What if you give a speech and nobody watched?

CNN reports that Bush garned the lowest TV ratings so far:

President Bush's latest address to the nation, urging Americans to stand firm in Iraq, drew the smallest TV audience of his tenure, Nielsen Media Research reported Wednesday.

Live coverage of Bush's half-hour speech Tuesday night from the Ft. Bragg military base in North Carolina averaged 23 million viewers combined on four major U.S. broadcast networks and three leading cable news channels, Nielsen said.

Designed largely to bolster sagging public support for the persistently bloody conflict in Iraq, the speech fell 8.6 million viewers shy of Bush's previous low as president, his August 9, 2001 address on stem cell research, which was carried on six networks.

It's like Americans are all saying in unison "HEARD IT" -- and they don't like what they've heard. Read More......

Scandal brewing around Jeff Gannon's favorite Senator, John Thune

Senator John Thune, who was elected last year with great help from GOP male hooker Jeff Gannon, is in the center of a growing scandal back home. I read about it on Capitol Buzz which is, btw, one of my new favorite blogs. The Buzz links to a couple of blogs, Clean Cut Kid and ThuneWatch.com, who go into great detail, and who in turn, provide some other links. It's financial and it doesn't look good -- this one has legs, I think.

Thune is such a smug, sanctimonious prick. I hope this one sticks. Read More......

Even Floridians Upset With Bush over Schiavo

From AP:

By nearly a 2-to-1 margin, Florida voters disagree with Gov. Jeb Bush's request to investigate any possible delay in a 911 call after Terri Schiavo's 1990 collapse, according to a poll released Thursday.

And those Sunshine Staters don't want Jeb to run for President:

The poll also showed that 70 percent of respondents, including a majority of Republicans with an opinion, say Bush shouldn't run for president in 2008. The governor has consistently said he has no interest in that race.

He's not interested in "that" race...meaning 2008....but he does intend to run for President, which is why Schiavo is so important to him....it appeals to the right wingers, not the mainstream. And you can't get the GOP nomination without the wing nuts. Read More......

FactCheck.org savages Bush over his Iraq PR stunt speech

Why does FactCheck.org want to kill our troops? Read More......

Why has the media now forgotten how only 2 weeks ago Bush stupidly helped get the new hardline Irani leader elected?

I'm very serious. This is a perfect example of how the media finds a story critical of Bush, then buries it.

Oh, there was a single AP story a few weeks ago. How Bush had mouthed off and helped advance the campaign of the Irani nutjob who's now their new leader. But now that the nutjob actually got the job, and now that it's looking like he may have been one of the leaders of the US Embassy takeover in Tehran 30 years ago, suddenly the media is silent about how Bush helped this nutjob become the leader of Iran in the first place.

I take you back to the Associated Press of June 19, only 11 days ago, to an article entitled "Bush Remarks May Have Spurred Iran Voters":

Iran's spy chief used just two words to respond to White House ridicule of last week's presidential election: "Thank you." His sarcasm was barely hidden. The backfire on Washington was more evident.

The sharp barbs from President Bush were widely seen in Iran as damaging to pro-reform groups because the comments appeared to have boosted turnout among hard-liners in Friday's election Â? with the result being that an ultraconservative now is in a two-way showdown for the presidency.

"I say to Bush: `Thank you,'" quipped Intelligence Minister Ali Yunesi. "He motivated people to vote in retaliation."

Bush's comments Â? blasting the ruling clerics for blocking "basic requirements of democracy" Â? became a lively sideshow in Iran's closest election since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. And they highlighted again the United States' often crossed-wire efforts to isolate Iran....

But the harder the United States pushes, even with the best of intentions, the more ground it has seems to lose among mainstream Iranians, who represent possible key allies against the Islamic establishment, say some analysts of Iranian politics.

"Unknowingly, (Bush) pushed Iranians to vote so that they can prove their loyalty to the regime Â? even if they are in disagreement with it," said Hamed al-Abdullah, a political science professor at Kuwait University.

In 2002, most Iranians were indignant when Bush placed their nation in an "axis of evil" with North Korea and Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Since then, U.S.-led pressure over Iran's nuclear program has put even liberal Iranians on the defensive.

Bush's pre-election denunciations seemed to do the same. Iranian authorities claim Bush energized undecided voters to go to the polls and undercut a boycott drive led by liberal dissidents opposed to the Islamic system.

The unexpectedly strong turnout Â? nearly 63 percent Â? produced a true surprise in the No. 2 finish of hard-line Tehran Mayor Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, He will face the top finisher, moderate statesman Ayatollah Hashemi Rafsanjani, in a Friday runoff....

The president's words sounded too much like the pre-war rhetoric against Saddam, and many on-the-fence voters were shocked into action, said Abdollah Momeni, a political affairs expert at Tehran University.

"People faced a dilemma," Momeni said. "In people's minds it became a choice between voting or giving Bush an excuse to attack."

Another political commentator, Davoud Hermidas Bavand, believed the fallout from Bush's statements went beyond the election by destroying lingering hopes that Washington policy-makers finally would accept Iran's regime....

At a news conference Sunday, Iran's foreign minister, Kamel Kharrazi, said Bush "should apologize to the people of Iran for his comments." He also extended another wry "thank you."

"Bush's statements brought out voters who didn't want to participate in the elections," Kharrazi said. "We have to thank him for this."....

The Bush comments are an example of "the kind of American intervention" that often boomerangs in the region, said Egyptian political analyst Salama Ahmed Salama.

"Bush meant to discourage the hard-liners," he said, "but instead he mobilized their supporters."

Funny. I 've seen this fact mentioned NOWHERE in all the news reports about how the hardliner has now won, and how he may now be one of the student leaders who kidnapped our embassy officials decades ago. Ask the White House about THAT, boys. Read More......

Open thread - yeah that apparently was AMERICAblog on NBC

I haven't seen it yet, but Joe has it on TiVO. A number of folks have been emailing, and Joe saw it too, that NBC Nightly News did a piece tonight on identity theft and they used our blog, all fuzzed out, as the background on a computer screen. Kind of funny. I've asked Crooks and Liars to send me a screen shot. Read More......

Something disturbing about the Valerie Plame investigation

Here's my thinking.

1. Novak knows who his source was.

2. Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has threatened the Time and NYT reporters with jail if they don't divulge who their source was.

3. There has been no public threat or legal action against Novak to compel him to speak.

4. That means Novak has either told the special prosecutor who the source was, or Novak has refused and the special prosecutor isn't prosecuting him anyway. The latter makes no sense, so we must assume that Novak squawked.

5. But if Novak squawked a year ago, then why are we here going after Time and the NYT, since we already know who the source is?

6. If Novak squawked, why didn't Fitzgerald do anything with the info - why did he not approach the White House, the CIA, the FBI or whomever and have this person's security clearance revoked? You don't need a court of law to rule in order to revoke someone's security clearance and get them fired - Novak's allegations are certainly enough for the former, if not the latter.

So that leaves us with certainly an interesting story about the Time magazine and NYT elements of this story. But the Novak question is still the more interesting point. Novak is apparently off the hook, yet the special prosecutor didn't feel his case was complete unless he went after Time and the NYT. The fact still remains that someone in the administration is apparently a serious security risk on the issue of WMD and that person appears to still have their job.

Did Fitzgerald learn last year who that person was from Novak? If not, why isn't Novak in jail? And if so, is Novak's source, a known security risk, still on the job? Read More......

42% of Americans would impeach Bush if there was proof he lied about Iraq, Bush got NO bump from Tuesday's speech

Bush got NO bump from Tuesday speech. From Zogby:

The Zogby America survey of 905 likely voters, conducted from June 27 through 29, 2005, has a margin of error of +/-3.3 percentage points.

Just one week ago, President Bush’s job approval stood at a previous low of 44%—but it has now slipped another point to 43%, despite a speech to the nation intended to build support for the Administration and the ongoing Iraq War effort. The Zogby America survey includes calls made both before and after the President’s address, and the results show no discernible “bump” in his job approval, with voter approval of his job performance at 45% in the final day of polling.

And among Red State voters, he's sinking too:

In a more significant sign of the weakness of the President’s numbers, more “Red State” voters—that is, voters living in the states that cast their ballots for the Bush-Cheney ticket in 2004—now rate his job performance unfavorably, with 50% holding a negative impression of the President’s handling of his duties, and 48% holding a favorable view. The President also gets negative marks from one-in-four (25%) Republicans—as well as 86% of Democrats and 58% of independents. (Bush nets favorable marks from 75% of Republicans, 13% of Democrats and 40% of independents.)

But what's particularly intersting is that one in four Republicans would support impeachment.

A large majority of Democrats (59%) say they agree that the President should be impeached if he lied about Iraq, while just three-in-ten (30%) disagree. Among President Bush’s fellow Republicans, a full one-in-four (25%) indicate they would favor impeaching the President under these circumstances, while seven-in-ten (70%) do not. Independents are more closely divided, with 43% favoring impeachment and 49% opposed.

Read More......

Did Bush just take the first step towards setting up a "secret police" in the US?

I had only breezed over this article in this morning's Washington Post. Now I'm going to read it again. More from BradBlog.

A snippet from today's Wash Post:

Civil liberties advocates immediately criticized the changes at the FBI, arguing that they represent a radical step toward the creation of a secret police force in the United States. Many Justice prosecutors and FBI agents had also fiercely opposed the changes but were overruled by Bush's homeland security adviser, Frances Fragos Townsend, officials said.
...
"Spies and cops play different roles and operate under different rules for a reason," said Timothy Edgar, national security counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. "The FBI is effectively being taken over by a spymaster who reports directly to the White House. . . . It's alarming that the same person who oversees foreign spying will now oversee domestic spying, too."

Read More......

Cheney's visit to the hospital in Vail gets more and more mysterious

Even more intrigue about Cheney's emergency visit to the hospital in Vail. Arianna has the latest. Read More......

Open thread

Off with John to find a digital voice recorder. Not as easy as it sounds. Read More......

Battlestar Galactica blogging

I ask you, is Atrios this up on his Sci-Fi? I think not.

WEDNESDAY, JULY 6 STARTING @ 10 AM

GET CAUGHT UP WITH SCI FI'S HIT SERIES

BEFORE SEASON 2 PREMIERES JULY 15!

Before the highly anticipated second season of Battlestar Galactica debuts, SCI FI is offering the chance to catch up on season one. All 13 episodes. Back-to-back. In order. Starting Wednesday, July 6 @ 10AM!

And for the rest of you, Sci-Fi Friday is a mainstay of AMERICAblog. Kind of like the orchids. Just go with it. Read More......

There is going to be a draft

If you're under 40, you'd better start worrying.

Sen. John McCain, interviewed on CBS's "The Early Show," maintained that "one of the very big mistakes early on was that he didn't have enough troops on the ground, particularly after the initial victory, and that's still the case."

Sen. John Kerry, Bush's Democratic opponent in last year's presidential election, told NBC's "Today" show that the borders of Iraq "are porous" and said "we don't have enough troops" there.

Sen. Joseph Biden Jr., appearing on ABC's "Good Morning America," disputed Bush's notion that sufficient troops are in place.

"I'm going to send him the phone numbers of the very generals and flag officers that I met on Memorial Day when I was in Iraq," the Delaware Democrat said. "There's not enough force on the ground now to mount a real counterinsurgency."

He's gotten us in over our heads. This is bad. Read More......

Open Thread

We love good thread.... Read More......

Time will definitely hand over Plame leak notes

Time Magazine is going to reporter Matt Coopers notes about the outing of Valerie Plame to the Special Prosecutor according to AP:

Time Inc. said Thursday it would comply with a court order to deliver the notes of a reporter threatened with jail in the investigation of the leak of an undercover CIA officer's name.

U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan is threatening to jail Matthew Cooper, Time's White House correspondent, and Judith Miller of The New York Times for contempt for refusing to disclose their sources.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday refused to hear the reporters' appeal and the grand jury investigating the leak expires in October. The reporters, if in jail, would be freed at that time.

In a statement, Time said it believes "the Supreme Court has limited press freedom in ways that will have a chilling effect on our work and that may damage the free flow of information that is so necessary in a democratic society."

I agree with John: Let it be Karl Rove. Read More......

New DemsTV is up

As you may recall, I host this online political pundit show. Give it a gander. Read More......

37 GOP Senator support testing pesticides on people

Ok, creepy. Read More......

Open Thread

What do you know? Read More......

6,000 more job cuts

Oh yeh, and Bank of America is buying MBNA for $35B. Can't you just feel the benefit to consumers already? Read More......

Blair plays the 9/11 card

Who's a good boy?!! Speak up! Roll over! Gimmee you paw! There's a good boy, now bring back the ball and you'll get a nice doggie treat!

The attacks, he said, made it necessary to "draw a line in the sand here, and the country to do it with was Iraq because they were in breach of U.N. resolutions going back over many years."

"9/11 changed the whole picture for me, it changed the politics of how we dealt with the threat," he said.

Ahhh, so what's the connection Poodle Boy? No wonder he's sending his son to work for Dreier. Read More......

"Two unstoppable forces: freedom and equality"

As said by Spanish PM Zapatero as Spain legalizes gay marriage. Now that is the kind of freedom that we need more of these days. Read More......

Late Night Open Thread

It's very exciting writing for a magazine now. What's going on out there? Read More......

A win in California

So, the California legislature passed a domestic partners law and the nut jobs went to court to overturn it. They wanted to use the Courts to overturn the legislative process...hmmm...just more of their usual hypocritical actions....using the Courts to get their way. They LOST anyway:

Handing gays an important legal victory, the California Supreme Court on Wednesday let stand a new law granting registered domestic partners many of the same rights and protections available to married couples.

Without comment, the justices unanimously declined to review lower-court rulings that said the law does not conflict with a voter-approved measure against gay marriage.

Justice Janice Rogers Brown, who leaves Thursday to join the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, did not vote.

The domestic partner law, signed in 2003 by then-Gov. Gray Davis, represents the nation's most comprehensive recognition of gay domestic rights, short of the legalization of gay marriage in Massachusetts and civil unions in Vermont and Connecticut.

The California law grants registered couples virtually every spousal right available under state law except the ability to file a joint tax return.

Read More......