Still asleep at the wheel

Most of the elite press has maintained a love affair with The Daily Show. They like to tout their love as a sign that they are 'happening' and 'with it', and come to the conclusion that what people would like is their news to be irreverent like the Daily Show.

I think fans of the show, however, like the show because it actually treats its audience like adults. Case in point- yesterday's show covered the discrepancy between President Bush's press conference and Ben Bernacke's testimony to Congress. Furthermore, Jon Stewart pointed out that the White House seemingly timed their press conference in order to blunt the news coming from the Capitol (see the first two minutes).



Now, I am what you would call a voracious news consumer. Yet, in my search through the news yesterday, I didn't find any mention of this audacious attempt at White House spin. I think it might have been nice of them to cover this.

The key to November

If Obama wants to win, he needs to convince some of the 19% that a McCain presidency is a continuation of Bush's presidency. That seems pretty easy, all he really needs to do is burn this image into the voters minds:

Dept of Not Holding my Breath

It would be great if the US press picked up on this story. But as the title to this post indicates, I am not holding out for that. Anywho, the Independent has some interesting nuggets from before the Iraq war and what was really going on.

1. The President didn't seem too concerned with WMD attacks on our soldiers (I wonder why?)

...The troops were well within range of any weapons of mass destruction, military analysts have pointed out.

US administration officials had already prepared public opinion for war by raising fears of Saddam Hussein's nuclear programme and his ability to create "mushroom clouds." But the transcript reveals the two leaders were more concerned about getting a fig leaf of international approval for the war, than any imminent threat from Saddam.

2. The President had no idea how much the war would cost

Mr Bush does admit that averting war would be "the best solution for us" and "would also save us $50bn," greatly underestimating the cost to the US treasury of nearly five years of warfare. But he also talks of how he planned to exact revenge on countries, that did not back the US in its drive to war.

3. Oh yeah- there was also this- as the title indicates

Saddam 'ready to walk away for $1bn'

Been a while

I haven't posted anything for quite some time, mostly for the reason that things have been really busy. Partially, however, I stopped writing out of absolute frustration. I have been enormously frustrated by the following:

• The media- case in point, in looking at the news this evening MSNBC and AP have reported that Bush is reducing the number of troops in Iraq. He isn't. He is just putting them at pre-surge levels. Also, he has just acknowledged that our troops will be there forever. Yet, the media parrots the line that Bush is removing troops.
  
• The White House- I shouldn't even have to explain this.
  
• Congress- I understand that things cannot be changed overnight. But really, have some sort of damn backbone. The American people want a change, if the Republicans stand in your way, let the American people know.
  

Fatigue

Back in May, I noted that there was very little mention about Bush Fatigue in the mainstream media, while back when Clinton was President, it seemed like every other story was about how the public was growing tired of him.

Atrios has a similar post today, and while I relied on my intuition, he has actually done some research. Here is what he found:

Number of times the term "Clinton fatigue" appeared, according to a Nexis search, in major papers during July of 1999: 27.

Clinton Gallup poll approval rating in July of 1999: 64

Number of times the term "Bush fatigue" has appeared, so far, in July of 2007: 1, courtesy of Byron York's hair.

Bush Gallup poll approval rating in July of 2007: 31.

This really just makes you want to put your head in a microwave oven. Clinton was TWICE as popular as Bush is, at the same point in his presidency, yet the thought that the public is sick of Bush barely enters the press discourse. The only time it did, it came from the right.

Double Super Secret Plans

The White House's plan for governing after a terrorist attack is so secret, not even members of Congress- who serve on the Homeland Security Committee are able to see it:

Constituents called Rep. Peter DeFazio's office, worried there was a conspiracy buried in the classified portion of a White House plan for operating the government after a terrorist attack.

As a member of the House Committee on Homeland Security, DeFazio, D-Ore., is permitted to enter a secure "bubbleroom'' in the Capitol and examine classified material. So he asked the White House to see the secret documents.

On Wednesday, DeFazio got his answer: DENIED.

I am sure there is nothing to be concerned with here. Well, except for the fact that this is unprecedented-

Norm Ornstein, a legal scholar who studies government continuity at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, said he ``cannot think of one good reason'' to deny access to a member of Congress who serves on the Homeland Security Committee.

"I find it inexplicable and probably reflective of the usual knee-jerk overextension of executive power that we see from this White House,'' Ornstein said.

I think the lesson to be learned here is that we should trust the President- unconditionally.

When Character Matters

Marc Ambinder (who I wrote about here and here) has a follow-up post that attempts to answer his critics. He tries to make the argument that the story was important because it shows us something about Edward's character and his ability to advocate for the poor. However, this is just silly. I cannot see how his decision to get an expensive haircut will inform his policies regarding poverty or how it says anything about who Edwards is as a person.

Even if Ambinder is correct, this is not a standard which is applied uniformly (if at all). For example, look at the coverage of Bush back in 1999-2000. At that time, there was evidence to suggest that he was an absolutely horrible person who had little concern for how others felt. Perhaps the most horrid example comes from an interview Tucker Carlson did with Bush in 1999 where Bush mocked the pleas of a condemned prisoner:

In the weeks before the execution, Bush says, a number of protesters came to Austin to demand clemency for Karla Faye Tucker. "Did you meet with any of them?" I ask. Bush whips around and stares at me. "No, I didn't meet with any of them", he snaps, as though I've just asked the dumbest, most offensive question ever posed. "I didn't meet with Larry King either when he came down for it. I watched his interview with Tucker, though. He asked her real difficult questions like, 'What would you say to Governor Bush?'" "What was her answer?" I wonder. "'Please,'" Bush whimpers, his lips pursed in mock desperation, "'don't kill me.'" I must look shocked — ridiculing the pleas of a condemned prisoner who has since been executed seems odd and cruel — because he immediately stops smirking.

Yet if Ambinder is right, and that political journalists are just trying to highlight possible character flaws in candidates, why didn't this story get some serious coverage? In 2000, Bush sold himself as a compassionate conservative and committed Christian- if anything, the Karla Faye Tucker story shows that Bush was full of it. However, this story is relatively unknown and I only came across it a couple years ago while reading a blog entry on Atrios.

Compare the relative silence on this story with the hubbub surrounding Al Gore's mythic pronouncement that he invented the Internet in 2000. Gore was mocked endlessly by the political press for saying that he invented the internet, when he actually said nothing of the sort. The story was supposed to show that Gore was someone who exaggerated a little too much and suggested that he had some serious honesty problems.

Seen in this light, Ambinder's original assertion that this is all about revealing important character flaws is ridiculous. The political press chooses to cover certain stories because they are just very petty people with an inflated sense of importance. They aren't wisely presiding over our public discourse because they want to inform the American people, they are playing the same type of game silly teenagers play.

The Right Kind of People

The President's practice of going exclusively to friendly audiences is certainly not new, as BarbinMD at DailyKos reveals, a similar gathering went on today in Nashville. The President was barraged with tough questions such as these:

Q Sir, thank you very much for your service to our country so far, we appreciate that very much.

Q Mr. President, I appreciate your position on the war in Iraq. We've got a debate that's going on as much about should we stay or should we come home. Is there a way to change the tenor of the debate to determine how we win in Iraq?

Q I personally admire the way you've conducted the government and I admire your backbone, where you just stand and take a position. (Applause.) I'm not happy about the influx from Mexico...Now then, thirdly, when they do these polls to determine how you're rated, how come, if they have 1,000 people, they call 750 Democrats and only 25 Republicans? (Laughter and applause.)

Q And I want to thank you for the appointments or the nominations for our Supreme Court. That will be a wonderful legacy for you. (Applause.)

Q Semper Fi. First of all, Mr. President, I want to thank you, personally, for your support for our veterans. My son was lost in Iraq, and I want to thank you very much for your strength.

THE PRESIDENT: Thanks. Thanks for sharing that.

Q I also wish that there was some way that, as the press make so much to-do about what goes on in areas around pretty much the 50-mile area around Baghdad, which is pretty much where everything is going on, if there was some way to offset that with all of the great things that are going on.

So, the White House was able to find the last half-dozen people remaining in this country who still think the President is the most bestest President ever. Yet apart from just how damn creepy this all is, shouldn't there be some serious press scrutiny over this practice?

For one, isn't it a bit disconcerting that only those who think the President is awesome get to ask him questions? Those that really dislike the President also pay taxes, why shouldn't they have an opportunity to speak their minds? Couldn't someone in the press corps ask this question of either the President or Tony Snow? When you think about what it means for this country, that a President views himself as only the leader of those that support him- it's an absolute outrage. If the press was really interested in asking the tough questions, they could certainly ask about this.
Secondly, what does it say about a man who cannot face ALL of the people? Why must he be protected from any possible criticism?

If we lived in a world where the press was focused on keeping the powerful in check and not on trivial news stories, we might be able to find this all out. Yet, I cannot recall a single news story which asked if this practice was fair. The Daily Show did a bit on how maddening these Potemkin Town Halls are, but outside of this the press has been happy to let the President and his crazed supporters play pretend.

Touche

Of all the mysteries in the world, the one that I have never been able to fully wrap my head around is, "Why would anyone ever listen to Bill Kristol?" The man has been wrong about everything, especially on Iraq.

His latest example of outright hackery was published in the Washington Post, made the argument that history will judge Bush kindly. As you may well imagine, the piece was just ridiculous and had no right to be featured in any newspaper, much less the Post. Fortunately, David Corn has provided a much needed reality check for Kristol. Please read.

Al Qaeda Everywhere

Over at TPM, Josh Marshall has a short video explaining just how devious President Bush is being in regards to the different factions in Iraq. Watch it here.

As expected, the press has decided to swallow the line that the only enemy we face in Iraq is the terrorists.

He has no soul

In his relentless pursuit to show that he is the worst person to ever live on Earth, President Bush plans to veto a bill that provides medical insurance for poor children. Without this funding, the program will end in September. Why is he going to veto it? Look at his spokesman's own words:

“The proposal would dramatically expand the Children’s Health Insurance Program, adding nonpoor children to the program, and more than doubling the level of spending,” Mr. Fratto said. “This will have the effect of encouraging many to drop private coverage, to go on the government-subsidized program.”

The way the President sees this, these helpless insurance companies need to protected from those free-loading health care hoarding children.

Moving Goal Posts

ThinkProgress has a great post up regarding the constant change on our mission in Iraq. It is a long post, so I won't reproduce it in full, but I recommend checking it out. In short, they take Bush quotes to point out that the mission in Iraq has gone from:

1. The pre-War mission was to rid Iraq of WMD
2. After the war began, the mission expanded
3. Then the mission was complete
4. But then it continued again
5. Then the mission was to develop a free Iraq
6. And to train the Iraqi troops
7. Then it shifted to advancing democracy
8. And protecting America from terrorists
9. Then the mission was providing security for the Iraqi population
10. Now?? Undefined
    

Ten separate missions in 5 years, and now it is not entirely clear just what the hell we are supposed to be doing over there.

I am left wondering, however, after reading this post, why did it take a dirty hippie blogger to point this out? Couldn't someone in the press look through what this Administration has said, and maybe ask some pointed questions about why the mission keeps changing? This isn't rocket science.

Lastly, this is a pretty clear example of what the Democrats have to fight through with regards to the press. Democratic leaders have been saying since 2003 that the mission in Iraq was not entirely clear and that President Bush kept changing the goal posts. Yet, we have had nothing from the media pointing out, just like this post did, that the mission has never been certain.

They hate him, they really hate him.

Following up on my post below. I found this on ThinkProgress and it highlights the relative high water marks for presidential disapproval since FDR. Look who is tied with Nixon for highest:



Yeah, I am sure these numbers are purely a product of bad circumstances.

Beating a barely breathing horse

Rasmussen has a new poll out on impeachment and the numbers are not as strong as the ARG poll. Thirty-nine percent of those polled supported impeachment, while 49% were opposed. The numbers supporting impeachment are up 7% since December of 2005. Considering that Rasmussen is a polling outfit that tends to skew conservative, I think the actual number supporting impeachment is a few points higher than that (maybe 42-43%).

These numbers are important and they allow me the opportunity to clarify why I think having a super-majority of the people behind impeachment is essential. I am not suggesting that we need this type of broad support as some sort of political calculus (i.e. a Clintonesque sampling of the political landscape before assuming a policy position). Rather, impeachment is a revolutionary act. As such, it requires the consent and support of folks across the political spectrum. If this is only the will of a vocal minority, I don't see how it becomes any different from those behind Clinton's impeachment or the tyranny of the religious right. We, as a nation, need to say with one voice- this President needs to leave, now.

I would certainly encourage those that support impeachment to voice their concerns to their fellow citizens. I do think there needs to be a robust public debate about this president's legacy. I would also like to see some more congressional investigations into possible wrong-doing, both now and in the future.

However, I don't want this to become a distraction for our side. Our primary focus must be on why we are better able to lead this country than conservatives. We have better ideas than they do, and we need to make that case every day. We need to challenge conservatives on their opposition to increases in the minimum wage, the war in Iraq, health care, foreign engagement, trade and human/civil rights. We need to fight for these principles so that, in the end, we improve the lives of millions.

Impeachment Tide

From CBS News, and their partner Political Animal, comes coverage of a poll on impeachment, conducted by the "American Research Group, a non-partisan outfit":

Question:
Do you favor or oppose the US House of Representatives beginning impeachment proceedings against President George W. Bush?
7/5/07	Favor	Oppose	Undecided
All Adults	45%	46%	9%
Voters	46%	44%	10%
Democrats (38%)	69%	22%	9%
Republicans (29%)	13%	86%	1%
Independents (33%)	50%	30%	20%
3/15/06	42%	49%	9%
Based on 1,100 completed telephone interviews among a random sample of adults nationwide July 3-5, 2007. The theoretical margin of error is plus or minus 3 percentage points, 95% of the time. Of the total sample, 933 interviews were completed among registered voters.

Question:
Do you favor or oppose the US House of Representatives beginning impeachment proceedings against Vice President Dick Cheney?
7/5/07	Favor	Oppose	Undecided
All Adults	54%	40%	6%
Voters	50%	44%	6%
Democrats (38%)	76%	24%	-
Republicans (29%)	17%	83%	-
Independents (33%)	51%	29%	20%
Based on 1,100 completed telephone interviews among a random sample of adults nationwide July 3-5, 2007. The theoretical margin of error is plus or minus 3 percentage points, 95% of the time. Of the total sample, 933 interviews were completed among registered voters.

Yet, it appears that pollsters are shy about even bringing up the topic:

Independent national pollsters rarely ever ask Americans for their opinions about impeachment. In fact, when Washington Post polling director Richard Morin started receiving questions about it from readers, he got a little snippy about it, and refused to take the questions seriously.

It's hardly a mystery -- the notion of impeaching Bush and/or Cheney is still considered a "fringe" concept that "serious" people are supposed to reject out of hand. And yet, for a radical idea, a surprising number of Americans seem to think impeachment is a good idea. .....t's hard to compare these numbers against other recent polls -- news outlets are generally afraid of the "I" question -- but once an idea is embraced by nearly half the country, I think it's probably safe to stop calling it "fringe."

I don't get it

Whenever I go to Daily Kos, I can't help but notice the posted diaries on impeachment. It seems like everyday there are 8 to 10 diaries suggesting we impeach the President and Vice President as soon as possible. Upon reading these diaries, and others blog posts in support of impeachment, I have had a consistently mixed reaction. I believe Digby explains it best:

Has there ever been a president who deserved it more? I don't think so. Looking at this as someone who believes that until we hold them accountable for their crimes, these zombie crooks will keep doing this over and over again until our country is unrecognizable, my instinct is to scream it from the rafters. But I'm still not convinced that the Democrats should try to impeach.

She points out three reasons why impeachment is a long shot:

1. There isn't an identifiable 'crime' to impeach him on- some might say the actions that led to war would constitute grounds for impeachment, but we need a specific, easily provable instance of wrongdoing here. I don't see one. The acts related to the attorney scandal may constitute grounds, but that leads us to 2.

2. Time is not on our side- the legal battles related to the attorney scandal would take an extremely long time to settle. By that time Bush would already be out of office.

3. This is the most compelling reason against impeachment- so I will quote in full:

Finally, there is the most important and indisputable fact that Bush and Cheney will never be convicted in the Senate. This isn't the GOP of 1974 and they will never cross over in enough numbers. They won't do it even if video tapes of Bush personally giving hush money to Scooter Libby turn up. Let's not kid ourselves about that reality. The fact is that impeachment will probably bring their caucus together.

But even so, that's not necessarily a good enough reason not to do it. It could be useful, if only to tie the administration up in knots until they leave the scene. But the risks are high that if you don't have a specific (and somewhat simple) crime to point to and a good chance of at least getting a quick impeachment vote in the House, that it could blow back pretty hard on the Dems. This is not because people like Bush and don't want him out of office. It's because they see that the presidential campaign is in full swing and know that Bush will be out of office soon anyway. That means many of them will likely be susceptible to the inevitable GOP screeching that the petty Democrats are playing politics, going for payback, wasting time etc. And the media will be thrilled to help the Republicans make that case.

I would also add that before a move like this is made, we need broad public support for it. As of now, less than half of all Americans support impeaching the president. If we get to a point were a full 65% of the American public supported impeachment, then there would be a compelling enough reason to follow through on it. Until that time, however, I would suggest focusing on getting a Democrat into the White House in 2008.

Misunderstood Genius?

The Washington Post has an article today dissecting the psyche of the President. It is an extremely odd read and ultimately maddening, as the author did his best to assume that Bush thinks like a rational person.

There is so much in the article that I don't dare try to analyze it all here (although you can check out some thoughtful analysis here, here, here). I strongly recommend reading it. But if you want the short version of the article, I can offer it in the form of something I tell my brother:

I am not conceited, it is just that other people are too damn stupid to realize that I am awesome.

American High Schoolers Hate America

Some high school students recently gave President Bush a letter asking him to stop the torture of prisoners. You really have to admire them, they were there to be honored by the president and instead dropped this on him:

President Bush was presented with a letter Monday signed by 50 high school seniors in the Presidential Scholars program urging a halt to "violations of the human rights" of terror suspects held by the United States.

The White House said Bush had not expected the letter but took a moment to read it and talk with a young woman who handed it to him.

...

The handwritten letter said the students "believe we have a responsibility to voice our convictions."

On the not-so-bright side, I am upset that these students were acting all partisan, from what I understand someone had to get Joe Lieberman his fainting couch, as he had a spell after hearing about this.

Life imitating art

It seems the President is taking the whole monkey comparison thing to heart.

Friends of his from Texas were shocked recently to find him nearly wild-eyed, thumping himself on the chest three times while he repeated “I am the president!"

I just hope he doesn't start throwing poo. That would be embarrassing.