Late Night Open Thread

How about that Pam Spaulding? She did some serious live-blogging from the forum. Very nice work. Love having her write with us here.

Okay, thread the news. Or thread whatever. Read the rest of this post...

Behind the scenes at the HRC/LOGO presidential forum...

Almost live. I'm getting settled into the press area at The Production Group Studios where the  The Visible Vote '08: A Presidential Forum, put together by HRC and LOGO. They have us pretty squeezed into a dark room (surrounded by black curtains; it's sort of like being in a vampire's chamber.

I was late getting to the venue for the security check, so they had to go through all my bags. I was graciously greeted by Chris Barron and Hilary Rosen and grabbed a bit to eat. On a four hour flight, all they gave us was a bag of pretzels. Thanks, AirTran. I also spoke briefly to one of tonight's questioners, Jonathan Capehart of the WaPo.

***

Karen Ocamb, news editor for IN Los Angeles magazine, just dropped by my table (she's the LGBT pool reporter tonight) and had a few quotes from folks here:

Actress Jane Lynch: she's leaning towards Edwards but could go for Obama. "We've come a long way since 2000. It's ironic that they put targets on gay backs, but that ultimately speeded up the process toward marriage equality."

Andy Tobias, DNC treasurer: "I am enthusiastically neutral."

Phill Wilson, Black AIDS Institute: "I am for whoever has the best AIDS answer."

***

I was interviewed by Mary Breslauer for HRC's satellite radio program The Agenda, and was asked about the role of blogs in this election cycle, what issues are of importance to readers, and making note that this forum is being extremely well-covered by the MSM. She plans to ask them what they are looking for. Some of the MSM folks that I recognized so far, Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times, and Candy Crowley of CNN. Ah, Arianna Huffington just walked by. There's some dude from Faux News here, but I don't recognize him.

We can see the set for the forum on the big screen TVs now. There are a few comfy chairs with a very small audience that was warmed-up/prepped in an preview show (not on the air). The gentleman doing the warm-up was telling the studio audience that "This is a little like being in a Broadway show...if you see or hear something you like, feel free to clap." Hoo-boy. Read the rest of this post...

Further proof Bush and the GOP do not support the troops

Not like we need more evidence that "support the troops" is just a campaign slogan for Bush and the GOPers, but here's more evidence:

The Bush administration opposes a Democratic effort to restore full educational benefits for returning veterans, according to an official's comments last week.

Senate Democrats, led by Virginia's Jim Webb, want the government to pay every penny of veterans' educational costs, from tuition at a public university to books, housing and a monthly stipend.

Such a benefit was a major feature of the historic 1944 G.I. Bill, which put more than eight million U.S. soldiers through college and is now credited by historians as fueling the expansion of America's middle class in the post-war era.

But in recent years the benefit has dwindled; under the current law, passed in 1985, veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan can expect Uncle Sam to cover only 75 percent of their tuition costs. That's not enough, say Democrats and veterans' advocates.

Hey, if Bush won't give them armor in Iraq and doesn't care for the wounded at Walter Reed, why would we think he'd care about the futures of the men and women who risked their lives for his ill-planned war?

What's remains truly amazing is that anyone in the media still buys anything Bush says about Iraq or the military anymore. It's all spin and campaign stunts. Every time real facts appear, like Bush's opposition to fully funding educational opportunities for soldiers, the Bush spin is exposed and contradicted. Every time. Read the rest of this post...

Dow drops over 380

Wild, wild day on Wall Street. To really understand what it all means, read BondDad's blog. He explains the day in depth (with charts) concluding:

This market is not in good shape. There is a ton of concern about the subprime market. In addition, this concern is leading to a ton of jitters that lead to quick selling pressure in the markets.

It is noteworthy that during the pre-vacation press conference, Bush tried to soothe the markets today:

Since we began cutting taxes in 2001, our economy has expanded by more than $1.9 trillion. Since the tax cuts took full effect in 2003, our economy has added more than 8.3 million new jobs, and almost four years of uninterrupted growth. Inflation is low, unemployment is low, real after-tax income has grown by an average of more than $3,400 per person since I took office. The American economy is the envy of the world, and we need to keep it that way.

Our economy is growing in large part because America has the most ambitious, educated and innovative people in the world -- men and women who take risks, try out new ideas, and have the skills and courage to turn their dreams into new technologies and new businesses. To stay competitive in the global economy, we must continue to lead the world in human talent and creativity.

And the markets responded:
Read the rest of this post...

Be Yourselves, Girls, and . . . make decisions based on what boys think

While I'm expressing dismay at NYT articles today, it's worth a look at this gem as well. I must admit, I was fooled by the title, which declares, "Be Yourselves, Girls, Order the Rib-Eye." Placement in the Fashion section probably should have tipped me off, but the title really does make it sound like the piece will in some way either describe or advocate women -- or, uh, "girls" -- 1) being themselves, by presumably 2) ordering steak if they damn well please.

How foolish of me. The article is actually about how women are now ordering (and proclaiming affection for) steak as a dating strategy! Here I am, happily clicking on this article to read about how women are eating what they enjoy, and the Times rips my heart out and feeds to it me (medium rare, please) by discussing how ordering steak is a way to portray the very confidence that could be actually displayed by just . . . ordering whatever one really wants. I know the piece is just fluff, but must we really suffer statements like this:

Restaurateurs and veterans of the dating scene say that for many women, meat is no longer murder. Instead, meat is strategy.

It may be true that restaurateurs say that, but the article provides no evidence -- the only one quoted says more women are ordering meat, but he doesn't speculate about motive. And I guess "veterans of the dating scene" just means "women in their 20s."

It doesn't improve from there:

Red meat sent a message that she was "unpretentious and down to earth and unneurotic," she said, "that I’m not obsessed with my weight even though I’m thin, and I don’t have any food issues." She added, "In terms of the burgers, it said I’m a cheap date, low maintenance."

"[Ordering salad] seems wimpy, insipid, childish," said Michelle Heller, 34, a copy editor at TV Guide. "I don’t want to be considered vapid and uninteresting."

Ordering meat, on the other hand, is a declarative statement, something along the lines of "I am woman, hear me chew."

Right: nothing says "unneurotic" like over-analyzing food choice. I mean, I'm not totally unsympathetic to similar concerns -- when I'm in an initial dating period, I certainly try to avoid ordering anything that would necessitate a bib, for example -- but one would hope there are limits, right? Right??

There is an anecdote, shoehorned in at the end, about a woman who threw caution to the wind and ordered a burger despite amorous affection for a tablemate, but the general tone is one of cheer at the idea that women are eating red meat for the supposed image benefits. Is it supposed to be an improvement that women are abandoning salad-only dates to impress men for steak dinners . . . to impress men?

I know everything has to be a big fake show, but lordie. Order what looks tasty! (And yes, I know I say that from a Position of Privilege, and who am I to grant permission, etc . . . but still.) If your date is judgmental about what you like to eat, probably not a person you want to be with anyway. Read the rest of this post...

Good God Mitt Romney Sucks

Yesterday, Romney was pilloried for saying his sons are serving their country by working for his campaign. Today hasn't been much better.

First, The Boston Globe ran an column calling him a liar. The nut graphs;

"He's been a pro-life Mormon faking it as a pro-choice friendly," Romney adviser Mike Murphy told the National Review in 2006.

Politicians always listen for the beat of the constituency they seek to represent, and waltz to it as best they can. They routinely tap dance around tough issues. They cha-cha-cha, reversing course when necessary. But they don't all do what Romney did on abortion rights. He engaged in a full-body tango with Massachusetts voters, doing everything he could to convince them he was pro-choice. He used his mother and another dead relative as props in a cold political calculation. But, this "pro-life Mormon," to quote Murphy, was "faking it" big time.

That's more than a mistake. That's dishonest.

You'd think that would be enough of adowner for Romney, but no, he wasn't done. He went on to expose himself as a thorough race-baiter and a hypocrite.

According to ABC News, Romney is attacking Giuliani for allowing New York to be a haven for illegal immigrants:

In one of the strongest conflicts yet between Republican presidential front-runners, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney attacked rival Rudy Giuliani Wednesday, implying that Giuliani supported illegal immigration when he was mayor of New York.

"If you look at lists compiled on Web sites of sanctuary cities, New York is at the top of the list when Mayor Giuliani was mayor," Romney said at the Abbey Hotel here. "He instructed city workers not to provide information to the federal government that would allow them to enforce the law. New York City was the poster child for sanctuary cities in the country."

Gotta love how Romney tries to ingratiate himself with the anti-immigrant forces of the GOP. Only one problem - Mitt Romney has a long history with illegal immigrants. For instance, it is know that Romney's lawn was a "sanctuary" for illegal immigrants:

A top aide to Gov. Mitt Romney said Friday the Republican was unaware that several of the workers employed by a lawn care company hired to take care of the grounds at his suburban home were illegal immigrants.

The Boston Globe said it interviewed in Spanish four current and former employees of Community Lawn Service with a Heart who worked on Romney's property. All but one said they were in the United States illegally.

Romney's Administration gave grants to a firm that used the money to train illegal immigrants:

The New Bedford manufacturer raided by federal agents last month for allegedly employing illegal immigrants won approval for $111,150 in state grants over the last four years to hire and train employees, as part of the company's expansion.

(snip)

A spokesman for Mitt Romney, the former governor whose administration awarded the 2003 grant, said Patrick should seek to get the money back if it was used to train illegal workers.

"Mitt Romney's view is if that grant was not used for legitimate purposes -- if it was used to train illegal aliens, for instance -- then that money should be refunded to the taxpayers of Massachusetts," said spokesman, Eric Fehrnstrom .

And, of course, Romney has flip-flopped on McCain's immigration bill and amnesty:

"McCain-Kennedy isn't the answer," Romney said in a well-received speech to conservatives in Washington this month, describing it as an amnesty plan that would reward people for breaking the law and cost taxpayers millions to provide them benefits.

But that is markedly different from how Romney once characterized McCain's bill, elements of which are receiving new attention in Congress and from President Bush. Indeed, Romney's past comments on illegal immigration suggest his views have hardened as he has ramped up his campaign for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination.

In a November 2005 interview with the Globe, Romney described immigration proposals by McCain and others as "quite different" from amnesty, because they required illegal immigrants to register with the government, work for years, pay taxes, not take public benefits, and pay a fine before applying for citizenship.

"That's very different than amnesty, where you literally say, 'OK, everybody here gets to stay,' " Romney said in the interview. "It's saying you could work your way into becoming a legal resident of the country by working here without taking benefits and then applying and then paying a fine."

Romney did not specifically endorse McCain's bill, saying he had not yet formulated a full position on immigration. But he did speak approvingly of efforts by McCain and Bush to solve the nation's immigration crisis, calling them "reasonable proposals."

Romney also said in the interview that it was not "practical or economic for the country" to deport the estimated 12 million immigrants living in the US illegally. "These people contribute in many cases to our economy and to our society," he said. "In some cases, they do not. But that's a whole group we're going to have to determine how to deal with."

Asked about the discrepancy between Romney's comments in 2005 and now, spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom said: "Over the past year and a half, as the American people have learned all the details of the McCain-Kennedy approach, they have arrived at the same conclusion as Governor Romney: It rewards people who are here illegally."

So what does all of this mean? It confirms what we already knew - Mitt Romney will say anything or do anything to get elected. No truth is universal, no principle unbreakable. Mitt Romney cares only about obtaining more power for power's sake. He is truly Bush's heir. Read the rest of this post...

A father's pain

The New York Times has a story today on a father who is worried about his son because of the Iraq war. The father struggles to balance disapproval of the war's management with his support for his son, and his concern for his son's well-being, resulting in a portrait of worry, difficult communication, and grief. I've edited an excerpt slightly for readability:

There are times in the life of John Barkes, the father of Josh Barkes, who is fighting in Iraq, that people, perfect strangers, come up to him and say the harshest things — words intended to comfort but words that wind up only causing pain.

"I love you, John, and I'm glad your son is in Iraq fighting for our freedom," they might say, according to Ron Kaufman, a longtime friend of Mr. Barkes, who has witnessed any number of such encounters — perhaps at a church gathering, or a family reunion. They are, he says, just one way the service of the son has taken a toll on the father. "It wears on his heart," Mr. Kaufman said, "and his soul."

[Mr. Barkes' daughter] says her father is growing more emotional as he ages — "he has a tender heart that is getting tenderer" — which makes mentions of his eldest son that much harder to take.

Of course, when I say I edited that excerpt for readability, what I really mean is that I changed the names so you wouldn't want to light yourself on fire, as I did when I first read it. The article is not, in fact, about the parent of a soldier, but about . . . George H.W. Bush. Because what the country really wants to hear about is, um, the emotional hardship of Bush 1 over the deservedly horrendous approval ratings of Bush 2. Here are the real paragraphs:

There are times in the life of George Herbert Walker Bush, the 41st president of the United States and father of the 43rd, that people, perfect strangers, come up to him and say the harshest things — words intended to comfort but words that wind up only causing pain.

"I love you, sir, but your son’s way off base here," they might say, according to Ron Kaufman, a longtime adviser to Mr. Bush, who has witnessed any number of such encounters — perhaps at a political fund-raiser, or a restaurant dinner, a chance meeting on the streets of Houston or Kennebunkport, Me. They are, he says, just one way the presidency of the son has taken a toll on the father. "It wears on his heart," Mr. Kaufman said, "and his soul." These are distressing days for the Bush family patriarch . . .

Mrs. Koch says her father is growing more emotional as he ages — "he has a tender heart that is getting tenderer" — which makes criticism of his eldest son that much harder to take.

Front page national news: it's tough when your son is totally screwing up the country you once ran, ruining its national security and responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths.

Of course, it's not the death and destruction that bothers Bush the Elder, it's the mean criticism! When Bush I did a speech in which he voiced total support of Bush II, the speechwriter says, he was sending a message:

"I think he understood he was going to have a national audience, and I think he wanted to send an unmistakable signal . . . I think he wanted to say none of that malarkey matters. I just want to support my son."

The war, the deaths, the faltering economy, and a overwhelmingly dissatisfied nation. Or as George H.W. Bush thinks of it, "malarkey." Read the rest of this post...

Iraq vet Jon Soltz takes on creepy far-right freeper guy

Jon Soltz of VoteVets.org is one mean sonovabitch. And he's on our side. Thank God. Watch him take on this far-right nut on Hardball. The nut, Buzz Patterson (Buzz? Okay, that's kinda gay), is calling Hillary an anti-American socialist. Yeah, that's a rational argument. Soltz really is amazing, he won't let the other guy interrupt him, which is a tough thing to do on TV. He does it, with gusto. Watch this video. The other guy can't stand that Jon is an actual Iraq war vet. That Jon fought in Iraq and this guy didn't. That Jon speaks for our troops in Iraq because Jon WAS our troops in Iraq. All the other guy can do is what every coward does when he's forced to defend a lie. He yells and whines and throws out bizarre freeper words like "socialist" (socialist? what are you, twelve?) because if he were forced to articulate an actual argument, an intelligent rational thought, just one, he'd lose.



Note from Joe: Who would you rather have defending you? I'd take Soltz any day over that Ann Coulter-like filibustering right winger. But these two represent the very real choice America faces. Seriously - who would you rather have in charge of defending your country, Jon Soltz or "Buzz" the crazy yelling guy? Why is it that so many right wingers come off as such whiners? Watch the GOPers start attacking Soltz now. He's their biggest fear in many ways. An articulate, tough, smart veteran... who has been in Iraq... and knows what a disaster Bush's war is. Soltz is the kind of guy the Republicans should honor, but they'll go out of their way to dishonor his war-time service to his country because that's what Republicans do. They only honor our troops when it's a PR stunt. Read the rest of this post...

Stocks plunge as concerns rise over bad mortgages

Stocks plunged this morning on more bad news for the mortgage market.

Soren Dayton, a conservative blogger I met at a recent event for the ONE campaign, raises a lot of interesting points about the coming mortgage debacle. His most interesting point: Those adjustable rate mortgages (ARMs) that everyone took on hoping they could sell before their rate increased? Well a huge chunk of them are coming due between now and the 2008 presidential elections. He thinks this issue is going to be huge in terms of electoral impact. A very interesting analysis.

Having said that, unless you got outright cheated on your mortgage - meaning, you got outright lied to about the rates, etc. - then I'm not having a lot of sympathy for folks who either didn't pay attention when signing the dotted line, or who thought they'd make a fast buck before their "real" interest rate kicked in. And to the extent that people are going to make the argument, that I've heard, that lower-income folks just don't understand complicated things like mortgages (how are they at throw-weights?), and therefore we need to cut them a break, then we have an even larger problem than simply fixing the current mortgages (and let me say right off, the entire basis of this argument strikes me as vaguely racist - "you know THOSE people, they just aren't capable of understanding hard stuff"). We should change the entire way that mortgages are set up, if in fact we're going to argue that an economic class of Americans will be per se cheated by a lack of understanding every time they enter into a mortgage (though that's a rather slippery slope - how are they at buying a car, figuring out which insurance they want, filing their taxes?). That's preferable, in my eyes, to talking about a bail-out that would do nothing to fix the problem that caused the bail-out to be necessary in the first place. Read the rest of this post...

Will the HRC/Logo forum address issues facing LGBT communities of color?

With many LGBTQ voters of African descent experiencing the downside of diversity by not being fully included in the both African American and gay communities the HRC-Logo debate is viewed as a white queer public soliloquy giving the illusion of inclusion.
--  Rev. Irene Monroe, ordained minister, religion columnist, feminist theologian, questioning whether the HRC/Logo presidential forum will ignore critical issues of concern to the black LGBTQ community

I was just thinking about this issue when I received an email in my inbox from Bil Browning of The Bilerico Project, about an essay there by Reverend Monroe on a population largely unrepresented in either the coverage of or involvement in the forum -- communities of color. Many, Monroe says, aren't even aware of the forum.

"Why would I know about this debate?," LaShaun Williams of New Orleans told me. "Before Katrina the black and white gay communities was separated. Now after Katrina even moreso because only those who have money either stayed during the city's renovation or had money to return back. Our community is smaller and more invisible than ever and the gay paper down here doesn't now and never have circulated where black folks live."

It's quite obvious to queer folks of color that "the movement" is overwhemingly white, well-to-do, urban-dwelling, internet-connected -- and that means a different worldview (given human nature) about what issues are critical than what may be true in minority queer communities.

The queer community is a decisive electoral force that politicians have learned over the years, for their own campaign survival, that they must at least wink at.

But their winks have never cast eyes on this nation's black same gender loving communities. And the issues concerning white queer communities are indeed vastly different from the black community.

"We got an entire community dying of AIDS and I know the first question that's going to come out of somebody's mouth will be that of gay marriage," Rita Johnson of Detroit told me.

Social research shows that African-American same-gender households have everything to gain in the struggle for marriage equality and more to lose when states pass amendments banning marriage equality and other forms of partner recognition. For example, in November 2005, Equality Maryland and the National Black Justice Coalition published "Jumping the Broom: a Black Perspective on Same-Gender Marriage." And the statistics revealed the following: Forty-five percent of black same-sex couples reported stable relationships of five years or longer. And 20 percent of black men and 24 percent of black women in same-sex households are denied health care benefits for their partners by the government.

Marriage is important, but so is tackling the religious homophobia in the black community that drives discussion of sexuality, safer sex, monogomy and honesty deep into the closet.

More than one person of color frustrated by the lack of the gay white establishment's involvement in these issues has told me that it's always couched as a third rail issue -- that they don't want to address black homophobia, for instance, because it's something that needs to be "dealt with internally," meaning it's up to LGBTQ blacks to handle it because the white establishment doesn't want to be perceived as "meddling" in a minority community's "issue."

Of course this is bunk. Homophobia is homophobia, and begging off any struggle simply because it's difficult to negotiate or makes one uncomfortable is a pitiful position to hold, given it's the very same message we've heard in the past from our alleged Democratic allies. How many times were we told back in prior election cycles that we (the gay community as a whole) are responsible for "winning over" the American public to convince them that our civil rights are important. We were told we were on our own because the political risk was too great for them at the time.

What, pray tell, is the difference?

It was enlightening to attend the much-ignored-by-the-MSM National Black Justice Coalition's Second Annual Black Church Summit held in Philly last March. It was a gathering of LGBT and gay-affirming religious leaders, the people at the front lines facing extreme disapproval from many in the socially conservative religious black community. There was a debate between black LGBT allies and leaders, including Rev. Dr. Michael Eric Dyson and Bush-supporting Bishop Harry Jackson, Chairman of the High-Impact Leadership Coalition. Jackson is strident in his opposition to LGBT rights.

[G]ay activists around the country are getting nervous that they are about to experience an embarrassing political setback. Instead of amending the hate crimes legislation that protects churches in a substantive way, they are simply crying out in a louder, more threatening manner. Gay advocates are not looking for fairness; they are looking for an upper hand.

-- Jackson, in a Town Hall column.

The establishment LGBT rights movement has not, until recently, even addressed the success of the white evangelical movement in capitalizing on institutionalized homophobia in the black church, even though these churches should be wary of bedding down with a movement that otherwise wants nothing to do with black issues on any other occasion.

That's how deep the homophobia goes, and that's where support is needed, and why diverse voices need to be present at forums like the HRC/Logo program. The  questions raised should be able to be seen and heard by all. Low-wealth LGBT citizens may not have cable or broadband. They are just as affected by the issues that will be discussed as the larger LGBT community of influence, yet many are left with the feeling, rightly or wrongly, intentionally or not, this is a "white-only" affair. There's a lot of work to do if people on both sides of the color line are willing to roll their sleeves up and deal with feeling uncomfortable and move forward.

Related:


* Pro-LGBT black clergy ad counters misinformation on hate crimes legislation

*  Reporting from the NBJC Second Annual Black Church Summit. Read the rest of this post...

Live blogging the Bush pre-vacation press conference

Bush is starting with an economic push. He wants that to be the subject, not Iraq. Meanwhile, the Dow has already dropped almost 200 points today. He's all about taxes -- again. Democrats bad on taxes. According to today's Washington Post, Bush wants to cut corporate taxes. He's said "competitive" about 30 times...but just saying it doesn't make it true. And, the Senator from New Mexico is Jeff Bingaman, not Bingamam.

10:41 a.m. UPDATE: Bush wants the Democrats to set priorities for spending money...because he basically admitted that the GOPers were just pork barrel spending in past sessions. And, yeah, Americans should fee safe going over bridges. What a concept. Glad Bush has clued into that.

10:44 a.m. UPDATE: On Tillman cover-up, Ed Henry noted that when it was his turn to step up, Tillman did. Will Bush step up and get the truth. Bush, "I can understand why Pat Tillman's family has significant emotions." You can? Bush is confident that the Pentagon will get to the truth, but Henry said seven investigations haven't gotten the truth yet. Like every other member of the Bush team, Bush himself can't recall details of when he learned Tillman was killed by friendly fire. That "can't remember" and "can't recall" thing is pervasive in the Bush White House.

10:52 a.m. UPDATE: On lack of progress on political reconciliation in Iraq, Bush told us to wait til next month's report from Petraeus and Crocker. Sure, there's not enough political progress, "we're watching leaders learn how to be leaders." Unfortunately, Bush is teaching them how to be leaders. Bush wants us to know he's asking questions. He wanted to know if Iraq has a budgeting system...and he found interesting that there is "revenue sharing." That surprised him, because the impression you get from people who are reporting out of Iraq is that it's dysfunctional. That's a classic blame the media ploy from Bush. But is Bush saying that he gets his news about Iraq from the media? Sounded like that. Should Bush be surprised about anything in Iraq? Doesn't he have people on the ground over there?

10:57 a.m. UPDATE: Asked if he had a message for Iran? Our ambassador told Iran there would be consequences for sending weapons to Iraq that kill Americans. Bush also noted that al-Maliki is in Tehran to give the message to stabilize, not destabilize. Apparently, the Prime Minister of Iraq is now an emissary of the American government -- that's how Bush made it sound anyway.

11:00 a.m. UPDATE: Oh yeah, "we don't torture."

11:07 a.m. UPDATE: Apparently, al-Maliki isn't our emissary in Iran based on reports and photos -- which Bush hasn't seen. But, hey, al-Maliki has to be cordial. Your president said, "don't want the picture to be duking it out" Yuk. Yuk. "Put up your dukes." Bush is convinced that al-Maliki shares his views on Iran. Hmmm. Bush wants us to know we had a very "robust operation" going after shia extremists yesterday in Sadr City...and al-Maliki approved. But, gotta say, this is clearly something that makes Bush uncomfortable.

11:13 a.m. UPDATE: Bush smacks Congress again after a question about whether we can spend on bridges and still fund the Iraq war. The trouble in Congress is they have trouble setting priorities. Again, the GOP ran the Congress for the first six years of Bush's administration. He hopes to sustain the level of spending on Iraq. (He's never going to leave Iraq, that's sure clear.)

11:18 a.m UPDATE: Bush's entire view of accountability can be summed up in this one line: "Lewis Libby was held accountable." Okay, he was held accountable by a judge and jury - and Bush removed that accountability. And as for accountability in Iraq. Oh, Iraq hasn't made as much progress as we had hoped. Wow. Nothing gets past him. He even managed to work in a 9/11 angle on the accountability question. Because that helps show Iraq was worth it. Now he just said, for those of us who think Iraq was worth it, we'll see progress. So, you have to have that pro-Iraq war perspective to see progress in Iraq. That's why most Americans are missing it.

It's over. Bush can now go on vacation. It really is quite painful watching him. Read the rest of this post...

Bush press conference at 10:30 a.m.

Your President is heading out on vacation. But before Bush leaves for a month, he's going to do a press conference so you all know how hard he's working. Just one more chance to lie to the American people -- and one more chance for the White House press corps to regurgitate the lies:

President Bush, clearing the decks before his August vacation, called a news conference for Thursday.

The president was expected to face questions about the war in Iraq, now in its fifth year, political unrest in nuclear-armed Pakistan, an ally in the war on terrorism, and the deteriorating state of bridges in the United States, dramatized by last week's collapse of the span over the Mississippi River at Minneapolis.

The midmorning session was Bush's first full news conference since July 12 when he inaugurated the newly refurbished White House briefing room. Since then, he has had brief question-and-answer sessions with Britain's new prime minister, Gordon Brown, and Afghanistan's president, Hamid Karzai.

Big news from CNN's Ed Henry is that Bush has his own new podium in the press briefing room. Yep, Bush won't use the same podium that Tony Snow and Dana Perino use. Wow...

I'll live blog the press conference. Read the rest of this post...

Hitting the road - HRC/LOGO presidential forum

It seems like I just came back from Yearly Kos (oh that's right, I did, and I'm really tired), but I'm off on a loooong flight this AM to L.A. today to liveblog the The Visible Vote '08: A Presidential Forum, pulled together by HRC and LOGO. It's been made clear that this is not billed as a debate, but a conversation with the Democratic candidates on LGBT issues -- Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, Bill Richardson, Dennis Kucinich, and Mike Gravel (because of scheduling conflicts, Dodd and Biden will not be present).

In this format, for better or worse, each candidate will appear solo, on the stage for 15 minutes taking questions from Human Rights Campaign's Joe Solmonese and singer Melissa Etheridge, as well as journalists Margaret Carlson and Jonathan Capehart, and over 4,000 questions were submitted at VisibleVote08.com.

The forum airs at 9PM ET on LOGO with the live webcast at The Visible Vote '08. There will be a studio audience there, but the set up will be the same as it was for the PBS debate --  bloggers and the rest of the media will be off in a different, nearby  building, and I was told by MTV/LOGO that none of the candidates will appear afterward in the spin room.

The candidates responded to HRC's questionnaire on LGBT rights, so you have a general idea of their positions. Answers were released in June in a grid format without candidate comments). The full responses from Clinton, Obama,  Biden, Dodd, Kucinich and Richardson and Gravel were made available later, after the Edwards camp released his full answers to the questionnaire to me, (I posted them and blogged about it here). Read the rest of this post...

Thursday Morning Open Thread

Broke a heat record here in DC yesterday. It was 102.

This city is really starting to slow down and empty out....all the action is in the real world.

So what's the action out there? Read the rest of this post...

Funniest headline ever

Yeah, I'm sure the nation's 20 million Hispanics and Latinos will dutifully forget how the GOP just spent the last two years demonizing them as some kind of cockroach infestation swarming our borders. If the Democrats permit the GOP to make any inroads among Hispanics, well, then the Dems don't deserve to rule. Read the rest of this post...