david corn

david corn «     october 2007     s m t w t f s   1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31       recent entries meet the new boss/who's a celebrity in dc? rudy nabs a young bush opposites attract? republicans and tax-mongering: a spent force? soft balls (for clarence thomas); mud balls (for babies) blackwater: a metaphor at ease will he replace "alison" with "hillary"? cheney's respect for civil rhetoric gop pander-bears/ex-bush adviser acknowledges most americans don't share economic gains/return of the blogging heads articles david corn's capital games links pajamas media alternet antiwar.com bloggingheads.tv buzzflash daily kos eschaton huffington post marc cooper mother jones personal democracy forum salon slate the nation the progressive the village voice tompaine.com     october 19, 2007 meet the new boss/who's a celebrity in dc? during the second day of his confirmation hearings, michael mukasey, george w. bush's pick to be attorney general, defended some of bush administration's more controversial moves, such as using so-called "enhanced" interrogation techniques for terrorism suspects (a.k.a. torture) and eavesdropping without a warrant. regarding the controversial warrantless eavesdropping program, mukasey said on thursday that bush might have acted within his constitutional powers when he authorized warrantless surveillance even though federal law required a warrant. in making this argument, mukasey testified, the president is not putting somebody above the law; the president is putting somebody within the law. the president doesn't stand above the law. but the law emphatically includes the constitution. can you understand this? it's hard to follow, but it seems that mukasey is back to the ol' nixon standard that gonzales was pushing for bush: if the president does it, it's legal. for another sharp look at some of what mukasey said, check out my friend marty lederman's observations. he whacks mukasey for being unable--or is that unwilling?--to say that waterboarding is torture. as lederman notes, but really,did we have reason to expect any better -- to think that judge mukasey would opine that his new boss has been violating the law? perhaps the bottom line is that anyone willing to be bush's a.g. is suspect. what's so funny? on wednesday night, i was a candidate in the funniest celebrity in washington contest, held at the improv comedy club. i didn't win, but today's reliable source column in the washington posthas a write-up on the show--which was a benefit for music education programs--and i'm featured in it: what's there to laugh about in washington? seems everyone was trying to figure it out wednesday night. at the funniest celebrity in washington contest, the first to raise the obvious question was contestant david corn. "washington must be in hard times if i'm a celebrity," the mother jones editor riffed during his stand-up routine. "what, was harriet miers busy?" time.com pundit ana marie cox wondered why rick santorum wasn't competing in the charity fundraiser. "then i realized by 'funniest' they didn't mean unintentionally funny. and by 'celebrity,' they didn't mean anything at all." cox took third place, while sen. arlen specter won second for deftly deadpanning every terrible joke you've ever heard. ( please, no, not the paraplegic-rings-the-doorbell one!) as it turned out, the funniest celebrity in washington...was neither: joseph randazzo, assistant editor of the onion. who lives in n.y.c. funny, though. (full disclosure: we helped judge.) one of my gags from the night: in recent days, laura bush has been a forceful advocate for human rights in burma. in fact, she has vowed that burma will soon be a functioning democracy. in related news, millions of iraqis...have moved to burma. ba-da-boom. you had to be there. posted by david corn at 07:43 am october 18, 2007 rudy nabs a young bush oh, family values.... today rudy giuliani's campaign sent out a press release proudly declaring that jeb bush jr.--son of the former florida governor, nephew of the current president of the united states--has become chairman of florida young professionals for rudy. here's how the announcement describes the younger jeb bush: bush grew up in south florida and currently resides in miami, where he works in the commercial real estate industry with fairchild partners. bush is a 2005 graduate of the university of texas at austin. he is involved in a variety of civic organizations including st. jude's hospital and after school all stars. bush worked on his father's 2002 gubernatorial reelection campaign. here's what i wrote about jebby bush two years ago in a piece on the bush dynasty: john ellis bush, aka jebby, age 21. this past weekend, he was arrested by texas alcoholic beverage commission agents on sixth street in austin, texas. he was stopped when the agents suspected he was drunk. he then, it seems, did not cooperate with these public servants, for he was arrested on two charges: public intoxication and resisting arrest. in the scuffle, jebby received a chin injury and was treated at a hospital. he was released on a $2,500 bond. (question: given george w. bush's dwi charge and barbara's and jenna's underage imbibing issues, is getting into legal trouble over alcohol considered a family rite of passage?) this was not jebby's first encounter with the police. five years ago--a month before the 2000 election--he was caught by security guards while in the act with a 17-year-old female in a jeep cherokee parked in a tallahassee mall. both were naked from the waist down, except jebby was wearing his socks. the security guards called in the cops. a police officer arrived on the scene and investigated a possible crime of "sexual misconduct." in the subsequent police report, the officer wrote, "i became aware of the political ties" of the suspect. he then "contacted the watch commander...to inform him of the incident." after one of the security guards talked to jebby's father--who happened to be the governor of the state--this guard told the on-the-scene cop that he believed that his own supervisor would "pull" the preliminary report. the cop replied that he would still have to complete an incident report. and a report was written. nothing happened after that. the incident did not become public until two days before the presidential election, when this police report was leaked to the local media and a london newspaper. (only the london paper went with the story.) according to artie brown, one of the two security guards who nabbed jebby that night, the young bush spoke to his father after being caught and then remarked, "my dad will fix it." it's reassuring that a young man with such respect for the law is joining the campaign of giuliani, who as nyc mayor adopted a zero tolerance approach toward such law-and-order matters as public drinking and disorderly conduct. you can see a copy of that police report here. and for a photograph of jeb bush jr. showing his concern for the future of america, click here. posted by david corn at 10:44 am october 17, 2007 opposites attract? man of war man of peace that picture is from today's ceremony in the capitol where george w. bush awarded the dalai lama the congressional gold medal....by the way, the dalai lama had this to say about the iraq war a week before bush launched it: the iraq issue is becoming very critical now....unfortunately, although we are in the 21st century, we still have not been able to get rid of the habit of our older generations. i am talking about the belief or confidence that we can solve our problems with arms. it is because of this notion that the world continues to be dogged by all kinds of problems. but what can we do? what can we do when big powers have already made up their minds? all we can do is to pray for a gradual end to the tradition of wars. of course, the militaristic tradition may not end easily. but, let us think of this. if there were bloodshed, people in positions of power, or those who are responsible, will find safe places; they will escape the consequent hardship. they will find safety for themselves, one way or the other. but what about the poor people, the defenseless people, the children, the old and infirm. they are the ones who will have to bear the brunt of devastation....therefore, the real losers will be the poor and defenseless, ones who are completely innocent, and those who lead a hand-to-mouth existence. today, as the dalai lama called for peace, urged action to stop global warming, and graciously thanked bush and members of congress for supporting tibet, he said nothing about powerful leaders who unleash war upon others and escape its direct consequences. i wonder whom he had in mind. posted by david corn at 02:27 pm republicans and tax-mongering: a spent force? i used to have a poster that was put out decades ago by the british labour party that proclaimed, "workers, vote your interests." that's basic politics. and i'm surprised that wealthy americans--at least of the gop stripe--are not following that golden rule. a washington post front-page article today notes that many big-money republican funders have so far sat out the 2008 race, in that they have not opened their wallets to any of the republican presidential wannabes. don't they know that if hillary clinton or any other democrat wins the white house, their taxes are likely to go up (at least to those terribly repressive rates of the reagan era)? aren't they moved by the dire warnings of all the leading republican contenders who decry the big-spending and tax-raising ways of the democrats? don't they realize--as rudy, mitt, fred, john and the others predict--that the economy will crash and burn if a democrat manages to make it to the white house? apparently not. now, it's certainly possible that once the race is clear--when the dems have picked their man or woman and the republicans have picked their fiscal fearmonger--republican fat cats will come late to the party and shower the gop nominee with dino-dollars. but it's interesting that the scare tactics being used by the republican contenders have not yet motivated the financial heart of the party. while the democratic presidential aspirants have drawn $223 million in contributions, the poor gopers have taken in but a measly $150 million. the gap of $73 million is, of course, not insignificant. but given historical trends, one could expect the republicans in a race with no incumbent on either side to draw 50 to 100 percent more than the democrats, not one-third less. from the post piece: "the republican brand is not selling very well," said christine todd whitman, a former new jersey governor, bush cabinet member and 2004 ranger. "there are a lot of frustrated people. they are not seeing anybody who has sent them over the top." alvin r. "pete" carpenter, a former chief executive of csx transportation and a bush pioneer in 2000, said it was a combination of the iraq war and the free spending of republicans when they controlled congress that slowly drained his enthusiasm for the party. carpenter, 65, said he has been a lifelong republican and was a "goldwater kid." but this year he sent a contribution to sen. barack obama (d-ill.). "i have opted out for all the well-documented reasons that disaffected republicans use," carpenter said. "i'm not sure which primary i'll vote in. at the moment i will say i'm keeping my powder dry. it's the first time i'm really a bit confused about what i should be doing, or where the country should be headed." poor guy. it's so confusing. for years--decades, actually--the republicans have used the tax club to whack democrats. but it's pretty clear these days that--despite what mcromsoniani says--the democrats are not looking to add to the tax burdens of most americans and that the rich in america (who are doing better than ever) do not need relief and can perhaps even afford to pay more of the nation's bill. (after all, aren't we at war and facing other fundamental challenges?) still, the gop contestants--in the debates and on the stump--keep deploying the same-old/same-old tax issue in their tired-sounding attempts to bash the dems. (at one recent debate, giuliani accused hillary clinton of purposefully wanting to limit the nation's economic growth.) but if the traditional gop funders aren't buying this junk, who will? posted by david corn at 11:00 am october 16, 2007 soft balls (for clarence thomas); mud balls (for babies) if you missed yesterday's washington post, you missed a fine example of a super-soft-ball interview. the op-ed page published excerpts of a q&a lally weymouth conducted with clarence thomas. there was not one tough question posed to the supreme court justice now engaged in a massive pr blitz to sell his new book. in that book, thomas bashes anita hill and calls her a liar. he does not address the evidence and testimony (from others) that supported her claims about his improper conduct. two weeks ago, ruth marcus, a post editorial writer, penned an op-ed laying out much of this evidence. but in her published interview with thomas, weymouth does not ask him about this evidence and testimony. she just lets him play the victim one more time: along the road from pin point, ga., to the supreme court, why did you not give up during difficult times? i wanted to give up a hundred times. the thing that was so hurtful to me was after the end of that long journey to be beaten like that. you mean at the hearings? yes, throughout the hearings, the summer, everything....i asked my wife, "why? i just disagree with them. i don't even know if i disagree with them on specific issues." [but] i cannot carry around bitterness and at the same time carry around a positive message for young kids and for people who still need help. my goal is i will never treat anybody the way i was treated in this city. i also will never do my job as poorly as people did their jobs when i was at their mercy. the op-ed page of the post is indeed supposed to give voice to a diversity of views. still, this interview was striking in its obsequiousness. but weymouth, a onetime leftist who turned rightward years ago, is a regular contributor to the post op-ed page. for some reason, she's allowed to use the post as a platform. by the way, she was born elizabeth morris graham and is the only daughter of philip graham and katharine graham, the late (and great) publisher of the washington post. her brother is donald graham, the ceo of the post. baby politics. tired of the usual cheap-shot political discourse that's more concerned with scoring points than debating policy? yeah, i know you are. so take a look at my pal reid cramer's piece on the so-called baby bonds. a few weeks back, hillary clinton referred positively to the idea of awarding a chunk of money to each newborn american--funds that could later be used for education, home-buying or retirement. she mentioned a figure of $5000, though a similar proposal in congress only called for $500. she probably slipped up on the number, since she had previously called for a $500 endowment. but her campaign, true to form, would not admit she had made a mistake. of course, clinton was immediately pummeled by her foes on the right for championing a big-spending social program. rudy giuliani, in particular, pounced on her. clinton turned tail and threw the baby bonds into the bathwater. so much for informed discussion about social policy. defending baby bonds, cramer, research director at the new america foundation, writes, access to even a modest pool of assets can provide an essential element of economic security, helping people weather income shocks and take advantage of strategic opportunities. much of this simply can't be achieved through social insurance that is geared toward specific risks like unemployment or very low pay, or specific services such as health care. assets provide the flexibility families need to navigate a volatile economy. and there are a number of benefits to starting this savings process at birth. not only do you get to maximize the advantage of compound interest, but these accounts can become a teaching tool to deliver the fundamentals of financial education - a primary skill for navigating our 21st-century economy. this is actually the approach that they are using in the united kingdom, which is already implementing a similar accounts-at-birth proposal with support from both the labor and tory parties. if we engage in a dialogue that goes beyond headlines, the merits of baby bonds could garner support from progressives and social conservatives alike. that's because, at its core, this policy is about ownership and opportunity, offering a little something for everyone. gee, social policy that combines the values of progressives and social conservatives? we don't want any of that. instead, we get mud balls and calculating and self-serving politicians. the babies of america ought to be really angry. posted by david corn at 10:44 am october 15, 2007 blackwater: a metaphor i'm on the run today. but (just about) everything you need to know about the blackwater problem in iraq can be found in these two first-person accounts. writing in the chicago tribune, robert bateman a u.s. army officer who served in iraq, recounts an encounter with a blackwater convoy, during which blackwater guards fired their guns and drove iraqi cars onto the sidewalk. he recalls, it enraged me...and blackwater is, at least nominally, on our side. but imagining that incident from an iraqi perspective made it clear to me that though blackwater usa draws its paycheck from uncle sam, it's not working in uncle sam's best interests. if i was this angry, i can only imagine the reactions of the tens of thousands of iraqis who encounter blackwater personnel on a regular basis. iraq operates on the basis of an honor culture. honor is, arguably, more important than islam. being dishonored, in word or deed, or even by implication, is enough to set the average iraqi man to plotting his revenge. this is a culture in which political assassinations (usually based on honor issues) are not an abstraction but an everyday occurrence. every time one of those blackwater convoys drives an iraqi civilian off the road because the most important thing in the world is the protection of their "principal," they make a new enemy for the united states. every time they ram another car to clear the way (and, yes, i've seen them do that), so that they could maintain their own speed and thereby minimize their exposure to "improvised explosive devices," they make another enemy. every time they kill innocent civilians, or wound them, they make whole families of new enemies. talking to cbs news, adam hobson, a former political aide at the u.s. embassy in baghdad, discussed the tragedy that occurred on may 12, when a blackwater guard protecting him shot at two men in a cab. one of the men was killed. after blackwater and the state department investigated and found the guard had not followed appropriate procedures, he was sent home. there was no other punishment. here's a piece of the cbs interview with hobson: cbs: how did having this aggressive security detail affect your work in iraq? hobson: every time we went out there was a huge cost--just in alienating people. even if no shots were fired, we were driving down the wrong side of the road; we were stopping traffic. people don't like that. that's why we never made the decision to go out lightly. cbs: does your conscience ever trouble you now about that day when the man died? hobson: yes. i think about it every day. that's when i really understood. i went to a meeting and somebody died because of it. it made meetings in the future a lot less important. in fact, i never left the [embassy] compound again. blackwater is really a metaphor (or fall guy) for the bigger mess in iraq--a war that a former commander calls a "nightmare." for years, u.s. policy and actions have alienated the iraqi population (and, not coincidentally, much of the rest of the world). ignorance and arrogance--did someone say hubris?--has been animating the bush administration's approach to iraq from before the invasion until now. though blackwater deserves investigation and punishment, it is a convenient heavy. it's only the muscle for a crew that doesn't know what it's doing. posted by david corn at 07:27 am october 12, 2007 at ease there will be no posts today. relax....but congratulations to al gore, who has demonstrated that not winning the white house can be a good career move. can you imagine george w. bush losing in 2000 and going on to do public interest work that wins him a nobel prize? that's a rhetorical question. posted by david corn at 06:12 am just out in paperback! hubris: the inside story of spin, scandal and the selling of the iraq war by michael isikoff and david corn a new york times bestseller! with a new afterword on the surge and the libby trial "indispensable....this [book] pulls together with unusually shocking clarity the multiple failures of process and statecraft." --the washington post "the most comprehensive account of the white house's political machinations... fascinating reading." --the new york times "a bold and provocative book." --tom brokaw click here to buy the book      

david corn  Précédent 908  Précédent 907  Précédent 906  Précédent 905  Précédent 904  Précédent 903  Précédent 902  Précédent 901  Précédent 900  Précédent 899  Précédent 898  Précédent 897  Précédent 896  Précédent 895  Précédent 894  Précédent 893  Précédent 892  Précédent 891  Précédent 890  Précédent 889  Précédent 888  Précédent 887  Précédent 886  Précédent 885  Précédent 884  Précédent 883  Précédent 882  Précédent 881  Précédent 880  Précédent 879  Suivant 910  Suivant 911  Suivant 912  Suivant 913  Suivant 914  Suivant 915  Suivant 916  Suivant 917  Suivant 918  Suivant 919