Sunday, February 19, 2006

Hunting with Cheney

My response to the rather tasteless bumper sticker that reads "I'd rather hunt with Dick Cheney than ride with Ted Kennedy:"

I am not particularly offended by a bumper sticker that is in poor taste.

However, I am really disgusted with the level of political discourse in this country. And with the fact that people pretend everything is swell.

Our president (and VP) get my country into a war because of the threat of WMDs. The evidence was trumped up, and, although most countries believed it, we were the ones who went to war.

Then, our President, twice elected, gets up and during a speech pretends to be looking around for the weapons, saying "Maybe they're under here, or under here..."

Our PRESIDENT did that...can you imagine FDR saying "gee...where are all the Jews? hahaha" But no one seems to care.

Bill O'Reilly gets on TV as tells Al Qaeda to attack San Fransisco. Then says "It was just a joke" and spends hours blasting stores for saying "Happy Holidays" and still is boycotting France because they were right.

Now our VP shoots a guy and the Republican response is to make a joke about an 18 year old girl drowning in 1969.

Brownie did a "heck of a job?" No one anticipated the levees breaking?

This Administration goes to the Supreme Court and argues that we SHOULD be able to execute minors and we SHOULD be able to execute the retarded. What??? Am I hearing that right??? Coulld that possibly be true????

And then they tell me that this administration is about a culture of life?

The chairman of the House Ways and Means committee is getting $730,000,000 for his district in pork. I drive through the central city of Milwaukee and see people living in dire poverty. But who cares about them. They are not donors to the Party. And The Man wants to make it harder for them to vote!

One party in this country controls the House, the Senate, The White House, 11/13 Federal courts, most of the state legislatures and most of the governerships.

It is unbelieveable what is happening. But all we do is rearrange the chairs as the band plays "Nearer, My God, To Thee".

Wednesday, February 01, 2006

A False Balance

New Your Times
January 30, 2006
Op-Ed Columnist
A False Balance

"How does one report the facts," asked Rob Corddry on "The Daily Show," "when the facts themselves are biased?" He explained to Jon Stewart, who played straight man, that "facts in Iraq have an anti-Bush agenda," and therefore can't be reported.

Mr. Corddry's parody of journalists who believe they must be "balanced" even when the truth isn't balanced continues, alas, to ring true. The most recent example is the peculiar determination of some news organizations to cast the scandal surrounding Jack Abramoff as "bipartisan."

Let's review who Mr. Abramoff is and what he did.

Here's how a 2004 Washington Post article described Mr. Abramoff's background: "Abramoff's conservative-movement credentials date back more than two decades to his days as a national leader of the College Republicans." In the 1990's, reports the article, he found his "niche" as a lobbyist "with entree to the conservatives who were taking control of Congress. He enjoys a close bond with [Tom] DeLay."

Mr. Abramoff hit the jackpot after Republicans took control of the White House as well as Congress. He persuaded several Indian tribes with gambling interests that they needed to pay vast sums for his services and those of Michael Scanlon, a former DeLay aide. From the same Washington Post article: "Under Abramoff's guidance, the four tribes ... have also become major political donors. They have loosened their traditional ties to the Democratic Party, giving Republicans two-thirds of the $2.9 million they have donated to federal candidates since 2001, records show."

So Mr. Abramoff is a movement conservative whose lobbying career was based on his connections with other movement conservatives. His big coup was persuading gullible Indian tribes to hire him as an adviser; his advice was to give less money to Democrats and more to Republicans. There's nothing bipartisan about this tale, which is all about the use and abuse of Republican connections.

Yet over the past few weeks a number of journalists, ranging from The Washington Post's ombudsman to the "Today" show's Katie Couric, have declared that Mr. Abramoff gave money to both parties. In each case the journalists or their news organization, when challenged, grudgingly conceded that Mr. Abramoff himself hasn't given a penny to Democrats. But in each case they claimed that this is only a technical point, because Mr. Abramoff's clients — those Indian tribes — gave money to Democrats as well as Republicans, money the news organizations say he "directed" to Democrats.

But the tribes were already giving money to Democrats before Mr. Abramoff entered the picture; he persuaded them to reduce those Democratic donations, while giving much more money to Republicans. A study commissioned by The American Prospect shows that the tribes' donations to Democrats fell by 9 percent after they hired Mr. Abramoff, while their contributions to Republicans more than doubled. So in any normal sense of the word "directed," Mr. Abramoff directed funds away from Democrats, not toward them.

True, some Democrats who received tribal donations before Mr. Abramoff's entrance continued to receive donations after his arrival. How, exactly, does this implicate them in Mr. Abramoff's machinations? Bear in mind that no Democrat has been indicted or is rumored to be facing indictment in the Abramoff scandal, nor has any Democrat been credibly accused of doing Mr. Abramoff questionable favors.

There have been both bipartisan and purely Democratic scandals in the past. Based on everything we know so far, however, the Abramoff affair is a purely Republican scandal.

Why does the insistence of some journalists on calling this one-party scandal bipartisan matter? For one thing, the public is led to believe that the Abramoff affair is just Washington business as usual, which it isn't. The scale of the scandals now coming to light, of which the Abramoff affair is just a part, dwarfs anything in living memory.

More important, this kind of misreporting makes the public feel helpless. Voters who are told, falsely, that both parties were drawn into Mr. Abramoff's web are likely to become passive and shrug their shoulders instead of demanding reform.

So the reluctance of some journalists to report facts that, in this case, happen to have an anti-Republican agenda is a serious matter. It's not a stretch to say that these journalists are acting as enablers for the rampant corruption that has emerged in Washington over the last decade.