Elections | Economic Crisis | Jobs | TSA | Limbaugh | Fun Stuff
Follow @americablog
Tuesday, March 08, 2005
Update on DemsTV.com - looks like there might have been some foul play
I told you guys earlier today about DemsTV.com launching today at noon. Well, the site has been inaccessible all day, and its looking increasingly like our friends on the right have successfully (and illegally) shut the site down. Our boys are still investigating, and it's still possible that the site has been so wildly popular that that is what caused the problem (such a problem to have!), but nonetheless, many of us think that after Sean Hannity complained about DemsTV.com on his show last night, one of his deranged followers might have done something.
Anyway, in the meantime, you can watch the premiere episode of DemsTV.com here where it is parked temporarily until they move to a bigger and better protected server. (Warning, I'm in it and haven't seen it yet, so I have no idea how it turned out.) And, sorry, but the link won't work in FireFox - hey, it's a temporary mirror, be nice.
Also be sure to check out Hannity whining last night about the edgy ad DemsTV.com has been running, an ad that takes Hannity on.
PS Keep in mind that this is the first show. Remember, even Star Trek Next Generation sucked the first year (hopefully this doesn't, but be nice :-)
Another PS. There's a pretty funny song about Condi and her big black boots at about 12:55 minutes in the broadcast. Check it out, it's quite good. Read the rest of this post...
Anyway, in the meantime, you can watch the premiere episode of DemsTV.com here where it is parked temporarily until they move to a bigger and better protected server. (Warning, I'm in it and haven't seen it yet, so I have no idea how it turned out.) And, sorry, but the link won't work in FireFox - hey, it's a temporary mirror, be nice.
Also be sure to check out Hannity whining last night about the edgy ad DemsTV.com has been running, an ad that takes Hannity on.
PS Keep in mind that this is the first show. Remember, even Star Trek Next Generation sucked the first year (hopefully this doesn't, but be nice :-)
Another PS. There's a pretty funny song about Condi and her big black boots at about 12:55 minutes in the broadcast. Check it out, it's quite good. Read the rest of this post...
How to screw Republicans
No, this isn't a kinky recipe book by Jeff Gannon. It's a reverse engineering of a report written by top GOP pollster Frank Luntz. Our friends at the Center for American Progress read through the very long report, over a hundred pages worth, and distilled Luntz's wisdom in to one page. It's good stuff, read it.
Read the rest of this post...
GOP pollster says "going after the AARP is nuts"
Wow. Do I see dissension in the ranks?
Read the rest of this post...
Are bloggers journalists?
The SF Chronicle weighs in. Put aside the fact they got the mention of GG wrong. Still, the reporter was nice enough to mention it - I've sent him a correction for future reference. And anyway, it's a fascinating story and issue.
So I pose the question to you: What defines a journalist?
Just saw the NYT picked up the story too, quoting our good friend BradBlog. Read the rest of this post...
So I pose the question to you: What defines a journalist?
Just saw the NYT picked up the story too, quoting our good friend BradBlog. Read the rest of this post...
Secret Service lies today about GannonGuckert White House access
The US Secret Service lied to members of Congress today in a letter responding to concerns about GannonGuckert's access to the White House.
In the letter, as reported by Raw Story, "there was no deviation from Secret Service standards and procedures" in order to give GannonGuckert access to the White House.
But this a flat out lie.
1. GannonGuckert (GG) had a "day pass" to the White House, not a "hard pass." A day pass gives you one day access, a hard pass gives you repeated, unlimited, ongoing, and regular access to the White House.
2. But using a day pass, GannonGuckert in fact received repeated, unlimited, ongoing and regular access to the White House for over a two year period, even though he never was given a hard pass. I.e., GG was given a de facto hard pass without going through the proper rigorous background check required for such a pass.
3. Why does this matter? It matters because there must be some national security reason why hard pass reporters are required to get 3-month FBI background checks. Presumably the reason is that hard pass reporters, unlike day pass reporters who only go to the White House once (or at best, once in a very blue moon), will be spending a lot of regular time in the White House, mingling with senior officials as high as the president, over an extended and ongoing period. That gives hard pass reporters the kind of access that could make them a security risk if we didn't know for a fact that they're good people. That's why hard pass reporters are required to get the 3-month FBI background check. To make sure there's nothing in their background, or present, to suggest they could be, or have been, compromised, or in any other way pose a threat.
4. But GG got the same kind of ongoing, regular and intimate access to the White House as any hard pass reporter - and thus GG posed the same potential risk to national security as any hard pass reporter - yet GG was never forced to get a hard pass, and thus never required to get the hard pass 3-month FBI background check (during which the Secret Service would have found that GG was involved in an ongoing criminal enterprise (prostitution) and that he had a $20,000 default tax judgment against him from the state of Delaware (both things that could make him a security risk)).
5. So, in conclusion, GG got hard pass access to the White House simply using a day pass.
- Either there's a legitimate security reason why hard pass access requires a 3-month background check, and if so, the White House seriously breached security by giving GG hard pass access without requiring the extensive background check.
- Or, there is no legitimate reason why hard pass reporters are required to get the 3-month background check, since GG had the same ongoing, regular and intimate access to senior members of the White House as any hard pass reporter, yet the Secret Service now says such a 3-month FBI background check was not necessary in order for GG to have the access he did.
Then what kind of White House access would GG have to have in order to make him a security risk who would need the kind of background check that hard pass journalists are required to get? If the Secret Service says no such clearance was necessary for GG, then they need to explain how GG's ongoing, regular and seemingly unfettered access to the White House and senior officials as high as the president differed from the access any hard pass journalist has, a journalist who somehow poses a risk that GG does not.
The bottom line is that GG was given a de facto hard pass to the White House, even though he only applied for a day pass. And if the Secret Service is now going to tell us that this is following procedures, then Congress and the media should demand an immediately investigation of just what those procedures really are. Because GannonGuckert was permitted to metaphorically "walk around the metal detectors" of the White House, and someone should be asking why. Read the rest of this post...
In the letter, as reported by Raw Story, "there was no deviation from Secret Service standards and procedures" in order to give GannonGuckert access to the White House.
But this a flat out lie.
1. GannonGuckert (GG) had a "day pass" to the White House, not a "hard pass." A day pass gives you one day access, a hard pass gives you repeated, unlimited, ongoing, and regular access to the White House.
2. But using a day pass, GannonGuckert in fact received repeated, unlimited, ongoing and regular access to the White House for over a two year period, even though he never was given a hard pass. I.e., GG was given a de facto hard pass without going through the proper rigorous background check required for such a pass.
3. Why does this matter? It matters because there must be some national security reason why hard pass reporters are required to get 3-month FBI background checks. Presumably the reason is that hard pass reporters, unlike day pass reporters who only go to the White House once (or at best, once in a very blue moon), will be spending a lot of regular time in the White House, mingling with senior officials as high as the president, over an extended and ongoing period. That gives hard pass reporters the kind of access that could make them a security risk if we didn't know for a fact that they're good people. That's why hard pass reporters are required to get the 3-month FBI background check. To make sure there's nothing in their background, or present, to suggest they could be, or have been, compromised, or in any other way pose a threat.
4. But GG got the same kind of ongoing, regular and intimate access to the White House as any hard pass reporter - and thus GG posed the same potential risk to national security as any hard pass reporter - yet GG was never forced to get a hard pass, and thus never required to get the hard pass 3-month FBI background check (during which the Secret Service would have found that GG was involved in an ongoing criminal enterprise (prostitution) and that he had a $20,000 default tax judgment against him from the state of Delaware (both things that could make him a security risk)).
5. So, in conclusion, GG got hard pass access to the White House simply using a day pass.
- Either there's a legitimate security reason why hard pass access requires a 3-month background check, and if so, the White House seriously breached security by giving GG hard pass access without requiring the extensive background check.
- Or, there is no legitimate reason why hard pass reporters are required to get the 3-month background check, since GG had the same ongoing, regular and intimate access to senior members of the White House as any hard pass reporter, yet the Secret Service now says such a 3-month FBI background check was not necessary in order for GG to have the access he did.
Then what kind of White House access would GG have to have in order to make him a security risk who would need the kind of background check that hard pass journalists are required to get? If the Secret Service says no such clearance was necessary for GG, then they need to explain how GG's ongoing, regular and seemingly unfettered access to the White House and senior officials as high as the president differed from the access any hard pass journalist has, a journalist who somehow poses a risk that GG does not.
The bottom line is that GG was given a de facto hard pass to the White House, even though he only applied for a day pass. And if the Secret Service is now going to tell us that this is following procedures, then Congress and the media should demand an immediately investigation of just what those procedures really are. Because GannonGuckert was permitted to metaphorically "walk around the metal detectors" of the White House, and someone should be asking why. Read the rest of this post...
Red State, Bush supporting farmers to lose pork?
Apparently the cottom farmers thought that the free lunch was going to go on forever and after that last farm bill, why would they think anything else? It's going to be interesting to see who wins this battle within the GOP but considering the trade war that is brewing, I wouldn't put my money on the farmers. Funny how Bush didn't touch this issue during the campaign when he needed them. I guess they are going to join the ranks of others who were led down the garden path during the campaign, such as seniors.
Read the rest of this post...
Controvery grows over homophobic Bush appointee
The guy who's responsible for trying to delete job protections for gay and lesbian federal employees.
Read the rest of this post...
DemsTV.com to launch any moment
UPDATE: Looks like someone might have launched a denial of service attack on DemsTV.com. While they get things fixed, you can see the inaugural show temporarily mirroed here. Note that you can't use this link with a FireFox browser - sorry, but this is a temporary fix.
This is a project some friends of mine are heading up. I'm in the premiere edition. Basically, it's online TV punditry for young(ish) Dems. Hard, edgy, fun. You can see the promo here, the one that's getting Sean Hannity all in a dither.
The real site should be live in a few hours. And here is yesterday's Wash Post article on them. Read the rest of this post...
This is a project some friends of mine are heading up. I'm in the premiere edition. Basically, it's online TV punditry for young(ish) Dems. Hard, edgy, fun. You can see the promo here, the one that's getting Sean Hannity all in a dither.
The real site should be live in a few hours. And here is yesterday's Wash Post article on them. Read the rest of this post...
Tuesday morning open thread
It's like a blizzard outside, totally bizarre.
Read the rest of this post...
The McCain-Reform Institute wants money out of policitcs
As soon as your check clears into their account. Yes, but will they also provide full sucking up capabilities like we witnessed during the campaign last year?
Read the rest of this post...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
