Can anyone record the audio and I'll host it?

It might be fun if indeed she does bring facts to support her arguments.

Who Else Was John Bolton Spying Upon? The Left Coaster

reported last night, there are new developments in the John Bolton confirmation story; surrounding his direct efforts to fire the UN’s director of chemical weapons nonproliferation efforts. You’ll also recall that last week we ran with a story first reported by Douglas Jehl of the New York Times that John Bolton had specially requested copies of NSA intercepts, documents that the White House refuses to turn over to the Senate Intelligence Committee. The story by Jehl indicated that the reason why the White House was fighting tooth and nail to prevent the Senate from getting these copies, aside from the usual Cheneyesque “fuck Congress and the horses they rode in on” modus operandi, was because the intercepts contained the names of individuals and companies that might have been violating the ban on exporting weapons materials to China, and perhaps Libya and Iran. I presumed at the time, because I always assume the worst about Republicans and money, that the White House was preventing the Senate from getting these intercepts to protect GOP contributors and to prevent a major embarrassment to itself. 

As Mary reported last night, there are new developments in the John Bolton confirmation story; surrounding his direct efforts to fire the UN’s director of chemical weapons nonproliferation efforts. You’ll also recall that last week we ran with a story first reported by Douglas Jehl of the New York Times that John Bolton had specially requested copies of NSA intercepts, documents that the White House refuses to turn over to the Senate Intelligence Committee. The story by Jehl indicated that the reason why the White House was fighting tooth and nail to prevent the Senate from getting these copies, aside from the usual Cheneyesque “fuck Congress and the horses they rode in on” modus operandi, was because the intercepts contained the names of individuals and companies that might have been violating the ban on exporting weapons materials to China, and perhaps Libya and Iran. I presumed at the time, because I always assume the worst about Republicans and money, that the White House was preventing the Senate from getting these intercepts to protect GOP contributors and to prevent a major embarrassment to itself.

The Importance of Jack

I posted links to two long pieces on Republicans, ethics, and morality (remember, they're different!) last week, but never had a chance to go in depth. This closing passage from the piece in the New York Review of Books, "Selling Washington," presents an interesting and important perspective...

The effects of the new, higher level of corruption on the way the country is governed are profound. Not only is legislation increasingly skewed to benefit the richest interests, but Congress itself has been changed. The head of a public policy strategy group told me, "It's not about governing anymore. The Congress is now a transactional institution. They don't take risks. So when a great moral issue comes up— like war—they can't deal with it." The theory that ours is a system of one-person-one-vote, or even that it's a representative democracy, is challenged by the reality of power and who really wields it. Barney Frank argues that "the political system was supposed to overcome the financial advantage of the capitalists, but as money becomes more and more influential, it doesn't work that way."
Two House Democrats, Rahm Emanuel, of Illinois, and Martin Meehan, of Massachusetts, have introduced legislation to tighten the rules on privately funded travel, strengthen the lobbying disclosure rules, and slow down the revolving door by which former members of Congress take jobs with the trade associations and, after a year, can lobby their former colleagues. Some Republicans are talking about placing more restrictive rules on trips. But the record shows that new regulations can often be evaded.Stakeholder

I posted links to two long pieces on Republicans, ethics, and morality (remember, they're different!) last week, but never had a chance to go in depth. This closing passage from the piece in the New York Review of Books, "Selling Washington," presents an interesting and important perspective...

The effects of the new, higher level of corruption on the way the country is governed are profound. Not only is legislation increasingly skewed to benefit the richest interests, but Congress itself has been changed. The head of a public policy strategy group told me, "It's not about governing anymore. The Congress is now a transactional institution. They don't take risks. So when a great moral issue comes up— like war—they can't deal with it." The theory that ours is a system of one-person-one-vote, or even that it's a representative democracy, is challenged by the reality of power and who really wields it. Barney Frank argues that "the political system was supposed to overcome the financial advantage of the capitalists, but as money becomes more and more influential, it doesn't work that way."
Two House Democrats, Rahm Emanuel, of Illinois, and Martin Meehan, of Massachusetts, have introduced legislation to tighten the rules on privately funded travel, strengthen the lobbying disclosure rules, and slow down the revolving door by which former members of Congress take jobs with the trade associations and, after a year, can lobby their former colleagues. Some Republicans are talking about placing more restrictive rules on trips. But the record shows that new regulations can often be evaded.

Perhaps the greatest deterrent to ethical transgression is that members of Congress don't want to read unfavorable stories about themselves. A Republican lobbyist says that the biggest factor in the growth of corruption has been "the expectation that all this goes undetected and unenforced." He added, "If Jack Abramoff goes to jail, that will be a big message to this town." Since the scandal broke over Abramoff's payments on behalf of DeLay, members of Congress have been scrambling to amend their travel reports, in some cases listing previously unreported trips, or filling in missing details. Public outrage can also have an inhibiting effect: after the Republicans changed the ethics rules earlier this year to protect DeLay, the adverse reaction in the press and from constituents was strong enough to make the Republican leadership back down.

But the public can't become outraged about something that isn't brought to its attention. The press tends to pounce on the big scandals but usually fails to cover the more common ones that take place every day. Some of the politicians I talked to hoped that the scandal over DeLay and Abramoff might lead to real changes, including more prosecutions and stricter disclosure requirements. But even they admit that, like so many other scandals, it may simply blow over.

 

 

How to deal with a bully

Perhaps the greatest deterrent to ethical transgression is that members of Congress don't want to read unfavorable stories about themselves. A Republican lobbyist says that the biggest factor in the growth of corruption has been "the expectation that all this goes undetected and unenforced." He added, "If Jack Abramoff goes to jail, that will be a big message to this town." Since the scandal broke over Abramoff's payments on behalf of DeLay, members of Congress have been scrambling to amend their travel reports, in some cases listing previously unreported trips, or filling in missing details. Public outrage can also have an inhibiting effect: after the Republicans changed the ethics rules earlier this year to protect DeLay, the adverse reaction in the press and from constituents was strong enough to make the Republican leadership back down.

But the public can't become outraged about something that isn't brought to its attention. The press tends to pounce on the big scandals but usually fails to cover the more common ones that take place every day. Some of the politicians I talked to hoped that the scandal over DeLay and Abramoff might lead to real changes, including more prosecutions and stricter disclosure requirements. But even they admit that, like so many other scandals, it may simply blow over.

Daily Show: "This Abu Crib puts the Fat in Fatwa"

Colbert: That's why we lost Vietnam. We never let the insurgency get comfortable.

Download | play -WMP

Download | play -Real Audio

Arthur has some good thoughts: "I see that Drudge has now launched what promises to be a full-scale war against Howard Dean, making Dean into the devil incarnate. I’m sure it will be all over the right blogosphere within hours, if it isn’t already. Take the major warning: if you dare to tell the truth in unflinching, unapologetic terms, the rightwing propaganda machine, aided by our craven, servile media, will destroy you." read on

Its not surprising Dean is the target. The slime machine is in overdrive. Fox will pick it up and run with it. Here's the link they will talk about. Since things have been so bad for the Republican party they'll just vilify Howard.

Hannity appeared on the View to talk about 2008 nominees.

Download | play -WMP-(I finally got the video) video still uploading

Rosie was a guest host and got into a fight with Hannity. She said he was delusional. She called Bush a war criminal, talked about prisoner torture and Koran abuse. Bush should be tried. Hannity's only defense was "isn't the world safer without Saddam?"

Jeralyn: "In an end run around the Fourth Amendment, and putting our civil liberties under siege, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence met in secret today and approved expansions to the Patriot Act that wil allow the Government to obtain records without a court order or grand jury subpoena - and more.

This is an abuse of power. The Patriot Act was passed in haste, without adequate time for reflection or review. It has nabbed a few bumbling holy warriors but no real terrorists. It has not made us safer, only less free.

"Pharmacists should not be forced to fill prescriptions or the 'morning after' abortion pill," he said, "if it iolates their conscience." Albertsons distributed a memo to all its Illinois pharmacists stating it would accommodate their right of conscience by permitting them to refer prescriptions to which they conscientiously object to another Albertsons pharmacist or to a competitor.

These people are too stupid to understand that the morning after pill is not abortion. Please do us all a favor and refer yourself to another career.
Amanda at Pandagon has a great post: "Just this morning I wrote a post cheering for the 40th anniversary of Griswold vs. Connecticut and warned that the right to privacy and to determine the number of children you bear is under assault. Should have known it would be a round-up sort of day...read on

Jeralyn has more: "That's not the only drug Albertson's is playing sanctimonious pomp with. Check this out from the Salt Lake City Tribune's letters to the editors:... read on

This clip from CNN's Inside Politics compares Bush's and Kerry's school performance.

There's some funny audio of Bush trying to make real words come out of his mouth.

Download | play -WMP

Download | play -Real Audio

Check out the picture. Even the scroll is funny.

Michael Giltz debated Ed Morrissey about Bush, Blair, and Africa.

Download | play -WMP Download | play