Does the Washington Post intend to maintain journalistic standards in the brave new blogosphere? Or are those standards incompatible with the Post company's ambitions for WashingtonPost.com?Read the rest of this post...
Those questions arise from the Post's hiring of Ben Domenech -- best known as a founder of RedState.com, but also known as a Bush appointee, and the son of a Bush appointee, and as a contributor to National Review Online -- to write a daily blog on the newspaper's Web site. That decision by Post management has provoked much speculation about its motive for employing Domenech. Many observers surmise that Domenech was brought on to "balance" Dan Froomkin, the popular White House Briefing blogger on WashingtonPost.com whose skepticism and wit have provoked whining from the right -- and defensive reactions from certain Post reporters worried by accusations of "liberal bias" at the paper.
Media watchers will remember that the Post's internal thrashing over Froomkin's column led to the Web site's last major public stumble, when it removed blog comments from a post by the paper's ombudswoman, Deborah Howell (after an imbroglio that began over Froomkin's column and continued over Howell's imprecise post about allegedly bipartisan political contributions by GOP lobbyist Jack Abramoff.) In their eagerness to appease critics on the right, the Post editors have blundered again. Whatever Froomkin's political views may be, he is a veteran reporter with a long résumé of newspaper jobs, including a decade at the Post. Domenech is a partisan operative with no newsroom experience of any kind, no training in journalistic standards and ethics, and nothing to guide him except home schooling and Republican reflexes.
Elections | Economic Crisis | Jobs | TSA | Limbaugh | Fun Stuff
Follow @americablog
Thursday, March 23, 2006
Salon: "A portrait of the blogger as a young plagiarist"
Joe Conason has a big story up, it's good, here's a sample:
Wash Post blogger accused of plagiarizing Wash Post
When children enter the world of adults. (I'm of course talking about the Washington Post entering the world of blogging.)
Read the rest of this post...
Wash Post ombudsman blows off complaints about blogger, says the .com is not her issue, even though she's criticized "liberal" writers at the .com
Isn't this interesting. The Washington Post ombudsman is now saying she'll have nothing to do with the Post's Republican blogger scandal because it's not her jurisdiction. You see, the Post's Web site is under totally different management, according to Post ombudsman Deborah Howell - you need to write the Web site management, not the Post ombudsman, to complain about the Web site.
Which is quite funny, considering the fact that the same ombudsman recently wrote an article critical of Post writer Dan Froomkin who writes exclusively on the .com, and considering that the Post's Republican blogger was apparently hired to address the "liberal bias" concerns that the ombusdman raised in that very column about .com writer Froomkin.
So in what possible world is this issue not in the jurisdiction of the Post's ombudsman when she started the entire thing in the first place in her own column?
Oh, that's the right. We're dealing with the Washington Post's ombudsman, not a real ombdusman. Is it any surprise that the woman who only has problems with liberal bloggers and "liberal" journalists suddenly isn't interested when the subject turns to the Washington Post's conservative bias? The unmitigated gall to suggest that this doesn't fall under her jurisdiction when she started the whole thing.
Here's the email the Post ombsudman is now sending out to everyone who inquires about the blogger scandal:
Which is quite funny, considering the fact that the same ombudsman recently wrote an article critical of Post writer Dan Froomkin who writes exclusively on the .com, and considering that the Post's Republican blogger was apparently hired to address the "liberal bias" concerns that the ombusdman raised in that very column about .com writer Froomkin.
So in what possible world is this issue not in the jurisdiction of the Post's ombudsman when she started the entire thing in the first place in her own column?
Oh, that's the right. We're dealing with the Washington Post's ombudsman, not a real ombdusman. Is it any surprise that the woman who only has problems with liberal bloggers and "liberal" journalists suddenly isn't interested when the subject turns to the Washington Post's conservative bias? The unmitigated gall to suggest that this doesn't fall under her jurisdiction when she started the whole thing.
Here's the email the Post ombsudman is now sending out to everyone who inquires about the blogger scandal:
From: Deborah C Howell HowellDC@washpost.comWow, they're two totally different companies, yet Deborah Howell had no problem writing a column attacking supposed "liberal" Dan Froomkin who works for the "other company" that Howell claims she now has no jurisdiction over. Amazing how tunes change when the topic turns to conservative bias at the Post. Read the rest of this post...
Date: March 23, 2006 9:44:05 PM EST
To: xxxxx
Subject: Re: Domenech
The Washington Post has not hired him. The website has. The two are under totally different management. He will not be working for the newspaper. If you want to complain to the right person, try executive.editor@wpni.com.
Deborah
CNN's Cafferty lays a knock-out punch on the issue of the media being responsible for all the bad news out of Iraq
First you have to watch Howie Kurtz's take, that Cafferty is not pleased with. Then Cafferty speaks about halfway through.
Read the rest of this post...
Washington Post Republican blogger facing accusations of plagiarism
Atrios and DKos have the goods.
Either PJ O'Rourke plagiarized the Post blogger, or the other way around, it's hard to come to any other conclusion. And there are numerous examples, including shared text with a Salon writer, so writing this off as a one-time mistake is going to be difficult.
The story isn't supposed to be about the kid being a plagiarist, it's bigger than that. It's about the Washington Post's overt bias. I refused to comment on this story when it first came out because I figured I "knew" that the Post was launching a liberal blog at the same time - it was obvious on its face, there was no way any non-partisan newspaper would launch a partisan column for only one team. I was wrong. But the point is, I'd have let well enough alone had the Post hired a liberal blogger to write a new liberal blog at the same time. I doubt there would have been any serious vetting of either blogger by the Netroots had the Post done things impartially (though I can only really speak for myself).
But what's really unfortunate about this entire mess is that the Washington Post handled their foray into blogging like such amateurs that there's now the risk of other newspapers thinking that this is what blogging is about - young, uneducated, unprofessional plagiarists. We risk others thinking that blogs are the 3rd rail of journalism, touch them at your own peril. When in fact, had the Post simply started two blogs, a Red and a Blue one, this could have been a journalism success story - but for the fact that the Post didn't bother to vet their choice to see if he was insane and/or a word thief.
All bloggers are not created equal. The Post wanted to get in bed with Republicans and Republican bloggers, fine. They got Republican ethics as part of the package.
I'll conclude with a great quote from DHinMI over at DKos:
Either PJ O'Rourke plagiarized the Post blogger, or the other way around, it's hard to come to any other conclusion. And there are numerous examples, including shared text with a Salon writer, so writing this off as a one-time mistake is going to be difficult.
The story isn't supposed to be about the kid being a plagiarist, it's bigger than that. It's about the Washington Post's overt bias. I refused to comment on this story when it first came out because I figured I "knew" that the Post was launching a liberal blog at the same time - it was obvious on its face, there was no way any non-partisan newspaper would launch a partisan column for only one team. I was wrong. But the point is, I'd have let well enough alone had the Post hired a liberal blogger to write a new liberal blog at the same time. I doubt there would have been any serious vetting of either blogger by the Netroots had the Post done things impartially (though I can only really speak for myself).
But what's really unfortunate about this entire mess is that the Washington Post handled their foray into blogging like such amateurs that there's now the risk of other newspapers thinking that this is what blogging is about - young, uneducated, unprofessional plagiarists. We risk others thinking that blogs are the 3rd rail of journalism, touch them at your own peril. When in fact, had the Post simply started two blogs, a Red and a Blue one, this could have been a journalism success story - but for the fact that the Post didn't bother to vet their choice to see if he was insane and/or a word thief.
All bloggers are not created equal. The Post wanted to get in bed with Republicans and Republican bloggers, fine. They got Republican ethics as part of the package.
I'll conclude with a great quote from DHinMI over at DKos:
We should assume the Post hired the best person they could find. The problem for the Post, therefore, is that the intellects and professional ethics of conservative bloggers are so risible that the best person they could hire ended up being a plagiarist.... Ben Domenech is just the example of an ethically and intellectually bankrupt conservative movement, especially its bloggers.PS Okay, I just finished reading the entire DKos piece that I quote above, and am totally embarrassed. It's exactly what I'm trying to say, but ten times better. Do read it, it's quite an amazing piece of writing. Read the rest of this post...
Bush hiring Chinese company to be in charge of finding nukes in cargo entering US
Cuz North Korea and Cuba were busy?
In the aftermath of the Dubai ports dispute, the Bush administration is hiring a Hong Kong conglomerate to help detect nuclear materials inside cargo passing through the Bahamas to the United States and elsewhere.Read the rest of this post...
The administration acknowledges the no-bid contract with Hutchison Whampoa Ltd. represents the first time a foreign company will be involved in running a sophisticated U.S. radiation detector at an overseas port without American customs agents present.
Open thread
I'm scanning around, any interesting stories we haven't covered today?
Read the rest of this post...
Why the Washington Post blogger matters
I'd like to take a moment to explain why so many of us are speaking out so loudly about the Washington Post's decision to start a daily column whose avowed goal is to attack Democrats and praise Republicans.
1. It's abominable.
2. It's important.
3. If you don't fight the little battles, you will surely lose the war.
It's Abominable
I've already written at length about my concerns. But let me just say this: A major newspaper cannot launch a special daily self-proclaimed partisan Republican activist column and NOT establish equal column space for a Democratic activist column.
The decision is so patently biased and one-sided on its face that it should not need further explanation. It would be akin to the Washington Post deciding during the 2004 election to start a daily column called "We hate John Kerry." It would be written by a partisan Republican party activist, and would be a daily biased and vitriolic attack on John Kerry, with the added benefit of being quite often incorrect. There would be no corresponding column attacking President Bush.
Why would they do this? Because "we all know" the Washington Post is so liberally-biased that the anti-Bush information comes through all of their articles anyway, so this is just a way to balance all that out. Sure, one bias is subtle, if it exists at all, and relies on a seasoned journalist occasionally publishing facts some people think skew against their favorite politician, while the other bias is freely admitted up front, occurs every day and in every article, and is being peddled by an avowed partisan activist with no journalistic training whatsoever. I have no problem with avowed party activists, but they are not the direct counterparts of objective journalists, yet that is what the Post would have us believe.
Not to mention, if any of the Post's supposedly "biased liberal" journalists stated that they were going to write their daily column with the goal of it presenting the pro-Democratic view of the world, with regular attacks on Republicans, they'd be fired. Ironically, this is the very reason the Republican blogger was hired, to do exactly what the Post's "liberal" reporters are not permitted, overtly and regularly whore for one team while screwing the other.
Or is the Post now saying that the conservatives' prior complaints, the ones that led the Post to launch a Republican blog, are now moot - i.e., now that the Post has addressed the "imbalance" problem by hiring an overtly partisan writer to write intentionally-conservatively-biased pieces, the Post's other "liberally-biased" journalists are now free to openly whore for the Democratic party in each and every article? Sweet.
What's worse, the Post hasn't even explained why they chose to start a Republican blog and no Democratic blog. We are just guessing it's to correct some "liberal bias" boogeyman. In fact, the Post has said no such thing. So all we really know is that the Washington Post decided to start a new column whose avowed goal is attacking Democrats and defending Republicans.
It is simply not possible for anyone to defend such a decision as fair, balanced, impartial, or unbiased. The case is prima facie, the Post loses.
It's Important
The decision to launch a self-proclaimed Republican blog, but have no corresponding Democratic blog, is important because it's part of a larger trend of media bias by the Post, but also corporate media across the board. For the past several decades, Republicans have made up claims of media bias in order to "play the ref" - i.e., coerce an already unbiased media into leaning to the right. The problem arises when the media either wasn't biased to the left to start with, or when they "correct" themselves by leaning so far to the right that they've now adopted a right-wing bias. Whatever their position five and ten years ago, far too many members of the corporate media are now biased to the right.
The Washington Post is no exception. Fred Hiatt, the head of their editorial page, is a pro-war, pro-Bush conservative - responsible for not just parroting Bush's lies that got us into the war in Iraq, but continuing to defend the ongoing American presence in Iraq by, again, parroting White House talking points. At the same time, the Post hires an ombudsman who only seems to have issues with supposed "liberal" writers at the Post and with the "liberal" blogs. She, of course, has no problem with Bob Woodward misleading the Washington Post, and more importantly, millions of Americans with his repeated TV appearances criticizing the special counsel investigating the Valerie Plame CIA leak, thereby defending countless Bush administration officials, when in fact Woodward was a party to the entire investigation/scandal. In the real world, that's called a lie and a massive conflict of interest, and would end your job. What did the ombudsman have to say about this? Woodward needs an editor. What did the Washington Post say about it? They're proud of Bob. And now the Washington Post decides to start a daily Republican activist column with no corresponding Democratic column.
There is a trend here, and it isn't good.
If you don't fight the little battles, you lose the war.
To use a rhetorical technique our illustrious president loves (but in my case, I'm quoting actual people who exist), there are those who say we should ignore the Washington Post's Republican activist blogger - he doesn't matter, and all we're doing is giving him more publicity.
I could not disagree more.
The Post's blogger himself is a 24 year old kid with no experience in journalism and little experience in politics. He still calls people he disagrees with "communists" - in fact, that's what he called Coretta Scott King the day she was buried. He is an intellectual lightweight and not the issue here.
In fact, this battle is about a much larger principle, one that we're losing. Namely, that the media is moving further and further to the right, and we're doing nothing to stop it. The Post's hire of a Republican activist is a rather egregious step in that once upon a time, oh 5 days ago, a supposedly impartial newspaper wouldn't even think of starting a conservative blog without launching a liberal one at the same time. Today, such a biased action is to be considered normal and not even worthy of note, let alone outrage.
The Washington Post's actions are part of a larger, more long-term victory by right-wingers intent on destroying any impartiality left in the corporate media. The right understands these nuances, these trends, these slow and steady victories - the left does not. We think it's all about waiting to fight the one big battle that "actually counts," not "wasting our time" with the Ben Domenech's of the world. And by the time that one big battle occurs, which is usually never, the right has already won the war by winning ten smaller battles that add up to one big battle.
What the Post has done is horrendous, and horrendously important. The left and the middle need to understand that these supposed "small" battles ARE the only battle in town, and they're the only battle that matters.
A final example. How do you think the right-wing is outlawing abortion? Not by overturning Roe v. Wade. They're doing it slowly and surely over a 30 year period with small legislative victories that, in the aggregate, make Roe meaningless.
The right understands the slow march of history. Will we? Read the rest of this post...
1. It's abominable.
2. It's important.
3. If you don't fight the little battles, you will surely lose the war.
It's Abominable
I've already written at length about my concerns. But let me just say this: A major newspaper cannot launch a special daily self-proclaimed partisan Republican activist column and NOT establish equal column space for a Democratic activist column.
The decision is so patently biased and one-sided on its face that it should not need further explanation. It would be akin to the Washington Post deciding during the 2004 election to start a daily column called "We hate John Kerry." It would be written by a partisan Republican party activist, and would be a daily biased and vitriolic attack on John Kerry, with the added benefit of being quite often incorrect. There would be no corresponding column attacking President Bush.
Why would they do this? Because "we all know" the Washington Post is so liberally-biased that the anti-Bush information comes through all of their articles anyway, so this is just a way to balance all that out. Sure, one bias is subtle, if it exists at all, and relies on a seasoned journalist occasionally publishing facts some people think skew against their favorite politician, while the other bias is freely admitted up front, occurs every day and in every article, and is being peddled by an avowed partisan activist with no journalistic training whatsoever. I have no problem with avowed party activists, but they are not the direct counterparts of objective journalists, yet that is what the Post would have us believe.
Not to mention, if any of the Post's supposedly "biased liberal" journalists stated that they were going to write their daily column with the goal of it presenting the pro-Democratic view of the world, with regular attacks on Republicans, they'd be fired. Ironically, this is the very reason the Republican blogger was hired, to do exactly what the Post's "liberal" reporters are not permitted, overtly and regularly whore for one team while screwing the other.
Or is the Post now saying that the conservatives' prior complaints, the ones that led the Post to launch a Republican blog, are now moot - i.e., now that the Post has addressed the "imbalance" problem by hiring an overtly partisan writer to write intentionally-conservatively-biased pieces, the Post's other "liberally-biased" journalists are now free to openly whore for the Democratic party in each and every article? Sweet.
What's worse, the Post hasn't even explained why they chose to start a Republican blog and no Democratic blog. We are just guessing it's to correct some "liberal bias" boogeyman. In fact, the Post has said no such thing. So all we really know is that the Washington Post decided to start a new column whose avowed goal is attacking Democrats and defending Republicans.
It is simply not possible for anyone to defend such a decision as fair, balanced, impartial, or unbiased. The case is prima facie, the Post loses.
It's Important
The decision to launch a self-proclaimed Republican blog, but have no corresponding Democratic blog, is important because it's part of a larger trend of media bias by the Post, but also corporate media across the board. For the past several decades, Republicans have made up claims of media bias in order to "play the ref" - i.e., coerce an already unbiased media into leaning to the right. The problem arises when the media either wasn't biased to the left to start with, or when they "correct" themselves by leaning so far to the right that they've now adopted a right-wing bias. Whatever their position five and ten years ago, far too many members of the corporate media are now biased to the right.
The Washington Post is no exception. Fred Hiatt, the head of their editorial page, is a pro-war, pro-Bush conservative - responsible for not just parroting Bush's lies that got us into the war in Iraq, but continuing to defend the ongoing American presence in Iraq by, again, parroting White House talking points. At the same time, the Post hires an ombudsman who only seems to have issues with supposed "liberal" writers at the Post and with the "liberal" blogs. She, of course, has no problem with Bob Woodward misleading the Washington Post, and more importantly, millions of Americans with his repeated TV appearances criticizing the special counsel investigating the Valerie Plame CIA leak, thereby defending countless Bush administration officials, when in fact Woodward was a party to the entire investigation/scandal. In the real world, that's called a lie and a massive conflict of interest, and would end your job. What did the ombudsman have to say about this? Woodward needs an editor. What did the Washington Post say about it? They're proud of Bob. And now the Washington Post decides to start a daily Republican activist column with no corresponding Democratic column.
There is a trend here, and it isn't good.
If you don't fight the little battles, you lose the war.
To use a rhetorical technique our illustrious president loves (but in my case, I'm quoting actual people who exist), there are those who say we should ignore the Washington Post's Republican activist blogger - he doesn't matter, and all we're doing is giving him more publicity.
I could not disagree more.
The Post's blogger himself is a 24 year old kid with no experience in journalism and little experience in politics. He still calls people he disagrees with "communists" - in fact, that's what he called Coretta Scott King the day she was buried. He is an intellectual lightweight and not the issue here.
In fact, this battle is about a much larger principle, one that we're losing. Namely, that the media is moving further and further to the right, and we're doing nothing to stop it. The Post's hire of a Republican activist is a rather egregious step in that once upon a time, oh 5 days ago, a supposedly impartial newspaper wouldn't even think of starting a conservative blog without launching a liberal one at the same time. Today, such a biased action is to be considered normal and not even worthy of note, let alone outrage.
The Washington Post's actions are part of a larger, more long-term victory by right-wingers intent on destroying any impartiality left in the corporate media. The right understands these nuances, these trends, these slow and steady victories - the left does not. We think it's all about waiting to fight the one big battle that "actually counts," not "wasting our time" with the Ben Domenech's of the world. And by the time that one big battle occurs, which is usually never, the right has already won the war by winning ten smaller battles that add up to one big battle.
What the Post has done is horrendous, and horrendously important. The left and the middle need to understand that these supposed "small" battles ARE the only battle in town, and they're the only battle that matters.
A final example. How do you think the right-wing is outlawing abortion? Not by overturning Roe v. Wade. They're doing it slowly and surely over a 30 year period with small legislative victories that, in the aggregate, make Roe meaningless.
The right understands the slow march of history. Will we? Read the rest of this post...
It's time for Dems to announce the obvious, they've got the far stronger hand walking into the 2006 elections
Amen.
From Tapped:
From Tapped:
DEMS HAVE THE STRONGER HAND, AND THEY NEED TO SAY SO. Several bloggers over the weekend rightly flagged Jamison Foser's spot-on riff on the fact that the media just can't stop saying that no matter what political misfortunes befall Bush, they're all somehow beneficial to Republicans looking towards 2006. The question now is: What can liberals and Dems do to change that?Read the rest of this post...
It seems obvious that there are two reasons commentators continue to reflexively do this, in addition to whatever institutional biases are out there. The first is that many reporters and commentators -- often deeply uncertain about their abilities and their more or less outsider status -- worship winners and despise losers. Republicans won in 2000, 2002 and 2004. And so, this thinking goes, if GOPers say they've got a lock on 2006, shouldn't they be believed? In a rational world the Social Security debacle, the Dubai disaster and other setbacks would already have seriously eroded that dynamic, but they're only just beginning to, unfortunately. The second reason is that Republicans continually say they've got the winning hand, and more important, they often say it convincingly. Dems, on the other hand, act like they're going to lose -- or at least like they think they are. They're like the poker player who tries to bluff but fails because his sweating or shaking gives him away.
Media Matters to WaPo: "Fire bigoted blogger"
Media Matters lays out the case for why the Washington Post should can their new ultra-right wing blogger:
Examples of Domenech's views include:It would be bad enough if the Washington Times hired a blogger with this history. Maybe that's what the Post aspires to be these days. They've given up the legacy of Katherine Graham to worship at the altar of Reverend Moon. Read the rest of this post...In a February 7 post on RedState, Domenech wrote that he believed people should be "pissed" that President Bush attended "the funeral of a Communist" -- referring to the funeral for Coretta Scott King. As you know, labeling the King family "communists" was a favorite tool of the racists who opposed them.
In another RedState post, Domenech compared "the Judiciary" unfavorably to the Ku Klux Klan.
In still another RedState comment, Domenech posted without comment an article stating that "[i]t just happens that killing black babies has the happy result of reducing crime" and that "[w]hite racists have reason to be grateful for what is sometimes still called the civil rights leadership" because black leaders "are overwhelmingly in support" of abortion rights.
In yet another, Domenech wrote that conservative blogger/journalist Andrew Sullivan, who is gay, "needs a woman to give him some stability."
CT radio host savages Lieberman
Justifiably.
Lieberman's peculiar notion of bipartisanshp begins with the other side agreeing to set aside its qualms about a catastropihic set of mistakes (and, possibly, deceptions) that has left America in a financially, diplomatically and militarily ruinous mess. Inasmuch as he was one of the ones who pushed hardest for these policies, it's a little self-serving.Read the rest of this post...
Anti-gay religious right hatemongers descend on Denver
Just in time for a key vote on a domestic partnership bill in the state legislature.Wonder which way Denver will vote - for the gay-bashers or for civil rights...
From ProgressNow:
This weekend, Fred Phelps is coming to Denver for a whirlwind tour of bile, vitriol, hate, and potty-mouth antics. And I couldn't be happier.Read the rest of this post...
Fred Phelps, in case you didn't know, is the religious extremist version of the professional accident victim. He and his children and their demon spawn make a living off of the first amendment lawsuits they file when police departments, city councils, and legislatures cross the line of restricting Phelps's free speech rights. The Phelps klan drive around the country staging "protests" at the funerals of gay people, in front of state houses and city buildings, and, more recently, the funerals of soldiers.
This weekend he'll be staging appearances at the state legislature, at the Matt Shepard Foundation dinner, and at a handful of churches around the city. "God hates Matt Shepard and is now tormenting him with fire brimstone in Hell, his mother Judy and all associated with the Foundation - all of whom will eventually join Matt in Hell," says his press release. "This evil witch raised her son for the devil and Hell," he says of Judy Shepard....
Apparently completely unbeknownst to Phelps, the state legislature is currently considering the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Responsibilities referendum this week. Today, in fact, it is scheduled for a vote in the House Appropriations Committee, and could see passage on the House and Senate floor as early as next week.
Bush's Uncle "Bucky" Earned Millions in War Firm Sale
If you like the way things are going in our country, vote Republican for more of the same.From the LA Times:
As President Bush embarks on a new effort to shore up public support for the war in Iraq, an uncle of the commander in chief is collecting $2.7 million in cash and stock from the recent sale of a company that profited from the war.Read the rest of this post...
A report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission shows that William H.T. Bush collected just under $1.9 million in cash plus stock valued at more than $800,000 from the sale of Engineered Support Systems Inc. to DRS Technologies of New Jersey....
Bush, known as "Uncle Bucky" in the president's family, joined ESSI's board in 2000, several months before his nephew became president.
He heads a St. Louis investment firm and is the youngest brother of former President George H.W. Bush.
Local election updates
I get these regular updates from some Dem friends, let me know if they're something interesting enough that I should post regularly.
NEW YORK: It looks like the GOP’s latest senate hopeful in New York exaggerated her resume. Kathleen Troia McFarland claimed that she had worked on Ronald Reagan’s Star War’s speech and was the highest-ranked woman at the Reagan Pentagon but interviews show that Reagan wrote the speech else and that two women were ahead of her at the Pentagon. [New York Times, 3/23/06]Read the rest of this post...
OHIO: RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman is helping Mike DeWine steer clear of President Bush in Ohio. Mehlman gave an interview to the Cleveland Plain-Dealer – which you can listen to on the paper’s blog – and pumped up DeWine’s efforts to distance himself from Bush. [Cleveland Plain Dealer, 3/22/06]
MONTANA: Conrad Burns’ new primary opponent - Bob Keenan - said he would not attack Burns and then proceeded to pummel the senator for his ties to Abramoff and his record in Washington. Keenan said, “If people are happy with the situation in Washington, D.C., then I urge them to vote for Conrad Burns, because he is eminently qualified to give you more of the same.” [The Daily Interlake, 3/23/06]
TENNESSEE: The GOP’s negative attacks against Harold Ford Jr. spur a political analyst to observe that he thinks Ford “has a legitimate shot to be our next senator” and that the Republicans are worried about losing the senate seat. [Tennessee Tennessean, 3/23/06]
NEBRASKA: Ben Nelson launched his Senate campaign, touting his independent voting record, bipartisanship and dedication to Nebraska. [Lincoln Journal Star, 3/23/06; Omaha World Herald, 3/23/06]
RHODE ISLAND: A Providence Journal columnist had harsh words for GOP primary contenders Lincoln Chafee and Steve Laffey, saying that neither candidate is willing to take a stand and are unable to give direct answers to direct questions. [Providence Journal, 3/23/06]
Souter warning on privacy
Souter and Roberts engaged in a back and forth via footnotes in a Supreme Court case on the Fourth Amendment issued yesterday. Souter's message about privacy sure appears to be a warning:
Justice Souter, usually mild-mannered to a fault, said in Footnote 4 that "in the dissent's view, the centuries of special protection for the privacy of the home are over." By invoking a "false equation" between inviting the police into the home and reporting a secret, he said, the chief justice "suggests a deliberate intent to devalue the importance of the privacy of a dwelling place."The chief justice and the right wing theocrats devalue the importance of privacy across the board. Just wait til they get to the cases where they can devalue the privacy of a woman's body...or the privacy of interpersonal relationships. That's when we'll see a very deliberate intent to devalue privacy. Read the rest of this post...
It's fundraising week at AMERICAblog
Just a remind that's it's fundraising week.
Why contribute to AMERICAblog? Here's why.
Because AMERICAblog, like most blogs that are run full-time, lives or dies based on the income we get from donations and ad revenues. This is my full-time job, and has been for a year now. Your donations will pay for our new server and upgrade (coming in the next few months), for monthly bandwidth costs for 2.5 million visitors (that and the server/blog upgrade and maintenance will cost us around $25,000 a year), for my salary, for income for Joe and Chris, for everything associated with running this blog as a true self-sustaining operation.
Over the past two years we've had 25 million visitors, and now get 100,000 visitors on a typical week day. We've had an incredible impact, but we can only continue to do so with your support. (Sound like PBS? Well, yeah, they need your support too - this stuff, unfortunately, isn't free.) I hope to rely exclusively on ad revenues in the near future (i.e., no donations, other than for specific campaigns, fundraising to help people, etc.), and in fact ad revenues have been our main revenue (far outstripping donations) for several months now. But ad revenues have been down the last two months, a lot - last month we only took in 25% of what we made in December. So we need your donations.
If you like our reporting, if you like our commentary, if you like our activism, or simply like our attitude, donate, please. Consider us your favorite magazine, newspaper and advocacy group all wrapped in one.
Thanks for your consideration. And don't forget, your other favorite blogs are probably in the same spot we are - ads have been down across the board the past few months. They're busting their butts too. Please help them out.
Thanks again, JOHN Read the rest of this post...
Why contribute to AMERICAblog? Here's why.
Because AMERICAblog, like most blogs that are run full-time, lives or dies based on the income we get from donations and ad revenues. This is my full-time job, and has been for a year now. Your donations will pay for our new server and upgrade (coming in the next few months), for monthly bandwidth costs for 2.5 million visitors (that and the server/blog upgrade and maintenance will cost us around $25,000 a year), for my salary, for income for Joe and Chris, for everything associated with running this blog as a true self-sustaining operation.
Over the past two years we've had 25 million visitors, and now get 100,000 visitors on a typical week day. We've had an incredible impact, but we can only continue to do so with your support. (Sound like PBS? Well, yeah, they need your support too - this stuff, unfortunately, isn't free.) I hope to rely exclusively on ad revenues in the near future (i.e., no donations, other than for specific campaigns, fundraising to help people, etc.), and in fact ad revenues have been our main revenue (far outstripping donations) for several months now. But ad revenues have been down the last two months, a lot - last month we only took in 25% of what we made in December. So we need your donations.
If you like our reporting, if you like our commentary, if you like our activism, or simply like our attitude, donate, please. Consider us your favorite magazine, newspaper and advocacy group all wrapped in one.
Thanks for your consideration. And don't forget, your other favorite blogs are probably in the same spot we are - ads have been down across the board the past few months. They're busting their butts too. Please help them out.
Thanks again, JOHN Read the rest of this post...
Karl's still cocky
The NY Times takes a look at Karl Rove's state of mind these days. Despite the complete disaster that the Bush White House has become, Karl's not worried. A lot of other people are worried, but not Karl:
But Karl is feeling really cocky these days despite all the bad news. He apparently thinks he can prevent Bush from bringing on a new high level staffer. Great. Keep the current team intact, they're doing so well now. Read the rest of this post...
By most accounts inside and outside the administration, Mr. Rove is relentlessly cheerful, presenting himself as an optimistic face in a gloomy White House. One person who met Mr. Rove said he attributed Mr. Bush's problems more to external events, in particular Hurricane Katrina and Iraq, than to anything the White House did wrong.That explains a lot....Iraq wasn't an "external event" until the Bush made it one. Since Karl is calling the shots, it explains why the White House treats Iraq like a p.r. event, not a war that needs a policy solution.
But Karl is feeling really cocky these days despite all the bad news. He apparently thinks he can prevent Bush from bringing on a new high level staffer. Great. Keep the current team intact, they're doing so well now. Read the rest of this post...
Study: Whiny insecure kids grow up to be Republicans
More than a kernel of truth in this study. What do Bill Frist, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, Limbaugh, George Will, Dr. Laura, the Republican bloggers all have in common? Whiny insecure brats. And that, my friends, comes from growing up a bit of a twit. Gary Bauer even admitted as much a few years back - grew up a wimp, been trying to fight back ever since (note to Gary: you're still gayer than me.)
Remember the whiny, insecure kid in nursery school, the one who always thought everyone was out to get him, and was always running to the teacher with complaints? Chances are he grew up to be a conservative.I think particularly with the new definition of Republican, this is absolutely true. What do Republicans stand for anyway? They're bullies who need the government to either blow up or regulate everyone and everything they're afraid of, which is pretty much everything. Sound familiar? Whereas liberals are the well-adjusted kid, the nice guy, live and let live, and not really needing to invade any countries to either scare away the boogeyman or prove their manliness. Read the rest of this post...
At least, he did if he was one of 95 kids from the Berkeley area that social scientists have been tracking for the last 20 years. The confident, resilient, self-reliant kids mostly grew up to be liberals.
The study from the Journal of Research Into Personality isn't going to make the UC Berkeley professor who published it any friends on the right. Similar conclusions a few years ago from another academic saw him excoriated on right-wing blogs, and even led to a Congressional investigation into his research funding.
The IRS wants to make it easier for your tax returns to be sold
Sinking ship. The rats are fleeing. And they're selling everything on the way down.
Dangerous incompetent, and ruthlessly amoral.
Republicans. Read the rest of this post...
Dangerous incompetent, and ruthlessly amoral.
Republicans. Read the rest of this post...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
