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.

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.

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.

Anecdotal Reporting

via Media Matters:

Reporting by anecdote is how we got a president who doesn't windsurf, doesn't order the "wrong" kind of cheesesteak, doesn't wear earth tones, doesn't sigh, and doesn't exaggerate* -- but who does lie to the nation on the way to war, spy on Americans, torture people, threaten to veto health care for children, allow arsenic in our drinking water, politicize the Justice Department, take an à la carte approach to the Constitution ("I'll have the Second Amendment and a little bit of the 10th, but hold the First, Fourth through Sixth, and the Eighth, please") and generally behave like a despot.

So, you know, there's a downside.

This is a great article, and, as such, I don't think it needs any little comment.

Is Obama Black enough?

via Media Matters:

an all-white group discussed an upcoming forum at a National Association of Black Journalists convention that will address, according to the convention program -- as quoted by The Washington Post -- the question Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) "cannot seem to shake -- is he black enough? Is this an unfair question? What is the measure of blackness and who gets to decide?" Host Tucker Carlson asked A.B. Stoddard, associate editor of The Hill, and Newsweek senior editor Jonathan Alter: "What exactly do people mean when they talk about Obama's quote, "blackness"?

Well, that's surely an interesting question. This brings up a point that was more of an issue during the pre-civil rights era; will, or even should, someone of mixed ancestry be accepted by one of the groups, both, or neither? Now, I thought we were past this, but apparently the conservative right won't let it go. Reading the transcript from that site, it is clear that these people believe that neither will fully accept him. Of the total American population, I would agree, a large minority of both groups would probably reject him because of this fact alone, but most of this minority are either conservatives, republicans, or independents who would vote republican anyway. I guess I just have to believe that the liberals and democrats are past this and the fact that Obama is black, but not all black, and the fact that Hillary is a woman will not be more important than their policy decisions.

Negative Clinton

Via Media Matters:

...NBC News chief foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell referred to an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll finding that 39 percent of respondents said they "feel positive" toward Clinton on the issue of her "warmth and compassion," while 30 percent said they "feel negative." Saying that Clinton's "negatives are still so high on warmth and compassion," Mitchell asserted that Clinton "has to show some personality and some likability, because she really has to show that she's approachable and a little bit softer than she's been in the past."

Well, I guess that's reasonable, and, obviously, it is something candidates have to pay attention to, but I guess it's just disappointing that this kind of thing is so important to a campaign. I would rather see a president that I can respect from a distance and that I feel will be authoritative than someone who I want as a friend.