Media does Matter: USA Today calls McCain a maverick as things show otherwise

USA Today repeatedly called McCain a "maverick" on immigration, taxes despite his shifts Summary: A USA Today article described John McCain as "a maverick senator from the West" who has taken "maverick stands, including votes against Bush's tax cuts in 2001" and "his sponsorship last year of an immigration bill that included a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants in this country," while a USA Today editorial asserted that "McCain's chief sin, apparently, is that he has broken ranks on issues that include campaign finance, President Bush's tax cuts, illegal immigration and global warming." Neither the article nor the editorial mentioned that McCain has since shifted positions on the Bush tax cuts and immigration. In a January 24 USA Today article on the leading Republican presidential candidates, Washington bureau chief Susan Page wrote that Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) is "a maverick senator from the West" whose "willingness to stake out maverick views also makes him popular with the independents who typically decide politically divided states." Page later asserted that McCain's "maverick stands, including votes against Bush's tax cuts in 2001 and support of campaign-finance limits, have cost the Arizona senator within the GOP. So has his sponsorship last year of an immigration bill that included a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants in this country." Additionally, a January 24 USA Today editorial asserted that "McCain's chief sin, apparently, is that he has broken ranks on issues that include campaign finance, President Bush's tax cuts, illegal immigration and global warming." However, neither Page's article nor the USA Today editorial mentioned that McCain has since shifted positions on the Bush tax cuts and immigration: McCain now favors making the Bush tax cuts permanent, and he now supports improving border security before addressing the issue of immigrants' legal status. When Congress first considered the tax cuts in 2001, McCain said in a May 26, 2001, floor statement that he opposed the bill because "so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us, at the expense of middle class Americans who most need tax relief." And in 2003, McCain voted against legislation to accelerate the tax reductions enacted in the 2001 bill and to cut taxes on dividends and capital gains. Yet in 2006, McCain voted for the bill extending the 2003 tax cuts. When asked during the April 2, 2006, broadcast of NBC's Meet the Press why he changed his mind on Bush's tax cuts, McCain replied: "I do not believe in tax increases. ... The tax cuts are now there, and voting to revoke them would have been to -- not to extend them would have meant a tax increase." Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform -- who the USA Today editorial quoted criticizing McCain -- reportedly said at the time: "It's a big flip-flop, but I'm happy that he's flopped." A press release on McCain's campaign website states, "John McCain will make the Bush income and investment tax cuts permanent, keeping income tax rates at their current level." On immigration, while McCain originally called for a policy that both strengthened border security and established a guest-worker program or a path to citizenship, he now supports improving border security before addressing the issue of immigrants' legal status. Indeed, a November 3, 2007, Associated Press article about McCain's "approach" to immigration quoted McCain as saying he "understand[s] why you would call it a, quote, shift": John McCain spent months earlier this year arguing that the United States must combine border security efforts with a temporary worker program and an eventual path to citizenship for many illegal immigrants. Now, the Republican presidential candidate emphasizes securing the borders first. The rest, he says, is still needed but will have to come later. "I understand why you would call it a, quote, shift," McCain told reporters Saturday after voters questioned him on his position during back-to-back appearances in this early voting state. "I say it is a lesson learned about what the American people's priorities are. And their priority is to secure the borders." The shift in approach is likely to draw criticism from McCain's GOP opponents. Immigration has been a flash point in the race, with rivals Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson all seizing on it. McCain, who has led on the issue in the Senate with Democrat Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, got a wake-up call of sorts in June when Congress again failed to enact a broad immigration proposal that he championed and that split the country. The measure also exposed deep divisions within the Republican Party, and McCain's high-profile support for it hurt him politically. During debate on the issue as spring turned into summer, the Arizona senator saw his poll numbers in some early primary states slip and his fundraising wane. Early in the year, McCain told Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina voters the country must take a comprehensive approach strengthening the borders as well as creating a temporary worker program and providing millions of illegal immigrants the opportunity to earn citizenship if they meet certain criteria. Over the past few months, he has stressed border security first and said border-state governors should certify their borders are secure before making other needed immigration changes. McCain said he listened to what the public was saying when the legislation failed -- and responded accordingly. "I said, OK. We'll secure the borders, but after we secure the borders, we'll have a temporary worker program, we'll have to address the 12 million people here illegally, and I think the best way is the proposal that we had," McCain said. "It's not a switch in position. I support the same solution. But we've got to secure the borders first," he added. From the January 24 USA Today article: What do Mike Huckabee, John McCain, Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani have in common? Not all that much. The first three have won a major state contest in the race for the Republican presidential nomination this year, and Giuliani hopes to join their ranks with a victory in Florida next week. Beyond that, there are significant differences in their résumés and political appeal - and that signals a crossroads ahead for the GOP. Huckabee is a personable former Southern Baptist preacher with a conservative Christian flock, McCain a maverick senator from the West with military credentials, Mitt Romney a can-do Northeastern businessman and Giuliani a tough-talking New Yorker who has been a prosecutor and mayor. [...] McCain's military background and staunch support of the war in Iraq has earned him formidable support among voters focused on national security. His willingness to stake out maverick views also makes him popular with the independents who typically decide politically divided states. His favorable rating among independents in a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll this month was 59%, better than any of his Republican rivals and 9 percentage points higher than Clinton. If McCain were the nominee, Rothenberg says his appeal to independents might give the GOP a shot at winning California - the nation's biggest electoral-vote prize and a state Democrats have carried since 1992. A McCain coalition would include conservatives and suburban independents, and his work on immigration could help him among Hispanics, the nation's fastest-growing minority group. But those same maverick stands, including votes against Bush's tax cuts in 2001 and support of campaign-finance limits, have cost the Arizona senator within the GOP. So has his sponsorship last year of an immigration bill that included a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants in this country. In New Hampshire, McCain's clear victory was because of independents; he and Romney split Republicans. "There are such bitter feelings about him because of a whole number of issues - I can't tell you the number of people who have said to me, 'If he's the nominee, I'll walk,' " Weyrich says. Count Weyrich among them: If McCain is nominated, he says, he'd probably support a third-party candidate. From the January 24 USA Today editorial: With Fred Thompson out, Sen. John McCain might well be the most consistent conservative left among the major presidential contenders. Unlike former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani or former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, McCain has never taken liberal positions on abortion or gay rights. And unlike former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, he is no economic populist. Yet, of all the GOP candidates, McCain comes in for the most visceral criticism from fellow Republicans. Among his many critics are former House majority leader Tom DeLay, who says McCain "has done more to hurt the Republican Party than any elected official I know of," and radio host Rush Limbaugh, who says a McCain or Huckabee nomination would destroy the party. McCain has been called a turncoat, a traitor and - by party operative Grover Norquist - "the nut-job from Arizona." McCain's chief sin, apparently, is that he has broken ranks on issues that include campaign finance, President Bush's tax cuts, illegal immigration and global warming. With the possible exception of immigration, these are not deal-breakers with rank-and-file conservative voters. Yet they are treason to an old guard of loyalty enforcers whose power appears to be ebbing. Their criticisms strongly suggest that as the party goes through what looks to be a moment of transition, it might benefit from some new blood among its operatives and ideologues. McCain may or may not be the right choice for Republicans this year. But the attacks on him are hardly an appeal to core conservative values. They are rather a defense of professional partisanship, and the interests of people whose influence is predicated on it. DeLay and Norquist were key players in a machine that helped bring about the biggest expansion in government since the New Deal, made self-preservation the overarching ideology of GOP lawmakers and helped take the party to new lows of corruption. As for those in the business of conservative talk and opinion, they have thrived for years on their ability to neatly divide the world into good and evil. A McCain presidency would certainly muddy their picture. But that is happening anyway as the result of growing fissures within the party. McCain fits well into a party shaped in recent years by Ronald Reagan. He espouses a strong defense, limited government and conservative social values. And, like Reagan, he is willing to work with Democrats on matters that don't undermine these core principles. The more salient question is where McCain's harshest critics fit.

Union calls for Kwame to step down

Union calls for Detroit mayor to resign Municipal Workers Union Calls for Detroit Mayor to Resign After Text Messages Reveal Affair COREY WILLIAMSAP News Jan 25, 2008 10:08 EST A union on Friday called for Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick to resign amid reports that he exchanged steamy text messages referring to sexual trysts between him and a top aide. John Riehl, president of American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Local 207, said the union wants the mayor to step down right away. It has 900 members and represents workers in the city's water and public lighting departments. "He's compromised the public trust," Riehl said. "Nobody can believe a single thing he says from now on." The scandal also could result in perjury charges. The county prosecutor scheduled a press conference Friday regarding Kilpatrick and his chief of staff, Christine Beatty. Kilpatrick and Beatty testified last summer in a police whistle-blower lawsuit and denied any sexual or romantic ties in 2002 and 2003. But the Detroit Free Press examined about 14,000 text messages on Beatty's city-issued pager from those years that tell a different story. They reveal the two carried on a flirty, sometimes sexually explicit dialogue about where to meet and how to conceal their numerous trysts. "I'm madly in love with you," Kilpatrick wrote on Oct. 3, 2002. "I hope you feel that way for a long time," Beatty replied. "In case you haven't noticed, I am madly in love with you, too!" On Oct. 16, 2002, Kilpatrick wrote Beatty: "I've been dreaming all day about having you all to myself for 3 days. Relaxing, laughing, talking, sleeping and making love." Kilpatrick is married with three children. Beatty was married at the time and has two children. A call seeking comment from Beatty was made Thursday evening, but her voicemail was full. The Free Press did not explain exactly how it obtained the messages. The newspaper said it cross-referenced the messages with the mayor's private calendar and credit card records to verify events in some of the notes. A county jury awarded $6.5 million to the two officers in the lawsuit against the city and Kilpatrick. The jury said Kilpatrick and the city unlawfully dismissed two officers, who claimed they suffered after investigating allegations of wrongdoing within Kilpatrick's security unit. The events happened in Kilpatrick's first four-year term. He was elected to a second term in November 2005. On Thursday, mayoral spokesman James Canning said in a statement that Kilpatrick and his family were returning from Florida "and plan to continue their private time for the next several days."

A political Dream Team: Clinton-Obama ticket?

Campaign cochair says Clinton-Obama ticket is possibility January 25, 2008 By CHRIS CHRISTOFF FREE PRESS LANSING BUREAU EAST LANSING – A Clinton-Obama presidential ticket for Democrats? It’s possible, said Joel Ferguson, a cochair for Hillary Clinton’s Michigan campaign. Ferguson said Clinton’s Democratic rival Barack Obama has appeal among young voters – especially young African Americans – that would make him a potent vote-getter as a vice presidential running mate. “There’s a shot at that happening,” he said after taping public television’s weekly show, “Off the Record.” Ferguson, a Michigan State University trustee and wealthy developer, said if Clinton wins the Democratic nomination, she will ultimately have the black vote behind her in the November election. But that may not be true among young, first-time voters, he said. If polling shows Obama continues to build support among young voters who otherwise would not vote in November, he could be an attractive running mate. “There’s an excitement there,” said Ferguson, who orchestrated Jesse Jackson’s victory in Michigan’s 1988 Democratic presidential primary. Ferguson said Obama has managed to distance himself from Jackson and the Rev. Al Sharpton – a 2004 presidential candidate and controversial black figure – while gaining their quiet support. “As along as he keeps Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton in the closet, white folk don’t think he’s black,” Ferguson said of Obama. “He’s managed to be Tiger Woods and Oprah,” a reference to the golf superstar and Oprah Winfrey, both African Americans with popular appeal that transcends race. Ferguson also defended former President Bill Clinton’s active role in his wife’s campaign. Some Democrats have criticized the ex-president for attacking Obama on the campaign trail, but Ferguson said Clinton has raised legitimate questions about Obama’s record as an Illinois legislator and U.S. senator.“No one has said he (Clinton) hasn’t told the truth,” Ferguson said.

Worthy to investigate mayor, Beatty

Worthy to investigate mayor, Beatty She promises independent, fair probe into perjury allegations January 25, 2008 FREE PRESS STAFF Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy said her office will handle the investigation into possible perjury by Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick and his chief of staff Christine Beatty. “We will not be rushed by anyone or anything,” Worthy said. Beatty and Kilpatrick testified during a police whistle-blower lawsuit trial that they did not have a romantic relationship but text messages between the two obtained by the Detroit Free Press suggest otherwise.Kilpatrick and Beatty also both testified that they did not fire Gary Brown but text messages obtained indicate that they discussed their decision to fire Brown. The case has settled for $8.4 million and total costs for the case totaled out at more than $9 million.The Kilpatrick-Beatty relationship and the ouster of deputy police chief Brown were central to the whistle-blower suit filed by Brown and Harold Nelthrope, a former mayoral police bodyguard.The two accused Kilpatrick of retaliating against them because of their roles in an internal affairs investigation involving allegations of overtime fraud by members of the mayor's security team -- a probe that could have potentially exposed the affair.

Fred Thompson drops out

Fred Thompson quits presidential race January 22, 2008 By DAVID ESPO ASSOCIATED PRESS NAPLES, Fla. — Former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson quit the Republican presidential race on Tuesday, after a string of poor finishes in early primary and caucus states. “Today, I have withdrawn my candidacy for president of the United States. I hope that my country and my party have benefited from our having made this effort,” Thompson said in a statement. AdvertisementThompson’s fate was sealed last Saturday in the South Carolina primary, when he finished third in a state that he had said he needed to win. In the statement, Thompson did not say whether he would endorse any of his former rivals. He was one of a handful of members of Congress who supported Arizona Sen. John McCain in 2000 in his unsuccessful race against George W. Bush for the party nomination. The actor-politician best known as the gruff district attorney on NBC’s “Law & Order” placed third in Iowa and South Carolina, two states seemingly in line with his right-leaning pitch and laid-back style, and fared even worse in the four other states that have held contests thus far. Money already tight, he ran out of it altogether as the losses piled up. Thompson departs the most wide open Republican race in half a century; three candidates each having won in the six states that have voted. In Florida, McCain, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani are battling for the lead ahead of its Jan. 29 primary, while former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee evaluates his next steps amid money troubles of his own.

More bad news for Rudy, firefighters: Rudy ran on 9.11

Note: if you want to watch the video go to the link. Firefighter: Giuliani 'ran like a coward on 9/11' David Edwards and Adam DosterPublished: Tuesday January 22, 2008 del.icio.us Families of firefighters killed in the Sept. 11 terror attacks on the World Trade Center rallied in Orlando Tuesday in anticipation of the state's upcoming Republican primary. Unfortunately for Presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani, the firefighters are not in his corner. "We want America to know that [the Giuliani campaign] is lying to America and to the American pubic," said Jim Riches, a deputy chief in the New York Fire Department, "telling all of Florida that the New York City Fire Department backs him, when that's another lie." Firefighters and their families vowed to dog the former New York mayor at all of his Florida campaign stops because the state figures prominently in Giuliani's big-state primary strategy. The protesters think that Giuliani was aware that firefighters who responded to the World Trade Center attack were carrying defective radios and did not hear the order to evacuate. "He didn't prepare us before, during, or after," says Riches. Giuliani has campaigned strongly on his leadership during the attacks on New York, claiming he is the best suited to prevent an "Islamic terrorist war against us." But the firefighters were quick to question that courage. "Yeah, the decision he made was, which direction he was going to run," says Riches. "And he ran north, and that's all he did." The Giuliani campaign labeled the display a misleading, partisan attack. The former mayor is also emphasizing his ability to deal with the economy, distancing himself from the 9/11 pitch. This video is from CNN.com, broadcast January 22, 2008.

Ron Paul attends anti abortion rally

Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul joined a Tuesday Washington, DC protest of the Supreme Court decision that paved the way for legal abortions in the United States. The anti-war and pro-liberty candidate showed that pro-life positions were also a central part of his political agenda in an address before the 2008 "March For Life." "The Constitution protects all life," Paul declared at the rally, as shown in a video posted at the website YouTube. "Unless we resolve this tremendous moral dilemma, just think, today, a baby, one minute before life, deserves protection, and one minute after life, we still pretend it's called murder." As thousands marched in Washington, the candidate also picked up an endorsement from Norma McCorvey, also known as Jane Roe from the Roe v. Wade decision. "I support Ron Paul for president because we share the same goal, that of overturning Roe v. Wade," McCorvey said in a statement. "He has never wavered on the issue of being pro-life and has a voting record to prove it." The endorsement picked up mix reactions from Paul's supporters, many of whom have been drawn to the candidate because of his positions against the Iraq War and in favor of civil liberties. "What's so great about this endorsement? She a ** up person," wrote a commenter at the Ron Paul Forums. But other Paul supporters embraced the endorsement head on. "Let's hope this brings us lots of votes from the pro-life movement!" wrote another participant on the same website. A partial video of Paul's campaign appearance is included below. MLC comment: I wonder how will Paul supporters spin this, I got into it with a Paul supporter telling him other than being anti war why would I support him? He's anti civil rights and he's anti women rights so why in the hell would i vote for him? And the dude couldn't give me a logical reason why after that.

Study says Bush lied hundreds of times, I'm shocked

Study: Bush, Other Officials Issued Hundreds of False Statements Before Iraq Invasion DOUGLASS K. DANIELAP News Jan 22, 2008 23:13 EST A study by two nonprofit journalism organizations found that President Bush and top administration officials issued hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks. The study concluded that the statements "were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses." The study was posted Tuesday on the Web site of the Center for Public Integrity, which worked with the Fund for Independence in Journalism. White House spokesman Scott Stanzel did not comment on the merits of the study Tuesday night but reiterated the administration's position that the world community viewed Iraq's leader, Saddam Hussein, as a threat. "The actions taken in 2003 were based on the collective judgment of intelligence agencies around the world," Stanzel said. The study counted 935 false statements in the two-year period. It found that in speeches, briefings, interviews and other venues, Bush and administration officials stated unequivocally on at least 532 occasions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or was trying to produce or obtain them or had links to al-Qaida or both. "It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to al-Qaida," according to Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith of the Fund for Independence in Journalism staff members, writing an overview of the study. "In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003." Named in the study along with Bush were top officials of the administration during the period studied: Vice President Dick Cheney, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and White House press secretaries Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan. Bush led with 259 false statements, 231 about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 28 about Iraq's links to al-Qaida, the study found. That was second only to Powell's 244 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 10 about Iraq and al-Qaida. The center said the study was based on a database created with public statements over the two years beginning on Sept. 11, 2001, and information from more than 25 government reports, books, articles, speeches and interviews. "The cumulative effect of these false statements — amplified by thousands of news stories and broadcasts — was massive, with the media coverage creating an almost impenetrable din for several critical months in the run-up to war," the study concluded. "Some journalists — indeed, even some entire news organizations — have since acknowledged that their coverage during those prewar months was far too deferential and uncritical. These mea culpas notwithstanding, much of the wall-to-wall media coverage provided additional, 'independent' validation of the Bush administration's false statements about Iraq," it said. ___ On the Net: Center For Public Integrity: http://www.publicintegrity.org/default.aspx Fund For Independence in Journalism: http://www.tfij.org/

Mich. may benefit from urgent need to fend off a recession in U.S.

Mich. may benefit from urgent need to fend off a recession in U.S. January 22, 2008 By TODD SPANGLER FREE PRESS WASHINGTON STAFF WASHINGTON – With the White House and Congress primed to prop up a sagging national economy, Michiganders struggling with joblessness, plant closures and falling home values could be on the receiving end of targeted relief measures lawmakers began bandying about today. During an eventful day that saw a key interest rate trimmed by three-quarters of a percentage point and President George W. Bush summon Democratic and Republican leaders of Congress to huddle on the economy, the head of the Congressional Budget Office told a Senate committee Tuesday that tax rebates may move too slowly to be effective. AdvertisementInstead, measures including an extension of unemployment benefits and increased availability of food stamps may provide more immediate relief for the economy, CBO Director Peter Orszag told the Senate Finance Committee. Those are also moves that could specifically aid Michigan – and other states where the still-threatening recession has apparently already taken hold. Aiding those states, where people lack money and are ready to spend, not save, could have the deepest impact on the economy. “He was really targeting states that have economic problems like Michigan and individuals who have lost their jobs,” said Sen. Debbie Stabenow, a Michigan Democrat who serves on the committee. Stabenow and some other members of Michigan’s delegation want Congress to consider a host of alternatives and state officials are pushing their own agenda, with the nation’s governors expected to reach some sort of consensus as well. For Michigan, the key ingredients are expanded unemployment benefits, not to mention additional help paying Medicaid costs – two items that could be of particular help in a state with high joblessness like Michigan, where the 7.6% unemployment rate in December led the nation. There is no doubt that, in an election year, the nation’s financial woes are going to get plenty of attention and that competition between relief measures will be fierce. Already, there has been talk of limiting tax rebates to individuals and families who pay taxes – not earners making so little they avoid federal taxes. On the other hand, experts say those lower income earners are more likely to spend and therefore push the economy. “The more you target lower income families, the bigger the bang you get for your buck,” said Orszag, whose agency provides nonpartisan analysis to Congress. Michigan’s economic troubles, to be sure, are not the driving concern behind the sudden moves by the Bush administration and Congress to address the economy. A national economy that appears to be on the brink of recession – fueled in part by a national housing crisis felt for years now in Michigan – has resulted in worries of a global slowdown and battling programs for spurring U.S. markets. One measure mentioned on several fronts has been tax rebate checks – one report suggests Bush could propose as much as $800 for an individual and $1,600 for a family. And, on Tuesday, Senate Finance Committee Max Baucus, a Montana Democrat, suggested rebates of $400 per person, including children – a proposal which would help families. In a presidential election year, those could prove tempting choices. But Orszag said that while such a program would most likely help the economy, the reality is that it would take months to issue those checks, with the first not going out until May. That could help create spending in the second half of the year – not the first, when it’s needed. And if the economy has found its footing by then, the checks could serve to push prices higher as the market is flush with cash, he said. More effective measures would come “the sooner, the better,” said Orszag, “and the more that can be delivered during the first half of 2008, the better.” In Michigan, money to extend unemployment benefits would help people whose benefits have already run out or soon will. Typically an out-of-work individual can’t collect benefits more than 26 weeks a year. About 383,000 people were unemployed in Michigan in December. Stabenow also said there might be other ways of putting money in people’s pockets more directly, perhaps by having the government pick up payroll taxes such as Social Security withholding. Rep. Candice Miller, a Harrison Township Republican, said she believes tax rebates aimed at lower- and middle-income wage earners will spark the economy and is also in favor of extending unemployment benefits and other moves. She’d also like to see more money freed up for bridges and roads. She knows it’s not being done specifically for Michigan and “we have to take what we can get.” “But what we can get is pretty good,” she said. Miller added that she’s been pushing for years to get unemployment benefits extended for people in need, and she’d get the response from other members of her party on Capitol Hill, “For who?” “You’d try to explain to them how bad it was in Michigan,” she said.

Rushbo not liking the GOP choices for president

Do Limbaugh's followers share his despair for the GOP? Muriel KanePublished: Tuesday January 22, 2008

Conservative talk radio pundit Rush Limbaugh has been finding it easier to identify candidates he dislikes in the Republican presidential primaries than anyone he might support. Some analysts even believe that Mike Huckabee's disappointing third-place finish in the Michigan primary was a result of Limbaugh's constant claims that Huckabee is not a true conservative and that his nomination could destroy the Republican Party. Now Limbaugh has gone a step further, telling his listeners that he's not too fond of McCain either and that "I can see possibly not supporting a Republican nominee" because "you don't have a genuine down-the-list conservative." A political blog at the Los Angeles Times found reason for merriment in Limbaugh's admission. Blogger Andrew Malcolm wrote, "Across the country, people were dropping their coffee cups, choking on sandwiches, fainting and driving off the road. The king of conservative talk-radio not supporting the Republican nominee? ... 'And I never thought that I would say that in my life. This stuff is very tough.' No kidding. Who'd a thought? It's tough enough just listening to him go through this, let alone live it like he is." However, Limbaugh's actual followers seemed far less fazed by his confession than liberals might have imagined. One conservative blogger wrote approvingly of Limbaugh's position, saying, "It’s heartening to know that such a prominent conservative is willing to stand on principle and not act as a cheerleader for whoever the eventual GOP nominee is. A pro-Romney blogger agreed with Limbaugh that both McCain and Huckabee "are trying to redefine Republican and Conservatism" and was delighted by Limbaugh's statement that "it's easier for me to support a Romney than a McCain, for example. Because I believe his conversion is genuine." Even a blogger who took issue with Limbaugh's position did so in temperate terms, merely complaining that "One doesn’t have to pretend Romney or McCain or whomever is the second coming of Ronald Reagan to decide you’d rather have him running the executive branch than Hillary Clinton." Limbaugh himself was not enthusiastic about any of the Republican candidates, even Romney, concluding that "it's going to come down to which guy do we dislike the least."

Across Michigan, light turnout and some upset voters

Across Michigan, light turnout and some upset voters January 15, 2008 By JOHN WISELY and KATHLEEN GRAY FREE PRESS STAFF WRITERS Around metro Detroit and across the state, turnout has been so low for the presidential primary that some clerks predict the majority of votes will come from absentee ballots. Clerks say snowy weather and a non-race on the Democratic side have kept numbers down. AdvertisementIn Detroit, about 20,000 people had voted at polling places around the city by mid-afternoon. An additional 23,000 absentee ballots were cast by Election Day, said city Elections Director Daniel Baxter. That represents less than 10% of the voters in the city, he said. “With the snow and in January, it’s still really dark out at 7 a.m., so maybe we’ll get 15 to 20%.” Voters weren’t complaining about not being able to write in their favorite Democratic candidate because two of the front-runners — Barack Obama and John Edwards — withdrew their names from the ballot. But several were upset about having to ask for a political party-specific ballot, which would identify if they had voted Republican or Democratic. “Some voters thought that was unconstitutional,” Baxter said. “And they ended up voting under protest.” In Troy, where about 54,000 residents are registered to vote, morning turnout was light. City Clerk Tonni Bartholomew estimated about 3,400 voters went to the polls by noon. Another 5,100 people vote absentee, she said. “I expected turnout to be higher,” Bartholomew said. “But the phone has been ringing a lot so maybe we get a dinner rush.” By 2 p.m., 6,702 Livonia residents had cast ballots, about 9.3% of the city’s 72,000 registered voters, according to the city clerk’s office. Officials expect final turnout to be above 15% of registered voters. Outstate precincts reported similar low turnouts. “It’s probably going to be something like a school board election,” said Inez Brown, clerk in heavily Democratic Flint. Brown said the equipment in Flint’s 61 precincts has worked properly and voters seem to understand that the not all the candidates are on the Democratic ballot. “So far everything has gone pretty smoothly,” Brown said. In heavily Republican Ottawa county in western Michigan, heavy snow fell throughout the morning, said Anna Perales, acting deputy city clerk in Holland. “We had a blizzardy morning,” Perales said. “It was very slow at the polls. The majority is going to be by absentee vote.”

LIEberman asks MI Dems and Independents

Lieberman Asks Dems and Independents To Vote McCain January 15, 2008 3:15 PMLauren Effron--> ABC News' Bret Hovell Reports: Sen. Joseph Lieberman called on Michigan's Independents and Democrats on Tuesday to come out and vote for Sen. John McCain in the Republican primary, saying he is convinced that McCain will "become our next great American president." "I urge them to come out today and stand for a man who is a great American patriot," Lieberman said at a joint town hall meeting with McCain in Ann Arbor, Mich. "There's no competitive Democratic primary," Lieberman added. "I know there's some other moderate and conservative Democrats like myself." Lieberman, an Independent Democratic senator from Connecticut, crossed party lines to endorsed McCain, R-Ariz., for president last month. He has appeared on the trail with McCain, and occasionally spoken in his place. Michigan's primary - underway Tuesday - is open, meaning it allows voters to pick which ballot – Republican or Democrat – they wish to use. The frontrunners for the Democratic primary are not competing here in the Great Lakes state. Lieberman and McCain share an ideological kinship on the issue of the Iraq war, and have traveled to Iraq together on congressional delegation trips. McCain's rival for the Republican nomination, former Governor Mitt Romney, R-Mass., suggested Tuesday that if McCain wins in Michigan, it will be because of the crossover votes from non-Republicans. "Many people predicted that in New Hampshire we wouldn't get the majority of the Republican vote. We did," McCain responded to reporters. If [Independents and Democrats] all turn out for us, then I think that's a signal that we can do well in the general election." McCain was also asked if Lieberman might be a potential running mate for him if he were to win the nomination. "I think it would be very presumptuous of me having won one primary to be discussing running mates," McCain said. "Now I'll admit to a massive ego, but not quite that massive."

Clinton’s Message, and Moment, Won the Day

Clinton’s Message, and Moment, Won the Day By PATRICK HEALY At first, the moment seemed like a disaster: The televised images of the teary-eyed exchange Hillary Rodham Clinton had with a New Hampshire voter about the rigors of the campaign caused her advisers to express fears that it would badly undercut her message of strength and experience. Some advisers were so concerned that they did not e-mail video of the Monday incident to Clinton supporters, as they usually do when Senator Clinton makes positive news. “We have absolutely no idea how her getting this emotional will play with voters,” one adviser said. It turned out to play phenomenally well, one of several turning points during Mrs. Clinton’s five-day sprint in New Hampshire after the Iowa caucuses that transformed the dynamic of her race against Senator Barack Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination. Women, in particular, responded: Several said they chose to vote for Mrs. Clinton at the last moment because she had shown a human side of herself that they had never seen. “At first, I thought it was bad that she cried, but then I thought she is a woman, give her a chance,” said Diane Fischel, a tailor and a grandmother, who cited the emotional display for deciding to vote for Mrs. Clinton in the Democratic primary instead of for Senator John McCain on the Republican side. Based on interviews with a dozen New Hampshire voters, a review of surveys of voters leaving the polls, and revelations from Clinton advisers about their own surveys there, it is clear that Mrs. Clinton’s remarkable turnaround after her loss to Mr. Obama in Iowa occurred because of several key moments — some planned, some not. She also won support by sharpening her message of experience into concrete terms, casting herself as a doer competing against Mr. Obama’s image as an eloquent talker. Among the pivots from Iowa, where Mrs. Clinton came in third, was her decision to take question after question from voters at her New Hampshire events, a break from her past appearances. Several female voters interviewed this week said it showed grit. In Iowa, she devoted far more time to acting like a celebrity on the rope lines, shaking hands and taking pictures with voters, because some of her advisers believed that Iowans wanted those up-close encounters. Former President Bill Clinton also campaigned steadily for her in New Hampshire and fine-tuned his stump speech from Iowa to focus on her accomplishments. Mr. Clinton also made a rare, angry attack on Mr. Obama at a campaign stop on Monday; aides say the attack was not planned. According to a survey of voters leaving the polls Tuesday, Mr. Clinton was viewed favorably by 83 percent of Democrats, while 49 percent had a very favorable opinion of him. Of the latter group, Mrs. Clinton got a majority of their votes. It also appeared, based on that exit poll, by Edison/Mitofsky for the television networks and The Associated Press, that Mrs. Clinton’s argument that she is the most experienced Democrat in the field — contributed to her victory. She was backed by 71 percent of Democratic voters in New Hampshire for whom experience was the most important quality; these voters made up 19 percent of those surveyed. And Mrs. Clinton’s performance in a televised debate on Saturday drew some very positive reviews from voters — especially her reply to the question of why many voters did not find her likable. “Well, that hurts my feelings,” she said, “but I’ll try to go on. I don’t think I’m that bad.” Mr. Obama, who had been trading attacks with Mrs. Clinton in the debate, followed her comment by saying, “You’re likable enough, Hillary” — a remark that some voters said was less than gracious. Michelle Evans, a New Hampshire Democrat and stay-at-home mother, said Mrs. Clinton handled the likability question well. “I believe in her,” Ms. Evans said. “I think she is a likable candidate.” Ms. Evans’s friend, Kerri Christopher, a Democrat who works in marketing and has three young children, added that Mrs. Clinton “exhibits lots of compassion that Obama didn’t.” In an interview on NBC’s “Today” show on Wednesday morning, Mrs. Clinton cited the Saturday debate as the turning point for her candidacy in New Hampshire. “It was the first time that the leading candidates actually were asked some very pointed questions about what we stand for, what we’ve done to help other people, what our accomplishments are and what we want to do for the future,” she said. Mr. Obama, who narrowly lost to Mrs. Clinton, also showed strength among the 54 percent of Democratic primary voters who believed that the ability to bring about change was the most important quality. He drew support from 55 percent of them, compared with 28 percent for Mrs. Clinton. “I want something new and fresh, I want someone we can believe in like we believed in Kennedy,” said Estelle Glover, 57, an office manager whose son just returned from a tour of duty in Iraq. “He didn’t let us down, and I don’t think Obama is going to let us down.” Mrs. Clinton’s advisers are now asking themselves how much of her strategy and message over the next four weeks should center on her personality and emotions, and how much on her ideas and track record. Advisers say that new television advertising and fund-raising solicitations will try to underscore her warmer side, as shown in one e-mail message to donors on Wednesday. “In the days ahead, you and I have to keep speaking from the heart,” Mrs. Clinton wrote in the pitch — a sentence rendered in bold in the e-mail message. Still, advisers said that Mrs. Clinton would not be comfortable emoting on cue on the campaign trail. “She can’t just keep crying,” one campaign adviser said. (Mrs. Clinton’s eyes welled up with tears, but she did not cry, at the New Hampshire event on Monday; her aides said it was because of a combination of frustration, fatigue, and emotion.) At the same time, the public reaction to that emotional moment has served as a sharp reminder to Mrs. Clinton and her advisers that voters respond to a candidate’s human touch. Mr. Obama is Example A: His eloquence, his easy manner with voters, and his ready sense of humor — he still sounds fresh when he makes his canned joke in his stump speech about being a distant cousin to Dick Cheney, after weeks of delivering it. On the eve of the New Hampshire primary and throughout Tuesday, strategists for Mr. Obama said they did not sense that voters — particularly women — in New Hampshire were taking a second look at the race. In their strategy room on Tuesday evening, they were thunderstruck. Their confidence had been mistakenly buoyed by not only the polls, but also the enormous crowds that met Mr. Obama at most stops. At the beginning of each campaign appearance, Mr. Obama would ask voters how many remained undecided. Often, one-third or one-half of those in his audience would raise their hands, a sign that advisers later conceded should have been regarded as ominous. And in hindsight, several associates said that Mr. Obama’s “you’re likable enough” at the Saturday debate only added to the perception that Mrs. Clinton was being double-teamed by Mr. Obama and another Democrat who was sharply criticizing her, John Edwards. Mr. Obama’s aides said they believe the criticism from the former president in the final days of the race also helped increase voter suspicions about his candidacy. Terry McAuliffe, chairman of the Clinton campaign, said on Wednesday that New Hampshire voters responded to Mrs. Clinton because they were able to see so many sides of her personality. “Our back was against the wall, but people got to see the real Hillary Clinton,” he said. “People saw the contrast of the records in the debate. The humanizing moment she had was a big deal. People know that she’ll deliver for them.”

Kerry endorses Obama

Former Dem nominee Kerry endorses Obama By NEDRA PICKLER and ANDREW MIGA, Associated Press Writers 23 minutes ago John Kerry, the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee, gave Barack Obama a timely endorsement Thursday, snubbing Hillary Rodham Clinton as well as his own vice presidential running mate. Kerry came to South Carolina to embrace Obama, two weeks before the state's primary and with Obama needing a boost after Clinton's emotional victory over him in New Hampshire. Quoting a black American hero in endorsing the man who hopes to be the first black president, Kerry told a cheering crowd, "Martin Luther King said that the time is always right to do what is right." Now is the time, Kerry said, to declare "that Barack Obama can be, will be and should be the next president of the United States." The Massachusetts senator said there were other candidates he had worked with and respected but Obama was best able to bring Americans together. "Who better than Barack Obama to turn a new page in American politics so that Democrat, independent and Republican alike can look to leadership that unites to find the common ground?" Kerry said. "That's what this is about." Former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, the third contender in the Democratic presidential race, was Kerry's vice presidential running mate in 2004. Despite their political alliance, the two men were not close personally and differed behind the scenes on campaign strategy in a race that President Bush won. Edwards responded to word of the endorsement with a diplomatic statement: "Our country and our party are stronger because of John's service, and I respect his decision. When we were running against each other and on the same ticket, John and I agreed on many issues." Edwards defeated Kerry in the 2004 South Carolina Democratic primary. Kerry had considered running again but decided a year ago he would not. Kerry dismissed Obama critics who say the Illinois senator lacks the experience to be president. And he took a swipe at Clinton, saying, "Some have suggested in this campaign that Barack is guilty of raising 'false hopes.' ... My friends, the only charge that rings false is the one that tells you not to hope for a better tomorrow." In a debate in New Hampshire, the New York senator said in comparing her ability and Obama's to fulfill pledges to bring about change: "I think it is clear that what we need is somebody who can deliver change. And we don't need to be raising the false hopes of our country about what can be delivered. The best way to know what change I will produce is to look at the changes that I've already made." Returning to the subject, Obama said when he took the microphone from Kerry: "In the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope." Obama supporters were hoping the timing of Kerry's endorsement could give him a lift as he seeks to put his New Hampshire primary loss behind him. Obama also picked up the endorsement of South Dakota Sen. Tim Johnson. Obama praised Kerry's Vietnam War service, calling him a patriot and a man of conviction. Kerry was Obama's political benefactor once before, selecting the relatively unknown Illinois senatorial candidate to deliver the keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention in Boston. It was Obama's first turn in the national spotlight and helped launch him on a remarkable ascent that has made him one of two leading contenders for the party's presidential nomination only four years later. Kerry had withheld his endorsement, hoping to have an impact on the race and avoid the fate of fellow Democrat Al Gore, the 2000 nominee who endorsed Howard Dean in 2004 shortly before the former Vermont governor's campaign imploded. Gore has made no endorsement so far this year. While Kerry has been close to Clinton's husband, the former president, he was incensed in 2006 when she chided him after Kerry suggested that people who don't go to school "get stuck in Iraq." Aides said Kerry meant to jab at Bush and say "get us stuck in Iraq," and that he didn't appreciate Clinton piling onto the criticism he was already getting for the remark. Kerry's own hopes to run for president this year fizzled with that botched comment. For many Democrats, his words revived bitter memories of his missteps in 2004. troop withdrawal deadlines. In another area, he has backed environmental causes, writing a book with his wife on the issue. Kerry should be able to provide some organizational and fundraising muscle to Obama. Since losing the 2004 race, Kerry has kept a national network of supporters intact. He has an e-mail network of 3 million supporters, according to aides. He also has traveled extensively raising millions of dollars for Democratic candidates nationwide. The Republican National Committee(who cares what the Republican have to says?) was dismissive about Thursday's endorsement, branding Kerry and Obama "liberal soul mates."

Chris Matthews: Democratic establishment will 'kill the fire of insurgency'

Chris Matthews: Democratic establishment will 'kill the fire of insurgency' David Edwards and Muriel KanePublished: Tuesday January 8, 2008 del.icio.us Chris Matthews appeared on MSNBC's Morning Joe on the morning of the New Hampshire primary to describe how he expects the Democratic Party establishment to destroy Barack Obama's candidacy and ensure the nomination for Hillary Clinton. "There's a battle in the Democratic Party between the idealists and the interest groups," Matthews began. "And in the beginning of every Democratic campaign for president, there's an idealist who comes forward ... and they do very well in the first offing. ... And then the interest groups get all called in, the meal tickets, all the people that get something out of the party are bussed in, trucked in from out of town ... and they blow away the idealist." "It has been done so many times," he continued. "Kill the fire of insurgency. And when that's killed, then you go back to the same old interest group politics." "Once in a while, someone comes along and shakes things up," Matthews acknowledged. "It's a phenomenal thing. And it's going on now. It'll go on through tonight. But at some time, it's going to be really challenged by the forces of the establishment, by the status quo, by the interest groups and the big-money contributors, and they're going to try to put this fire out." "They will find some way to counter this power. You watch it. It's scorched earth, but the establishment in American politics almost always wins. ... All the people around the Clintons ... are getting together to try to figure out how to stop this. These are pros, who win year after year. "They are under threat right now, because if Obama wins, they lose," Matthews went on, turning aside Scarborough's suggestions that this year the dynamics might be different. "If you think it's going to happen, then you are definitely a dreamer. Maybe I am too. But I've seen this dream die so many times." "They'll play on every heartstring. They'll make Hillary a more sympathetic figure," Matthews predicted, saying that between now and Super Tuesday on February 5, the newspapers will fall over themselves to give us "the new Hillary, the softer Hillary, the humble Hillary." "The fawning journalism is yet to come," concluded Matthews. "It's absolutely predictable. ... Oh, it's coming!" This video is from MSNBC's Morning Joe, broadcast January 8, 2008. (Go to the link for video) Note: sorry I've been lacking in recent updates due to finals and holiday rush too me away from blogging.

F.C.C relax media ownership

F.C.C. Eases Media Ownership Rule By STEPHEN LABATON WASHINGTON — By the narrowest of margins, the Federal Communications Commission adopted proposals by its chairman to tighten the reins on the cable television industry while loosening 32-year-old restrictions that have prevented a company from owning both a newspaper and a television or radio station in the same city. Last month the chairman, Kevin J. Martin, suffered a setback when he was unable to find two commissioners to support his proposal to more tightly regulate cable television. But in a highly contentious meeting on Tuesday, Mr. Martin re-established control when he became the pivotal vote on two rules that could significantly reshape the nation’s media landscape by determining the size and scope of the largest news and cable companies. In one 3-to-2 vote, he sided with the agency’s two other Republicans to relax the newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership rules in the 20 largest markets. As part of that order, the commission also granted dozens of permanent waivers of newspaper-broadcast combinations in large and small markets that had been given temporary waivers as they awaited the outcome of the rulemaking. In a second 3-to-2 vote, Mr. Martin joined with the two Democratic commissioners to impose a limit that would prevent the nation’s largest cable company, Comcast Communications, from growing much larger. Under that rule, no company can control more than 30 percent of the market. Analysts say that Comcast is close to that limit. Mr. Martin has said that a relaxation of the ownership rules was a modest, though vital step toward assisting the newspaper industry as it struggled financially as advertising and readership migrates rapidly to the Internet. He has been critical of the cable television industry for raising rates far greater than the rate of inflation and for failing to offer consumers enough choices in subscription packages. “We cannot ignore the fact the media marketplace is considerably different than when the media ownership rule was put in place more than 30 years ago,” he said of the newspaper-broadcast rule. The dissenting commissioners complained strongly about the outcome. Michael J. Copps, a Democratic commissioner who has led a nationwide effort against relaxing the media ownership rules, said the rule was nothing more than a big Christmas present to the largest conglomerates. “In the final analysis,” Mr. Copps said, “the real winners today are businesses that are in many cases quite healthy, and the real losers are going to be all of us who depend on the news media to learn what’s happening in our communities and to keep an eye on local government.” “Despite all the talk you may hear today about the threat to newspapers from the Internet and new technologies, today’s order actually deals with something quite old-fashioned,” Mr. Copps said. “Powerful companies are using political muscle to sneak through rule changes that let them profit at the expense of the public interest.” And Robert M. McDowell, a Republican commissioner, was sharply critical of the cable restrictions. “The cap is out of date, is bad public policy and is not needed in today’s public market,” he said. He called the cable rule “archaic industrial policy” that would surely be struck down by an appeals court, as an earlier rule was six years ago. Although Mr. Martin appears to have won a high-stakes battle within the commission over some of the most important proposals of his tenure, he has expended significant political capital and made political enemies of powerful industry groups and influential lawmakers. For opposite reasons, both proposals approved on Tuesday have been criticized by industry. The Newspaper Association of America has attacked the proposal for being too modest, and said that Mr. Martin did not go far enough. “Today’s vote is only a baby step in the actions needed to maintain the vitality of local news, in print and over-the-air, in all communities across the nation,” the president of the Newspaper Association, John F. Sturm, said. “Eliminating the cross-ownership ban completely would enhance localism by enabling broadcasters to increase local news and would not distract from the diversity of viewpoints available to local audiences.” The cable television industry has said it has repeatedly been an unfair target of Mr. Martin, and that his efforts to regulate the industry are at odds with the broader policies of the Bush administration to remove or lessen regulations. Over the last year, the commission has approved a series of proposals over the objections of the cable television industry, including one last December to force municipalities to accelerate the local approval process for the telephone companies to offer video services in new markets. Another one last October struck down thousands of contracts that gave individual cable companies exclusive rights to provide service to an apartment building. Consumer groups, which have long pushed for tighter cable television regulation, were split over the media ownership rules. Some were relieved that it did not go nearly as far as they had feared and that Mr. Martin tightened a loophole by making it more difficult for companies to get exemptions from the rules in smaller markets. Other groups were critical because they said the rule could open the door to further consolidation and a decline in the diversity of voices on the airwaves. Moreover, a significant chorus in Congress has been deeply critical of Mr. Martin and repeatedly requested that he delay action on the media ownership vote. Earlier this week, 25 senators led by Senator Byron Dorgan, Democrat of North Dakota, sent Mr. Martin a letter in which they vowed to take legislative action to revoke any new rule or nullify Tuesday’s vote. But the administration expressed support for Mr. Martin. In a significant victory for the newspaper and broadcast industries, Mr. Martin has signaled that he will not use the new rules to force any companies that already have waivers or exemptions to sell some assets. Some companies, including The New York Times Company, have been able to own both a newspaper and a radio station in the same market under permanent waivers because they held both properties before the restrictions were imposed in 1975. Others have been granted what are supposed to be temporary waivers while the agency considered how to rewrite the rules. Under Tuesday’s order, 42 newspaper-broadcast combinations that had previously been granted temporary or grandfathered exemptions will not be forced to sell any assets to comply with the new rule. Both the newspaper-broadcast ownership rule and the cable rule are certain to be reviewed by federal appeals courts. Three years ago, a federal appeals panel in Philadelphia struck down a series of deregulatory measures proposed by Mr. Martin’s predecessor, Michael K. Powell, including one that loosened the cross-ownership rules. The court said that the agency had the authority to relax the rules, and that it also had the authority to impose some limits on ability of a conglomerate to own both a newspaper and a television or radio station in the same city. But the judges also concluded that that the commission had not provided a reasoned analysis to support the limits that it chose. The court has continued to hold the case and asked the commission to report back to it once it reconsidered the rules. The cable concentration caps, as they are known, have long been the subject of debate and litigation at the commission. Six years ago a federal appeals court in Washington struck down a rule that was similar to the one adopted on Tuesday. The three-judge panel concluded that the commission had failed to provide an adequate justification to overcome the First Amendment rights of the cable companies. But commission officials said that they had provided a different justification for the new rule, which they hoped would pass court muster.

Mukasey hiding Plame papers???

Waxman to Atty Gen: Stop ignoring my requests for Plame info Nick JulianoPublished: Tuesday December 18, 2007 Recently appointed Attorney General Michael Mukasey seems not to be living up to his pledge to remain independent from White House meddling, and he apparently is ignoring a long-standing request for Justice Department documents regarding former CIA operative Valerie Plame's outing by former Bush administration figures, according to a top congressional Democrat. House Oversight Committee Chairman Henry Waxman on Tuesday reiterated his previous appeal to Mukasey for documents from Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation of the Plame leak. Waxman said that the attorney general has no reason to obstruct his committee's investigation, as Mukasey did last week with a congressional inquiry into the destruction of CIA interrogation tapes. Waxman noted that I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby -- the former aide to Vice President Dick Cheney who was convicted after Fitzgerald's investigation -- has dropped his appeal, and the Justice Department is not conducting any further investigations. Therefore, the California Democrat says, Mukasey has no excuse to continue withholding the documents. "Thus," he wrote in a letter to Mukasey, "I request that you provide the Committee by January 3, 2008, with the documents requested in the Committee’s July 16 letter to Mr. Fitzgerald, including the reports of interviews with President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and other White House officials." Responding to congressional requests for information on the CIA's destruction of videotapes showing harsh methods being used on waterboarding, Mukasey told lawmakers, essentially: Back off, we've got this one. The AG argued that attempts at congressional oversight could inhibit investigations being carried out within the CIA and Department of Justice. "In the Plame matter, there is no pending Justice Department investigation and no pending Justice Department litigation," Waxman reminded him. "Whatever the merits of the position you are taking in the CIA tapes inquiry, those considerations do not apply here." Libby was convicted of four felonies -- including obstruction of justice and perjury -- for his role in outing Plame then lying to investigators about how her name came to be funneled to several Washington journalists from within the Bush administration. President Bush commuted Libby's 30-month sentence before the former high-profile White House aide was shipped off to prison, and Libby has decided to stop appealing the conviction. Waxman's committee wants to know whether Libby was acting at the president's or vice president's behest when he outed Plame, whose name first appeared in a July 2003 Robert Novak column. The conservative columnist said he received the information from former undersecretary of state Richard Armitage and former White House political adviser Karl Rove. Several other journalists also said they learned the identity of Plame, whose husband Joseph Wilson was then criticizing the administration's false pre-war contention that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Libby was the only official convicted of criminal charges, and none were fired from their administration posts as a result of the leak.

While Clinton and Obama fight it out, Edwards sit back and watch

Edwards Takes Step Back as Two Others Slug It Out

By JULIE BOSMAN DES MOINES, Dec. 4 — As Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama exchanged frequent and increasingly personal jabs on the campaign trail this week, John Edwards found himself on the sidelines. And enjoying it. In Waterloo, Iowa, Mr. Edwards recounted the exchange by Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama on whether Mr. Obama had been pining to be president since kindergarten, as her campaign said when it referred to an essay that Mr. Obama supposedly wrote in kindergarten. Its title was “I Want to Become President.” “I have to confess,” Mr. Edwards said, “when I was in third grade, I wanted to be two things. I wanted to be a cowboy, and I wanted to be Superman.” The audience roared. In his second bid for the Democratic nomination for president, Mr. Edwards, a former senator from North Carolina, has used his carefully honed populist passion, attacking lobbyists, oil companies, drug companies and what he calls the corporate-minded Washington establishment. More notably, he has been showing flashes of anger and intensity as a campaigner, sharply criticizing Mrs. Clinton in debates and on the trail. But not this week. On a six-day swing through Iowa a month before the caucuses on Jan. 3, Mr. Edwards lightened up and reprised the role of the upbeat optimist he had in 2004, when he ran a close second in the caucuses. “Listen, I don’t think America benefits from any personal fighting between candidates,” he told reporters. “They don’t care about fighting between politicians.” That attitude was evident in the National Public Radio debate on Tuesday, when Mr. Edwards cited differences between himself and Mrs. Clinton. His measured touch was a clear break from his performance in a televised debate, when he turned virtually every question into an attack on Mrs. Clinton and when he sarcastically replied to a jab from Representative Dennis J. Kucinich of Ohio by muttering, “Cute, Dennis.” In the last week, he has rarely referred to Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama, except to poke fun at their sparring. On Sunday, he ducked the opportunity to join Mrs. Clinton in criticizing Mr. Obama’s campaign, which used a political action committee to spend money in early primary states. “I’m going to respectfully decline to get involved in that fracas between the two of them,” Mr. Edwards said. He has even doled out sugar-laden compliments to the Democratic field. “We have great people running for president on our side,” he told a crowd on Monday. In a television commercial that began running this week in New Hampshire, Mr. Edwards criticizes lobbyists in Washington, but not the other candidates by name. Privately, Mr. Edwards’s aides said he had no reason to involve himself in fights with Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama. Mr. Edwards has been stuck in third place for months, most Iowa polls report, showing no gains with his aggressive stance — and receiving criticism from voters, former supporters and others who disapprove of the angrier candidate. Iowans are particularly disdainful of candidates who resort to negative campaigns, as former Gov. Howard Dean of Vermont and Representative Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri learned in 2004. Iowa is crucial to Mr. Edwards’s efforts. His campaign is low on cash and relying on public financing, and he is even farther back in the polls in other early primary states like New Hampshire and South Carolina. Mr. Edwards’s aides would not acknowledge that their candidate was softening in response to polling or other specific criticism. But Mr. Edwards, in an interview between stops in Algona, Iowa, acknowledged that his failure to move up in the polls was on his mind. “I feel like we’re in a dead heat,” he said. “And we’ve been in a dead heat for months now.” He said he believed that Iowa voters, many of whom are still undecided, did not like personal attacks. “They’re looking for a president who’s positive,” Mr. Edwards said. His cease-fire has not extended to the White House. At numerous stops, he continued to attack President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, criticizing the response to Hurricane Katrina, its Iraq war position and its domestic surveillance, positions that cannot hurt him among Democrats here. “The Democrats can’t stand George Bush,” Mr. Edwards said. “Most of America can’t.” Some Iowans said they were tired of the mudslinging among candidates and appreciated a more positive take. “I think he’s wise not to get into a little catfight with the other candidates,” said Maureen White, an Edwards supporter who went to a forum on Monday in Waterloo. Her husband, Roger White, agreed, though he said he was torn between supporting Mr. Edwards or Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware. “We all get sick of it,” Mr. White said. “I think if the other two continue to bloody each other, the next tier of candidates will gain from that, whether it’s Biden, Richardson or Edwards.”

CNN: Seymour Hersh 'vindicated' by new Iran intel estimate

CNN: Seymour Hersh 'vindicated' by new Iran intel estimate David Edwards and Muriel Kane Reporter believes Cheney 'kept his foot on the neck of' report A new National Intelligence Estimate released on Monday indicates that 16 US intelligence agencies have concluded with a high level of confidence that Iran has not had an active nuclear weapons program since 2003 and that even if it resumed weapons development, it would be unlikely to obtain a nuclear bomb in less than 5 to 10 years. The NIE apparently came as a surprise to President Bush, who insisted at a news conference the next day that "I was made aware of the NIE last week. In August, I think it was, John – Mike McConnell – came in and said, 'We have some new information.' He didn't tell me what the information was. He did tell me it was going to take a while to analyze." However, the NIE was no surprise to veteran investigative reporter Seymour Hersh, who has been writing about it since November 2006. Hersh told CNN's Wolf Blitzer on Tuesday that he believes the White House deliberately kept the NIE bottled up for over a year because the vice president was dissatisfied with its conclusions. "At the time I wrote that, there was a tremendous fight about it, because Cheney ... did not want to hear this," Hersh recalled. "I think the vice-president has kept his foot on the neck of that report. ... The intelligence we learned about yesterday has been circulating inside this government at the highest levels for the last year -- and probably longer." As early as July 2006, Hersh had reported that the US military was resisting administration pressure for a bombing campaign in Iran, because "American and European intelligence agencies have not found specific evidence of clandestine activities or hidden facilities." By November 2006, Hersh's sources had told him of "a highly classified draft assessment by the C.I.A.," which concluded that satellite monitoring and sophisticated radiation-detection devices planted near Iranian facilities had turned up absolutely no evidence of a nuclear weapons program. However, Bush and Cheney were expected to try to keep those conclusions out of the forthcoming NIE on Iran's nuclear capabilities. As Hersh explained to Wolf Blitzer at the time, the White House was attempting to counter the CIA assessment with an Israeli claim, based on a "reliable agent," that Iran was working on a trigger for a nuclear device. "The CIA isn’t getting a good look at the Israeli intelligence." Hersh explained. "It’s the old word, stovepiping. It’s the President and the Vice President, it’s pretty much being kept in the White House." RAW STORY's Larisa Alexandrovna further reported in January 2007 that the NIE on Iran was intended to be released later that month, but that John Negroponte's was being replaced as Director of National Intelligence because he had refused to tailor the NIE to Vice President Cheney's specificiations. Despite feeling vindicated by the latest developments, Hersh warned Blitzer that the White House push for war with Iran is "still not over. ... There's always Israel." He explained that "the Israelis were very upset about the report. They think we're naive." However, Hersh was confident that there was very little chance the NIE could be mistaken, because "It's been four years since we've had any positive evidence of a parallel secret program to build a bomb -- and we've been all over the country." Hersh and Blitzer then recalled Hersh's past appearances on CNN -- including several long interviews discussing the Abu Ghraib scandal -- and how the White House would regularly accuse him of using "anonymous sorces" or just "throwing crap against the wall." Hersh concluded by emphasizing what a serious problem the NIE poses for Bush. "It's a lose-lose for them," he stated. "The fight I'm talking about began last year. ... This is going to pose a serious credibility problem. ... That's not what we pay the guy to do." However, Hersh's sources tell him that despite the NIE, Bush's negotiating position is still that the Iranians "have to stop everything ... destroy it. ... Inspectors have to come in that we pick. ... He's not saying that publicly, but that's the private standard." This video is from CNN's Situation Room, broadcast on December 4, 2007

Have GOP bloggers stopped whinning yet?

Republican bloggers need to grow up and stop their schoolyard whimpering. The incessant whining last week over the non-story about how some Democrats were allowed to ask Republican candidates legitimate questions during the CNN/YouTube debate was as revealing as it was embarrassing. When did Republican bloggers conclude that their candidates were so brittle and fragile that they had to be protected from unnecessary exposure to everyday citizens? Naturally, the bloggers' hatred of the press meant that the first cries of foul after the debate alleged that the "out of control" campaign of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) had been in cahoots with CNN and that the debate questions sprang from a vast liberal media conspiracy. (The charge, of course, was baseless.) It's all part of the bloggers' attempt to create a parallel universe of sorts, where their own facts don't have to collide with harsh reality. It's a world where inquisitive Democrats who submit video questions to candidates are denounced as "plants," part of an elaborate media scheme to derail Republicans. How, you ask? By posing legitimate, factual questions about the pressing issues of the day. That's what produced last week's shrieking, the-sky-is-falling hysteria across the right-wing blogosphere, with some even making childish demands of "A Do Over" and frantically waving petitions around, insisting that CNN executives be fired for their unpardonable sin. These GOP bloggers are so afraid of democracy that they spend their days and nights blaming the press for allowing it to take place. In fact, following the earlier Democratic debate hosted by CNN last month in Las Vegas, right-wing bloggers crowed about the "scandal" they had uncovered: CNN allowed Democrats in the audience to ask questions to Democratic candidates. More on that later. But where did this far-right fantasy spring from that only registered Republicans are allowed to ask Republicans questions at nationally televised debates? And that it's the media's fault if that precious bubble is penetrated? Sadly, some of the GOP candidates signed off on the parallel universe approach. In reference to the debate question posed by Retired Brig. Gen. Keith Kerr, who lent his name to the Clinton campaign and became one of nearly 50 co-chairs of Veterans and Military Retirees for Hillary, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) after the debate said, "I think that should have been made public if this individual was a member of another -- any other campaign, then people would, obviously, have a better way of judging the quality of the question." Here was Kerr's question: "I want to know why you think that American men and women in uniform are not professional enough to serve with gays and lesbians." Would McCain have dubbed the quality of that question to be inferior if he'd known Kerr had lent his support to a Democratic campaign? Then again, this debate season has been punctuated by the refusal of most Republican candidates to debate in front of black or Latino audiences, presumably because it would include too many non-Republicans; too many people who might be hostile to what the candidates say. And sure enough, on the eve of the CNN/YouTube debate, anxious online conservatives demanded to know how CNN executives would protect Republican candidates from having to answer questions from non-Republicans. And no, this is not just like the Democrats' decision to boycott Fox News debates earlier this year. That was never about the questions being asked, or the candidates being afraid of the Fox News crew. It was, in my mind, a brilliant, blogger-led initiative to de-brand Fox News, to publicly declare that the organization itself is not an independent news forum. Just as Democrats would never sanction the National Review or Rush Limbaugh to host one of their debates, there's no reason to let Fox News do the same. Of course, if Republicans want to boycott CNN or MSNBC by claiming that neither are legitimate news organizations, they're free do to so. I think it's telling that none of the candidates have tried to make that fanciful claim. The truth is that Democratic candidates have faced hundreds of debate questions to date and haven't waged media campaigns protesting the fact that not all the people who asked the questions were not knee-jerk supporters. (Progressives have, however, complained when some of the questions were factually inaccurate.) Frankly, I'd be embarrassed if Democratic candidates for the highest office in the land, or their staunch online supporters, ran around complaining that questions asked at a CNN debate were unfair based solely on the fact that the person posing them were not registered Democrats. In fact, as the Los Angeles Times reported last week, one of the questioners at the Democratic YouTube debate was an obvious Rudy Giuliani supporter. And it didn't take an Einstein to figure that out; it was postered on the questioner's MySpace page. Also, the query he posed to Clinton -- "How do you think you would be taken seriously" by Arab and Muslim nations that treat women as "second-class citizens"? -- made his political allegiance clear. But guess what? She simply answered the question and not a single supporter cried foul. Because that's how a democracy works. It was CNN itself that created a point of contention over the questions asked at the Democratic debate, by announcing prior to the GOP forum that it was going to weed out any Democratic gotcha-style questions prior to the Republicans' YouTube debate, despite its failure to extend the same courtesy to Democrats during their YouTube debate. But note that prior to realizing that several of the questioners at the CNN/YouTube debate had Democratic leanings, right-wing bloggers praised the event. At the Media Research Center's (MRC) NewsBusters site, Brad Wilmouth, immediately following the event, wrote approvingly that it "largely lived up to its promise to be a debate fitting for Republican voters as the vast majority of the questions used were asked from a conservative point of view." [Emphasis added.] And as blogger Steven Benen noted, Malkin herself conceded on Wednesday that "the questions were almost all coherent and well-framed." Meaning, nobody in real time was suggesting the questions themselves were out of bounds. To put the right-wing bloggers' media paranoia into perspective you have to go back to the previous Democratic debate, when conservatives online -- in a preview of last week's YouTube nonsense -- whipped themselves into a post-debate frenzy, claiming CNN had allowed Democrats in the audience of the Las Vegas debate to ask the Democratic candidates questions. I kid you not, and that deserves repeating: Following the debate, the MRC's NewsBusters site announced it had had uncovered a vast, liberal media conspiracy in which CNN allowed Democrats in the audience to ask questions at a Democratic debate. The NewsBusters crew and their friends online raised the red flag because during the debate CNN's host claimed the questions from the Las Vegas audience would be asked by "undecided voters." But after much digging, the online sleuths discovered one questioner had once served as an intern for a Democratic senator, another was in a labor union, and a third was a "prominent Muslim leader." Bloggers had no idea if the questioners were actually undecided voters or not. But because they were Democrats, or in a union, or Muslim, that meant they never should have been allowed to interact with Democratic candidates at a televised debate because they were "plants." Meaning, they were alleged Democratic voters who infiltrated the audience at a Democratic debate. After much digging, one conservative blogger announced: It can be said with certainty that at least the three people I mentioned here were NOT ordinary "undecided democratic voters", but rather people who were prepared and planted into the audience to ask these specific questions. Disclaimer: I am not making this stuff up. The conservative blogosphere was up in arms because some audience members had shown up at the Las Vegas debate "prepared" to ask "specific questions." Quickly falling into their media conspiracy mode, bloggers demanded to know how the plot had been coordinated and how many candidates knew in advance of the stealthy plan to have Democrats ask questions at a Democratic debate! (My guess? All of them knew.) The bloggers' next step was depressingly predictable; attack the citizens who asked the questions at the Las Vegas debate: So I popped her name into my Yahoo search engine to discover that Luisa is her middle name her full name is Maria Luisa Parra-Sandoval, and she worked in Harry Reid's office in Nevada and DC. (Picture on page 23) She was also invited as a guest on the floor off the 74th session of Nevada Legislature, by a man named Rubin Kihuen, he was elected in 2006 and a member of the Nevada Assembly Democrats. Upon further research and a tip from a commenter on another message board, it turns out that she came here illegally from Mexico as a child with her family, but since gained legal status, and has won scholarships to attend UNLV. If that doesn't creep you out, I don't know what will. A college student asked a question at a CNN presidential debate, and furious right-wing bloggers, hunting for proof of a liberal media bias, commenced with a cyber deep-dive and quickly posted unflattering information about the student's family. I'll say it again: GOP bloggers are so afraid of democracy that they spend their days and nights blaming the press for allowing it to take place.

Pete Hoeskstra named source of Joe Klein's FISA lies

Rep. Hoekstra Was Source Of Joe Klein’s FISA Lies, Decries ‘Paranoid,’ ‘Self-Absorbed’ ‘Far-Left Critics’ In Time Magazine last week, columnist Joe Klein baselessly claimed that Democrats’ proposed fix to FISA would require “every foreign-terrorist target’s calls to be approved by the FISA court.” Today, House Intelligence Committee member and “Bush loyalist” Pete Hoekstra (R-MI) revealed that he was a “source” for Klein’s error-filled column, and proudly defends Klein in a column titled “Klein Kerfluffle” in the National Review. In his original column, Klein insisted that Democrats’ legislation to provide constitutional protections for government surveillance of Americans, or the RESTORE Act, would require a court order to spy on foreign terrorists (Klein has since recanted these statements). In the column, Hoekstra insists that “Klein was correct in his original contention.” In reality, as the legislation clearly states: A court order is not required for electronic surveillance directed at the acquisition of the contents of any communication between persons that are not known to be United States persons . Klein ignorantly claimed the RESTORE Act “would give terrorists the same legal protections as Americans.” Hoekstra adds that Klein’s assertions are a “demonstratable fact.” Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ), a chief author of the RESTORE Act, countered that the legislation does exactly the opposite: This bill provides exactly what the Director of National Intelligence asked for earlier this year: it explicitly states that no court order is required to listen to the conversations of foreigners that happen to pass through the U.S. telecommunications system. It does not grant Constitutional rights to foreign terrorists. In his National Review piece, Hoekstra attacks progressive bloggers as “civil liberties extremists,” stating that a “belief that efforts to target al-Qaeda operatives in foreign countries” may involve U.S. citizens is evidence of “self-absorption” and “paranoia.” “The issue is not nor has it ever been about surveillance of Americans,” he alleges. But under the hastily-passed Protect America Act, there are “virtually no protections” for U.S. callers in international communications, leaving surveillance authority to the administration. In fact, 61 percent of voters favor court protections for surveillance of Americans. Marcy Wheeler notes that Hoekstra “is nuts, and very much in the business of creating propaganda.” And Joe Klein is willing to blindly publish whatever lies Hoekstra spews to him.

Biden to Bush: bomb Iran prepare for impeachment

Biden's warning to Bush: Bomb Iran and face impeachment David Edwards and Nick Juliano Sen. Joe Biden, the loquacious long-shot Democratic presidential candidate, warned President Bush Thursday that he would move for impeachment if the president unilaterally authorized a military strike against Iran. "The President has no authority to unilaterally attack Iran and ... if he does, as foreign relations committee chairman and former chairman of judiciary, I will move to impeach him," Biden told a crowd of about 100 potential voters at a campaign stop in New Hampshire. Biden said he is meeting with constitutional law experts and plans to send Bush a legal memo formally outlining his warning, according to Seacoast Online, which reported his comments. The senior Delaware senator told the crowd that calls for Bush's immediate impeachment were valid but may not have enough constitutional support to make them viable. He added that Bush wasn't the only White House figure who deserves to be booted. "If you're going to impeach George Bush, you better impeach Cheney first," Biden said, garnering applause from the crowd. On MSNBC's Morning Joe Friday, host Joe Scarborough, a former Republican congressman, criticized Biden's proposal. "It is so unfortunate, that this is how we campaign now, talking about impeachment," Scarborough said, "when you have [Iranian president Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad talking about obliterating Israel, talking about obliterating the United States, talking about building nuclear weapons, how we can't stop him. Saying just absolutely horrendous crazy things, sending Iranian forces into Iraq to kill American troops. "And Joe Biden, who I like and respect, talking on the campaign trail about impeaching a commander in chief because of a decision that he may make against a madman," he continued. "And everybody knows that Ahmadinejad is a madman, and that Iran is one of the most dangerous planets on Earth." One assumes Scarborough meant to say "most dangerous countries on Earth." This video is from MSNBC Morning Joe, broadcast on November 30, 2007.