Gonzales Never Let Facts Get in the Way

Via NYTimes:

When the Justice Department publicly declared torture “abhorrent” in a legal opinion in December 2004, the Bush administration appeared to have abandoned its assertion of nearly unlimited presidential authority to order brutal interrogations.

But soon after Alberto R. Gonzales’s arrival as attorney general in February 2005, the Justice Department issued another opinion, this one in secret. It was a very different document, according to officials briefed on it, an expansive endorsement of the harshest interrogation techniques ever used by the Central Intelligence Agency.

Thankfully, this monster is gone, but his actions as attorney general will give us fear of the position for years (much like Bush has done for the presidency). A completely open government is not necessarily a good idea, some things need to be kept secret, but blatant lies have come out of every partisan official in the executive and judicial (ok, and legislative too...) branches. This trend must be stopped. Blogs and online syndication of newspapers have helped keep people knowledgeable of government's missteps which should keep them more wary, but it only forces government officials to keep their skeletons better hidden. Keep politicians in line, pay attention and don't fall for their pandering and lying.

Failures in Oil Program

Via NY Times(requires free subscription):

The Interior Department’s program to collect billions of dollars annually from oil and gas companies that drill on federal lands is troubled by mismanagement, ethical lapses and fears of retaliation against whistle-blowers, the department’s chief independent investigator has concluded.

The report, a result of a yearlong investigation, grew out of complaints by four auditors at the agency, who said that senior administration officials had blocked them from recovering money from oil companies that underpaid the government.

This program is one of the largest sources of revenue for the US, and yet it is horribly mismanaged and mired in cronyism at the highest levels. The government's close relationship with oil companies has hurt the US. Many elected officials are tied to the oil industry (See George W. Bush) and cannot afford to force beneficial change in the regulation of it. When gas prices rise to the height of giving people the choice between driving to work and starving or eating, but being forced to bike or take mass transit, maybe people will see that these oil companies have not been just keeping up with inflation but have been squeezing us for every ounce of money they can get to fill their already-inflated bank accounts.

Urgent Lobbying for Telecom Immunity

Via Crooks and Liars:

As War and Piece puts it, U.S. intel agencies are in near panic mode over this, but Marcy Wheeler and Glenn Greenwald say they may be worrying over nothing as the Democrats are preparing to cave on this issue. President Bush is hell bent on letting telcos off the hook, contact your representatives in the House and Senate and let them know how you feel.

These companies should be working for the best interest of their customers, or at least their stockholders, they should not be working for the government. The government should not be allowed to pressure these telecoms into doing something illegal, yet, they have. At this point, these companies should not be let off scot-free for these transgressions, but the government should be bearing the largest backlash from these events. if we can't trust companies to maintain our privacy from the government, then we will be forced to live in fear from every company that has access to our privacy. That is not a possibility that should ever come up in a "democracy".

Failed Legislation

Via NYTimes.com:

A proposal that Democrats put forward as their best chance of changing the course of the Iraq war died on the Senate floor on Wednesday, as Republicans stood firmly with President Bush.

Another failed vote for a change in course on the Iraq war, surprising...There's some small hope in several other war proposals (especially Feingold's [D-Wis], and Levin [D-Mich]) to be voted on today and tomorrow, but few, if any, have any hope of achieving the 60 votes necessary to end a filibuster.

Via Restore-Habeas.org:



Another failed vote for the constitution, surprising...This one, however, does have a little more hope, in that Chris Dodd has not given up this issue, despite it's failure. Maybe, one day, other countries will respect our legal system. One day...

Liberal Media?

Via Media Matters:

The results show that in paper after paper, state after state, and region after region, conservative syndicated columnists get more space than their progressive counterparts. As Editor & Publisher paraphrased one syndicate executive noting, "U.S. dailies run more conservative than liberal columns, but some are willing to consider liberal voices."1

Though papers may be "willing to consider" progressive syndicated columnists, this unprecedented study reveals the true extent of the dominance of conservatives

Charts and more info available at the link. Here is some concerned criticism. It is very nice to see a group go about debunking the liberal media myth by looking at it scientifically instead of merely having a "No, it isn't"-"Yes, it is" argument.

Romney Knows the Future

Via Media Matters:

An ABCNews.com article quoted Mitt Romney attacking Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's health care policy, but did not note that Romney was attacking a plan that he had not yet seen, nor that as governor of Massachusetts, Romney endorsed a law requiring residents to purchase health insurance.

Romney attacked the plan on the 16th, but the plan wasn't released until the 17th (today). Ms. Clinton's plan is posted on her website. Many of the leading republican candidates know that Democrats will try to move the debate in '08 to domestic policy instead of focusing purely on foreign policy (like 2004). This could be a good thing for Democrats, as Republicans have been focusing their efforts on weakening their opponents arguments instead of making any definite plans for themselves. Republicans, focus on yourselves, leave the Democrats alone until after the primaries. Build a strong stance on the issues that voters will deem important instead of merely choosing to side with or against Bush on his Iraq policies. Voters have started to care less and less about Iraq as it seems to make no progress in any direction. Voters will begin to realize that Republicans are going to need to bring a thought out domestic program to the table before they will be able to persuade anyone on their foreign policy's merits.

McCain Knows Better

Via the Daily Background:

General James Jones recently returned from a Congressional-mandated trip to Iraq and reported that political reconciliation “is absolutely the key to measurable and rapid progress” and needed to happen before any significant reduction in violence could happen. On Meet The Press today, John McCain incorrectly claimed that General Jones did not conclude in his recent Iraq report that political reconciliation needed to happen before a drawdown in violence can be achieved:

MCCAIN: Tim, I’ve known Jim Jones for 30 years. That’s not what he’s saying.

In reality, this was exactly what Jones said, both in his report and on Meet The Press a week ago.

There's clips of McCain disputing what Mr. Jones said on Meet the Press at that link. It takes a certain amount of self confidence to say, on national television, something so clearly untrue. His reasons are obvious, the quote is unfavorable to his position of supporting president Bush's war. The biggest issue for the republican candidates will be their support for the war. While some of them have intelligently decided to distance themselves from Bush, others have latched themselves to Bush's policies in pursuit of appeasing the 29% that they perceive as the base. Hopefully, republicans will vote for change in the primaries instead of just more of the same.

Fred, We Hardly Knew You

Via News For The Left:

Fred Thompson is breaking the law and it's time somebody did something about it. So, this morning, I filed an FEC Complaint against him. [...]

It is my contention that he has violated the 'testing the waters' exemption of election law. He has been presenting himself as a candidate for President, he has been raising large sums of money beyond what would be required to explore a possible candidacy, and he has signed a long term lease on a headquarters for his campaign. He has even spent advertising dollars, which are specifically prohibited by the law.

If this pans out, it should be a big hit to the combined ego of the Republican party. They have been waiting for quite some time for their fabled savior, Fred Thompson, to enter the race and crush the opposition. It really does seem unfair to be essentially counted as a candidate while skirting the rules. "Testing the waters" is important for candidates who are not immediately recognized front-runners, but with someone who has been as popular as Fred Thompson, candidacy is just a matter of time (or, possibly, was after this).

Religious, Right Turn Only?

Via Media Matters:

On the August 14 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, during a discussion of Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr.'s (D-DE) recent comment that past Democratic presidential candidates Al Gore and John Kerry "let themselves be portrayed as anti-God," host Chris Matthews characterized Biden as saying that Gore and Kerry "created an image that they were somehow ... not really religious people. They don't share your evangelical views and your deeply religious views. They're too secular." In response, Time magazine assistant managing editor Michael Duffy asserted that "for the last 25 years, Democrats have done everything they can to alienate religious voters, faith-minded voters" and that "it seemed to be part of the program. They did it to woo a secular left that they thought didn't want to have anything to do with that." But given that some 90 percent of Americans say they believe in God (according to polling, which has been consistent over many years), and given that in the last 25 years, Americans have elected a Democrat to two presidential terms, and a second won the popular vote, a substantial number of religious voters must be voting for Democrats.

The Right has, for years, pandered to the religious groups and claimed moral superiority over the "Secular Left". They fail to realize that many people in the US want separation of Church and State. The Religious Right would have no problem replacing the Constitution with the Bible if not for the Secular Left (Lawyers would go insane with interpreting that). They fail to realize that there are differences even among the "religious" people and that people are not willing to submit to other's ideas of exactly what is right or wrong. If the religious republicans had to start defending their social issues with logic and reason instead of quoting scripture, they would be roundly defeated by everyone against them. The republicans would do much better if they learned that they are not any more moral than the rest of us.

Experience or Change?

Via NY Times:

Voters are almost equally divided over which is more important, with 41 percent citing fresh ideas and 44 percent citing experience.

But, the survey also indicated that voters think Mrs. Clinton is “more qualified” and “has a much better chance of becoming president.”

Mr. Obama has been trying to capitalize on his fresh-thinking approach, hoping it will resonate with voters. [...]

Six of the Democratic candidates took part in a forum organized by the Iowa Federation of Labor in Waterloo, Iowa. The Quad-City Times reports that the Democrats spoke about issues important to American workers and “stayed away from personal attacks”

It almost makes you think that democracy could work, doesn't it? The biggest difference between the democratic front-runners is not race or gender despite what the media wants; the biggest difference is experience against change. Ms. Clinton has touted her time as first lady and tenure in the senate as her main examples of superiority over the other candidates, yet she has not seemed to take a strong stance on many of the issues that so many progressives want her to take. Obama, on the other hand, is much less experienced in federal politics, having joined Congress in 2005 (elected in 2004). Obama, however, has used that to his advantage by pointing that he is not a "normal" politician, but an agent of change from "business as usual". This country has been harmed deeply by Bush and his administration's "business as usual" take on government.

This could be accomplished by someone with experience in the system that knows how to change things, or this could be accomplished by an agent of change who is knew to the scene. We'll see which one the American people want once the primaries finish. (...go Gore!)