tackle, let alone solve, in the partisan environment of today's Washington. To do that, however, we can't play politics as usual. Democrats will control the House and Senate, and therefore we share the responsibility for what we achieve.

In the days and weeks since the November elections, I have been encouraged by the productive meetings I've had with many of the new leaders in Congress from both parties. I am hopeful we can find common ground without compromising our principles.

I believe we share many of the same goals for the people we serve--and with good will and hard effort, we can find practical ways to advance the American Dream and keep our nation safe.
My principles are no secret. I have campaigned on them in my races for governor and in two presidential contests, and I have worked hard during my presidency to translate these principles into sound policy.

I believe that when America is willing to use her influence abroad, the American people are safer and the world is more secure. I believe that wealth does not come from government. It comes from the hard work of America's workers, entrepreneurs and small businesses. I believe government closest to the people is more responsive and accountable. I believe government plays an important role in helping those who can't help themselves. Yet we must always remember that when people are hurting, they need a caring person, not a government bureaucracy.

These are all common-sense principles, and they provide the basis for how I will approach governing with the new Congress. We've proved it can be done: When our nation was attacked, Republicans and Democrats came together to pass the Patriot Act and reform our intelligence agencies. When our economy was struggling, we worked together to pass tax relief that has helped our economy grow, create jobs, and raise the standard of living for the American people. When we saw that our public schools were failing our children, we came together to pass the No Child Left Behind Act, insisting on high standards, accountability and better options for parents.

The outcome of the elections has changed the balance of power in Congress, yet the priorities for keeping our country safe and prosperous go beyond party labels.

Our priorities begin with defeating the terrorists who killed thousands of innocent Americans on September 11, 2001--and who are working hard to attack us again. These terrorists are part of a broader extremist movement that is now doing everything it can to defeat us in Iraq. In the days ahead, I will be addressing our nation about a new strategy to help the Iraqi people gain control of the security situation and hasten the day when the Iraqi government gains full control over its affairs. Ultimately, Iraqis must resolve the most pressing issues facing them. We can't do it for them.

But we can help Iraq defeat the extremists inside and outside of Iraq--and we can help provide the necessary breathing space for this young government to meet its responsibilities. If democracy fails and the extremists prevail in Iraq, America's enemies will be stronger, more lethal, and emboldened by our defeat. Leaders in both parties understand the stakes in this struggle. We now have the opportunity to build a bipartisan consensus to fight and win the war.
America's priorities also include keeping our economy strong. The elections have not reversed the laws of economics. It is a fact that economies do best when you reward hard work by allowing people to keep more of what they have earned. And we have seen that businesses can expand and hire more workers when they have more money to invest--and since August 2003, America's employers have added more than seven million new jobs.

It is also a fact that our tax cuts have fueled robust economic growth and record revenues. Because revenues have grown and we've done a better job of holding the line on domestic spending, we met our goal of cutting the deficit in half three years ahead of schedule. By continuing these policies, we can balance the federal budget by 2012 while funding our priorities and making the tax cuts permanent. In early February, I will submit a budget that does exactly that. The bottom line is tax relief and spending restraint are good for the American worker, good for the American taxpayer, and good for the federal budget. Now is not the time to raise taxes on the American people.

By balancing the budget through pro-growth economic policies and spending restraint, we are better positioned to tackle the longer term fiscal challenge facing our country: reforming entitlements--Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid--so future generations can benefit from these vital programs without bankrupting our country.

One important message I took away from the election is that people want to end the secretive process by which Washington insiders are able to slip into legislation billions of dollars of pork-barrel projects that have never been reviewed or voted on by Congress. I'm glad Senator Robert Byrd and Congressman Dave Obey--the Democrats who will lead the appropriations process in the new Congress--heard that message, too, and have indicated they will refrain from including additional earmarks in the continuing resolution for this fiscal year.

But we can and should do more. It's time Congress give the president a line-item veto. And today I will announce my own proposal to end this dead-of-the-night process and substantially cut the earmarks passed each year.

The strength of our economy also requires us to address some of the biggest issues facing the American people--greater energy security, comprehensive immigration reform, and affordable health care. While progress has been made in each of these areas, we must do more. I look forward to working with Congress on these difficult issues.

Our Founders believed in the wisdom of the American people to choose their leaders and provided for the concept of divided and effective government. The majority party in Congress gets to pass the bills it wants. The minority party, especially where the margins are close, has a strong say in the form bills take. And the Constitution leaves it to the president to use his judgment whether they should be signed into law.

That gives us a clear challenge and an opportunity. If the Congress chooses to pass bills that are simply political statements, they will have chosen stalemate. If a different approach is taken, the next two years can be fruitful ones for our nation. We can show the American people that Republicans and Democrats can come together to find ways to help make America a more secure, prosperous and hopeful society. And we will show our enemies that the open debate they believe is a fatal weakness is the great strength that has allowed democracies to flourish and succeed.

To the new members of the 110th Congress, I offer my welcome--and my congratulations. The American people have entrusted us with public office at a momentous time for our nation. Let them say of these next two years: We used our time well.
Mr. Bush is the president of the United States.

####

I've said it before and I'll say it again - it should be an interesting two years until the next election.