Women Excluded From Stimulus Negotiations

Incredibly, the joint House/Senate conference committee ironing out the differences between the House and Senate versions of the stimulus contains no women! You can complain about this by sending an email to Nancy Pelosi here and one to Harry Reid here. Harry Reid's contact form only takes email from Nevada residents, so say you live on S. Carson St. in Carson City, zip code 89702. He is the Senate Majority Leader, he should take emails from everyone. Spineless weenie that he is. Grrrrr.

The Moderate Voice: No Female Senators or Representatives from Congress are on Stimulus Bill Conference Committee

You have got to be kidding me:

Senate Democratic leadership has announced who will be serving on the conference committee to iron out differences in the House and Senate versions of the stimulus bill.

* Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.
* Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont.
* Appropriations Committee Chairman Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii
* Finance Committee Ranking Member Charles Grassley, R-Iowa
* Appropriations Committee Ranking Member Thad Cochran, R-Miss.

Both Finance and Appropriations were heavily involved in the creation of the Senate version, with each committee holding markups on their portions.

And for the House:

* Appropriations Committee Chairman Dave Obey, D-Wis.
* Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel, D-N.Y.
* Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif.
* Appropriations Committee Ranking Member Jerry Lewis, R-Calif.
* Ways and Means Committee Ranking Member Dave Camp, R-Mich.

This is what it means to not have a critical mass, to have less than 25% of your constituency represented. Only 17% of all congressional members are female. And so, with five from the Senate (5% of the Senate) and 5 from the House (just over 1%), what chance do women get to be selected for these critical reconciliation meetings?

Senators Laud Convicted Felon Ted Stevens

Only a bunch of rich, out of touch millionaires with free health care and untouchable pensions, as the economy spirals in freefall, could spend an hour feting their pal, convicted felon Ted Stevens.

Here's his standing ovation, and a nauseating paean to [convicted on seven counts of corruption] Sen. Toobz from Harry Reid.



Rachel Maddow rips the Senators a new one:

Traitor Joe In His Own Words

He has lied and lied and lied repeatedly. He is no longer to be trusted. Sure he says he'll caucus with the Democrats, but he's made so many promises he's broken.

And as Jane Hamsher points out, he's abused the position of committee chairman:

While it's one thing for Obama to personally forgive Lieberman for the race baiting and other gutter tactics that he engaged in on McCain's behalf during the campaign, it's quite another to let the chairmanship of such an important committee, which Lieberman has used for years to prevent Senatorial investigation into no-bid contracts and contractor abuse within the Department of Homeland Security, to serve as an olive branch.

[]

Lieberman, many will recall, was responsible for holding hearings into the government's response to Hurricane Katrina. But after winning his 2006 election with the help of the GOP, he decided it would be too "divisive" and refused to do so.

Good governance is going to be about more than passing new legislation, it's going to be about cleaning up the mess that has been made over the past 8 years. It's going to be about weeding out the graft and greed and corruption that has caused American taxpayers to foot the bill for outrageous deficits. The military industrial complex has been bilking the Pentagon and the Department of Homeland Security with no-bid contracts for things nobody needs that we're not allowed to know about for years now. The only way we're going to find out about these abuses, and right then, is if our elected officials accept that responsibility.

Not only is Joe Lieberman not doing that job, as Chairman of the Department of Homeland Security Committee he's keeping anyone else from doing it. He happily allowed a seat on the Homeland Security Advisory Council to be doled out as political patronage to a corrupt Bush Pioneer. He has no interest in cleaning up the mess he helped to make.

Is his continued happiness worth the cost of healthcare? Of the environment? Of putting Americans back to work? Of reducing our dependence on oil and getting the economy back on its feet?

Allowing Lieberman to retain control of a committee where he has done nothing but suppress meaningful oversight is going to be an awfully bitter pill to swallow when we're told that the price of "change" we all thought we were voting for is going to be too high.

Why'd I Waste All That Time in Law School?

Why did I bother studying the Fourth Amendment anyway? It's just about gone. The House just voted 293-129 for a new FISA bill eliminating my Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure from the Constitution. I mean, you can hem and haw around it, but when the President has unlimited power to let major telecoms spy on you & shovel the info to the government, and then Congress ratifies the spying, lets everyone involved off the hook, and gives the President even more power to spy, what else can you call it? Farewell, Fourth Amendment, I knew you well.

Hello, Verizon, enjoy listening in on all my telephone calls and reading my emails, and transmitting them to the government. Who needs the Stasi? We've got the telecoms, who will help Big Brother invade every aspect of our lives.

Maybe I need to buy a printing press, because the Interwebs ain't free any more.

Why did the Democrats cave yet again? (I am so goddamn sick of seeing Democrat and cave in the same sentence. I expect to see it next week when the Senate caves to Preznit Chimpy McSmirk on this very bill.) I saw an interesting theory somewhere on the blogs last night, that this is to protect the Democrats who got clued in to the illegal wiretapping program by the President (Pelosi, Reid, Steny Hoyer), who would have been liable if the telecoms were allowed to stand trial for their crimes. So they're really just protecting their multimillionaire asses. God forbid a member of Congress actually has to follow the law.

I mean, it's just the fucking Constitution, right, "It's just a goddamned piece of paper" as President Fuckwit once said.

So they all took an oath to protect and defend the United States Constitution. So what? They don't want to have to pay for violating their oaths. It's all about their precious Benjamins.

At least my Congressman, the estimable James P. McGovern, voted no.

One would hope that the law school professor who taught Constitutional law who happens to be running for President would stand up and oppose this in the Senate; I'm not holding my breath. One would think that my junior Senator would pull his head out of his ass long enough to do what Senator Kennedy would do if he wasn't in the middle of major cancer treatments, filibuster this abomination. But again, I'm not holding my breath waiting for Kerry to fight. Remember how he was going to fight for every vote in 2004? Right.

I will end with a comment from the firedoglake post announcing the vote:

Revenge is a dish best served cold. Hoyer and Pelosi will get their just desserts in due time. They spit on the graves of those who fought and died for the Constitution including the 4th Amendment. They would sell their country out and the honor and memory of those lying in hallowed and unhallowed ground around the world for a bag of silver.

That's about right. Selling the Constitution for 30 pieces of silver. Shame.

Thank god for sports so I can escape the fury I feel. Euro 2008, here I come.

LIE-berman Endorses Republican McCain

WaPo: Former Democrat Lieberman Endorses McCain

Joe Lieberman running against Democrat Ned Lamont, July 6, 2006:

I want Democrats to be back in the majority in Washington and elect a Democratic president in 2008.

Lying sack of shit. Harry Reid, lead. Strip LIEberman of his precious committee chairmanships. He is not a Democrat and is now actively supporting the opposition. What a schmuck.

Dems Capitulate on Benchmarks

Yesterday's Keith Olbermann report on the Iraq funding bill:

Farewell The Mustache

WaPo: John Bolton Resigns as U.S. Ambassador to U.N.

Why? Because Harry Reid announced he would keep the Senate in session with no more than one week off. Bush wasn't going to be able to sneak another recess appointment through. Go Harry!

72 Hours

Pelosi in an Armani pantsuit at yesterday's news conference: Clothes for playing with the boys without pretending to be one.
Photo Credit: By Carol T. Powers -- Bloomberg News
That's how long it took the Washington Post to write an article about the first female Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi.

Problem? The article is about her clothes.

Yes, you heard that right, the WaPo has gone almost immediately to sexist analysis of the woman's wardrobe.

Because nothing matters about a woman other than what she looks like, right?

Is it 2006 or 1966?

If Ms. Magazine still had the feature, this article would be on the 'No Comment' page at the back of the magazine. Classic, traditional sexist bullshit.

Think I'm overreacting? Do you really think any newspaper in the country will analyze the wardrobe of the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid? Of course not.

Jeez.

Washington Post: Muted Tones Of Quiet Authority: A Look Suited To the Speaker

Celebration

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (First ever female House Majority Leader)
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV)
Enjoying the post-Democratic win election afterglow.

Some fun links to keep your buzz going:

Freedom (Youtube video)

Suddenly nobody is talking about John Kerry anymore... (TBogg)

Richard Pombo Takes a Pounding (Wonkette)

Dr. Death (Billmon)

Turn, turn, turn (Billmon)

Classic Clinton Riff - Hilarious and So, So True! (Raising Kaine)

Bitch-Chokers Stick Together (Wonkette) […or, as an astute tipster put it, “Congressman McChokey Gets Help From Congressman McSmacky.”]

The admiral sinks Curt Weldon (R-Russia). (Attytood)

Video: John Hall victory speech (and song) (Middletown (NY) Times Herald-Record)


WAHHHHHHH!!!!
(President Bush reacts to a reporter's question during his press conference in the wake of Democrats taking over the House and perhaps the Senate. Photo by Pete Souza of the Chicago Tribune.)

Democrats: It's Time To Start Playing Offense

I talked to a friend who is active in New York politics a few weeks back, and she said, wonderingly, 'those people at headquarters think we can just wait for the Republicans to mess up, that we don't have to fight.' We both know that is just political suicide. So does Pachacutec at firedoglake:

FDL Late Nite: The Silent Majority

Today’s Silent Majority wants to see action from leaders in Washington, not just timid posturing. In that vein, I have some advice for Harry Reid (Minority Leader) and Chuck Schumer (head of the DSCC) in the Senate: take a look at those polls again. It’s time to play some offense. Get in front of the parade by getting behind Feingold’s censure motion.

If you do, I’ll bet many of the remaining 26% of democrats who currently oppose censure will flip to support it, moving overall population support for censure from 48% to well over 50% (hat tip to eRiposte). Some independents will follow along, too, if you stand together and make your case to a public starving for alternative leadership. (Note: censure polling varies by the wording of the question.) That will boost democratic turnout for the midterms, and also happens to be a political stance for the right fucking principle: the president does not get to break or ignore the law at his whim.

[]

All this friendly advice comes with a warning: the Silent Majority will not be denied. The tectonic plates of American politics are fundamentally shifting. To those who would get in the way of the new majority politics, consider: like that guy in the picture [Muhammad Ali], we in the Silent Majority know how to handle those who stand in our way.

Bad Asbestos Bill Defeated

A win for asbestos victims, Harry Reid, and small and medium sized asbestos companies. Big loss for Bill Frist and Big Asbestos. I watched the vote on C-Span. Frist had 59 votes but needed 60. As a procedural matter, he changed his vote to "No" so that he can bring it up again.

You could tell who was going to win before the votes were counted. Dick Durbin, Harry Reid, Barack Obama, and John Kerry could all be seen smiling broadly on the Senate floor.

One small victory. Hurrah!

Senate vote effectively kills asbestos bill

From tomorrow's WaPo:

Senate Foes Block Proposed Trust Fund For Asbestos Victims
Vote Short Against Budgetary Challenge

Previous post: Another Bad Asbestos Bailout Bill

Just What Democrats Need, Forced Out

More ham handed bullshit from the national Democratic party. Do they want to win any of these races? Is milquetoast the desired persona? Do they really think the "let's hide in the corner until the Republicans implode" strategy....is a strategy?

I am sad to see Hackett has been forced out by chickenshit Dems. We don't lose elections because we have primary contests. We lose elections because we're afraid to say what we think.

Popular Ohio Democrat Drops Out of Race, and Perhaps Politics

Paul Hackett, an Iraq war veteran and popular Democratic candidate in Ohio's closely watched Senate contest, said yesterday that he was dropping out of the race and leaving politics altogether as a result of pressure from party leaders.

Mr. Hackett said Senators Charles E. Schumer of New York and Harry Reid of Nevada, the same party leaders who he said persuaded him last August to enter the Senate race, had pushed him to step aside so that Representative Sherrod Brown, a longtime member of Congress, could take on Senator Mike DeWine, the Republican incumbent.

Mr. Hackett staged a surprisingly strong Congressional run last year in an overwhelmingly Republican district and gained national prominence for his scathing criticism of the Bush administration's handling of the Iraq War. It was his performance in the Congressional race that led party leaders to recruit him for the Senate race.

But for the last two weeks, he said, state and national Democratic Party leaders have urged him to drop his Senate campaign and again run for Congress.

"This is an extremely disappointing decision that I feel has been forced on me," said Mr. Hackett, whose announcement comes two days before the state's filing deadline for candidates. He said he was outraged to learn that party leaders were calling his donors and asking them to stop giving and said he would not enter the Second District Congressional race.

Another Bad Asbestos Bailout Bill

It's not me who's saying that. It's small and medium-sized asbestos companies. This bill actually cancels their insurance!

Coalition for Asbestos Reform

Myths & Facts

Myth: S.852 will protect businesses by capping payouts for asbestos claims.

Fact: This bill creates a $140 billion trust fund that favors a few large Fortune 100 companies as it shifts the financial burden to ? and threatens the economic viability of ? small and medium-size companies. Large companies which ran out of insurance coverage long ago benefit by provisions capping lawsuit payouts and limiting their financial responsibility to asbestos victims. For smaller companies the story is much different: S.852 actually cancels the insurance coverage they have, which has been bought and fully paid for, leaving them with a new, bank-breaking, multibillion-dollar tab.

Although the bill is ostensibly supposed to prevent bankruptcies, it will inevitably contribute to them. Several companies have testified that they will close their doors on the day S.852 is signed into law. One company, which today has adequate insurance to cover future claims in the court system, would lose its insurance and be required to pay $16.5 million annually into the trust fund. With annual earnings around $1 million, the company would have no choice but to close. As these companies drop out of the pool of contributors, additional financial pressure will be put on the ones that remain, further weakening their ability to meet their increased financial allocations. For these companies, S.852 is a "solution" that is vastly worse than the problem it is meant to fix.

A. W. Chesterton, a small company in Massachusetts, one of the members of the Coalition for Asbestos Reform, outlines its objections to the bill in yesterday's New York Times:

Large and Small Businesses Part Ways on Asbestos Bill

But for A. W. Chesterton, a 122-year-old company based in Stoneham, Mass., that used asbestos fibers in its industrial fluid sealing products, the amount of money it would be responsible for under the bill could destroy it, according to its outside legal counsel, John B. Manning.

"Its assessment under the Fair Act is going to be a minimum of $16.5 million annually for 30 years," Mr. Manning said. "That $16.5 million is more than double a year's profit for this company."

By contrast, large corporations will, at most, be responsible for $27.5 million a year for 30 years. "You've got large companies making billions and billions a year in profits," Mr. Manning said. "Having to come up with $27.5 million is nothing to them."

These people are serious. They have a major campaign to defeat the bill:

Aiming at Asbestos Bill

Nearly 20 corporations have paid a total of about $3 million to defeat the asbestos trust-fund bill, which Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) has designated his first priority in 2006, according to a coalition planning document obtained by The Hill.

The Washington Post editorial entitled "Forward on Asbestos" today dismisses these companies and Sen. Harry Reid's actions on their behalf, parroting the RNC talking point: It's all about the trial lawyers.

Unfortunately, the bill's critics are not always so reasonable. Sen. Harry M. Reid of Nevada, the Democratic minority leader, has complained, "One would have to search long and hard to find a bill in my opinion as bad as this." He has even described the legislation as the work of lobbyists hired by corporations to limit asbestos exposure. But the truth is that the bill's main opponents are trial lawyers, who profit mightily from asbestos lawsuits and who constitute a powerful lobby in their own right. Mr. Specter and Mr. Leahy are in fact model resisters of special interests who have spent more than two years crafting legislation that serves the public interest. For Mr. Reid to demean this effort in order to fire off campaign sound bites is reprehensible.

Balderdash. This bill has bipartisan opposition. The opponents are not only trial lawyers, it includes many of the asbestos companies. The bill is not fully funded and will ultimately fail, having achieved its only objective: to keep as much money in the hands of the huge asbestos companies as possible.

Let's hope that saner minds prevail and the latest challenge to the bill, that it will bust the federal budget, succeeds.

Call Senators, Save the Constitution

My brother and I went to Florida in 2004, monitored a polling place. That didn't work out. Spending a few hours calling a few senators is child's play in comparison.

Please call your own senators, if you don't have time to call the rest. I've read on other blogs that senators are taking and counting calls from outside their states in support of filibuster. Strip Search Sammy is a Borklette. Even the right knows this. They love him. We can stop him.

From Democrats.com: WE CAN STOP ALITO THIS WEEKEND

The last two days have been amazing.

Early Thursday afternoon, we broke the news that Senator John Kerry would lead a filibuster against Judge Sam Alito if he could get 41 Senators to sustain the filibuster. Three hours later, CNN confirmed our story.

Naturally, the White House freaked out and told Senator Bill Frist to schedule a cloture vote as quickly as possible - Monday at 4:30 p.m. - to prevent Democrats from uniting behind Kerry.

[]

At the start of the day, only Dick Durbin and Debbie Stabenow supported Kerry and Kennedy. Just before noon, Hillary Clinton's office called to say she supported us. Then Harry Reid came on board, along with Barbara Boxer, Russ Feingold, Ron Wyden, Chris Dodd, and (I think) Chuck Schumer.

Most importantly, we even picked up Dianne Feinstein, who just yesterday said she opposed a filibuster.

That's 12 votes for a filibuster - and exactly 12 more votes than we had two days ago!

I believe we really can stop Alito by Monday at 4:30 p.m. - but here's what we must do.

[]

2. Keep calling the Senators who are undecided or opposed to a filibuster. You can call their DC office all weekend and leave polite but firm voicemails urging the Senators to support Kerry's filibuster. When offices open on Monday 9 a.m. ET, make another round of calls. Let's shut down the Capitol switchboard on Monday!

http://democrats.com/alito-48

3. Call the DNC (202-863-8000) and the DSCC (202-224-2447) and tell them your 2006 contributions will depend on the success of the Alito filibuster. Tell them they need to get every Democratic Senator on board.

Here are the "Filibuster 48" with their direct phone numbers. You can also use these toll-free numbers (and ask for the Senators by name): 888-355-3588 or 888-818-6641.

Blanche Lambert Lincoln (D- AR), 202-224-4843
Joseph I. Lieberman (D- CT), 202-224-4041
Thomas R. Carper (D- DE), 202-224-2441
Daniel K. Inouye (D- HI), 202-224-3934
Tom Harkin (D- IA), 202-224-3254
Barack Obama (D- IL), 202-224-2854
Evan Bayh (D- IN), 202-224-5623
Barbara A. Mikulski (D- MD), 202-224-4654
Paul S. Sarbanes (D- MD), 202-224-4524
Carl Levin (D- MI), 202-224-6221
Mark Dayton (D- MN), 202-224-3244
Max Baucus (D- MT), 202-224-2651
Frank Lautenberg (D- NJ), 202-224-3224
Robert Menendez (D- NJ), 202-224-4744
Jeff Bingaman (D- NM), 202-224-5521
Jack Reed (D- RI), 202-224-4642
Lincoln D. Chafee (R- RI), 202-224-2921
Patrick J. Leahy (D- VT), 202-224-4242
Maria Cantwell (D- WA), 202-224-3441
Patty Murray (D- WA), 202-224-2621
Herb Kohl (D- WI), 202-224-5653
John D. Rockefeller, IV (D- WV), 202-224-6472
James M. Jeffords (I- VT), 202-224-5141

Mark Pryor (D- AR), 202-224-2353
Ken Salazar (D- CO) , 202-224-5852
Joseph R. Biden, Jr. (D- DE) , 202-224-5042
Bill Nelson (D- FL), 202-224-5274
Daniel K. Akaka (D- HI) (1,), 202-224-6361
Mary Landrieu (D- LA) (1,), 202-224-5824
Byron L. Dorgan (D- ND) (1,), 202-224-2551
Kent Conrad (D- ND) (1,), 202-224-2043
Olympia Snowe (R- ME) (1,), 202-224-5344

Ben Nelson (D-NE) 202-224-6551
Tim Johnson (D- SD) , 202-224-5842
Robert C. Byrd (D- WV) , 202-224-3954
Ted Stevens (R- AK) , 202-224-3004

Presstitute of the Day: Deborah Howell

Pissy, pissy, pissy little Deborah Howell.

Howell, you will remember, is the new ombudsperson at the Washington Post. (I'm a feminist. I refuse to call a woman an ombudsman, as the Post does. So sue me.) Howell's been wrong a few times now -- saying the answer to Bob Woodward not telling his editor about his involvement in the Plame case is for Woodward to get an editor, for example.

But her lowest moment (until today) was Sunday, when she published this statement of "fact":

a number of Democrats, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) and Sen. Byron Dorgan (N.D.), have gotten Abramoff campaign money.

As though it were fact. However, it is not. As it is not a true fact, it is, in fact, a lie. A very big lie, as this is the Republican Talking Point of the moment, intended to confuse the public.

For the Abramoff scandal is a Republican scandal. Abramoff gave all his campaign money -- $172,933 -- exclusively to Republicans. His clients, the Indian tribes, continued to give political contributions to Democrats, as they always had, but in lower amounts than before they hired Abramoff. Those same tribes, however, suddenly more than tripled their contributions to Republicans, at Abramoff's urging.

So it is a lie to say that Democrats have gotten Abramoff campaign money. They didn't get one thin dime. And it is a pernicious lie, as it is intended to mislead the public into thinking the Abramoff scandal is bipartisan. It is not. It is about Republicans cheating, stealing, and pigging out at the trough of political corruption. No Democrats participated in the K Street Project.

Well, blogtopia (yes! skippy coined the term!) was not happy to see a lie masquerading as the truth in the Washington Post. Bloggers, egged on by Jane Hamsher at firedoglake, began bombarding the Post's new blog, post.blog, with comments. (The comments were placed on the most recent post, entitled "New Blog: Maryland Moment", so the uprising of the readers on this issue will ever be known as The Maryland Moment.) Most of the comments were quite civil, pointed out the error, and asked for a retraction and a correction.

The Post's reaction was instructive. No correction has ever been made. Comments were deleted, first just a few, then en masse. (While the Post later blamed the disappearing of the comments on their blogvendor, Typepad, I have my doubts.) After an outcry, comments were reinstated. A Post reporter, Derek Willis, posted a comment in essence defending Howell's lie as truth. That reporter's comment was bombarded with angry denunciations. Then, Presstitute Howie Kurtz got in on the action, declaring Howell's statement had been "inartfully worded", and pushing the lie that
Abramoff was an equal opportunity giver if you looked at the contributions of the tribes. More derisive comments followed.

Still, as of this morning, no correction, no retraction.

Finally at 11:30 a.m. this morning, more than five days after the offending lie appeared in her column, Deborah Howell posted this on the post blog:

Posted at 11:30 AM ET, 01/19/2006
Deborah Howell Responds

I've heard from lots of angry readers about the remark in my column Sunday that lobbyist Jack Abramoff gave money to both parties. A better way to have said it would be that Abramoff "directed" contributions to both parties.

Lobbyists, seeking influence in Congress, often advise clients on campaign contributions. While Abramoff, a Republican, gave personal contributions only to Republicans, he directed his Indian tribal clients to make millions of dollars in campaign contributions to members of Congress from both parties.

Records from the Federal Elections Commission and the Center for Public Integrity show that AbramoffÂ’s Indian clients contributed between 1999 and 2004 to 195 Republicans and 88 Democrats. The Post has copies of lists sent to tribes by Abramoff with specific directions on what members of Congress were to receive specific amounts.

One of those lists can be viewed in this online graphic, while a graphical summary of giving by Abramoff, his tribal clients and associated lobbyists can be viewed here. The latest developments in the Abramoff investigation are available in this Special Report.

-- Deborah Howell, Washington Post Ombudsman

So, she has (1) refused to admit that her original statement of "fact" was, indeed, a lie; and (2) offered yet another version of "everybody does it". But she's wrong. One of firedoglake's commenters deconstructs her statement and the skewed evidence she uses. In essence, she used an Abramoff document that doesn't match up with actual amounts contributed by the tribes. Nothing like a little misleading on a lovely Thursday morning.

This afternoon the Washington Post shut down its Comments. Indefinitely, they say. Forever, I predict.

So, for lying in print, refusing to correct that lie, replacing the lie with another lie, then shutting down the public's access to their spokeswoman, I award today's Presstitute of the Day award to Deborah Howell.

I have a feeling she'll win more than one of these.

Notorious House of Presstitution

This week's Notorious House of Presstitution Award goes to ..... drum roll, please ..... The Washington Post!

The Post triumphs over the rest of the fawning corporate media by having two blatant falsehoods trumpeted in its pages.

Article No. 1: On Saturday, Republican House Organ Howie Kurtz and Shailagh Murray published this little gem:

Web Site Attacks Critic of War
Opponents Question Murtha's Medals

Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.), the former Marine who is an outspoken critic of the war in Iraq, has become the latest Democrat to have his Vietnam War decorations questioned.

In a tactic reminiscent of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth assault on Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) during the 2004 presidential campaign, a conservative Web site yesterday quoted Murtha opponents as questioning the circumstances surrounding the awarding of his two Purple Hearts.

David Thibault, editor in chief of the Cybercast News Service, said the issue of Murtha's medals from 1967 is relevant now "because the congressman has really put himself in the forefront of the antiwar movement." Thibault said: "He has been placed by the Democratic Party and antiwar activists as a spokesman against the war above reproach."

Here, Republican operative Sheri Annis' husband "reports" the hysterical allegations of a right-wing propaganda machine whose most prominent client is GOPUSA, the group that owned Talon News and pimped Jeff Gannon/Jimmy Guckert into a coveted seat in the White House pressroom.

Yes, Virginia, in this article the Washington Post cites Cybercast News Service (CNS). A Republican website that works for GOPUSA.

And then the Post runs a quote from Harry Fox from 1996.

The article included a 1996 quote from Harry Fox, who worked for former representative John Saylor (R-Pa.), telling a local newspaper that Murtha was "pretending to be a big war hero." Fox, who lost a 1974 election to Murtha, said the 38-year Marine veteran had asked Saylor for assistance in obtaining the Purple Hearts but was turned down because the office believed he lacked adequate evidence of his wounds.

However, the Post leaves out the very salient fact (which was in the original CNS article) that Mr. Fox is now 81 years old and because of health reasons can no longer communicate whether or not this quote is accurate.

The Post article also leaves out the extremely salient fact that Saylor, who the now incommunicative Fox is trying to quote, has been DEAD since 1973.

Murray Waas deconstructs this steaming pile of horsepucky.

And that's not all, folks, because on Sunday the Washington Post's ombudsperson, Deborah Howell, continued the Post's Republican talking points journey.

Getting the Story on Jack Abramoff

Several stories, including one on June 3 by Jeffrey H. Birnbaum, a Post business reporter, have mentioned that a number of Democrats, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) and Sen. Byron Dorgan (N.D.), have gotten Abramoff campaign money.

This is a stupid and demonstrably false statement by Howell. No Democrat received money from Jack Abramoff. They did receive money from Abramoff's clients: The Indian tribes who were ripped off by Abramoff. There is no evidence that the tribes were attempting to bribe the Democrats. There is ample evidence that Abramoff was stealing from the Indians to bribe the Republican officials to funnel the money back into the coffers of Republican-owned businesses by passing legislation to do just so. That's why Abramoff just took a plea, you idiot.

Firedoglake did the best send-up of Howell: The Naked Lies of Deborah Howell

So, for these two shining examples of naked presstitution, we give the Washington Post the coveted Notorious House of Presstitution award. For this week, at least.

O'Connor Takes Riggins Advice*

O'Connor to Retire From Supreme Court

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the first woman appointed to the Supreme Court and a key swing vote on issues such as abortion and the death penalty, said Friday she is retiring.

O'Connor, 75, said she expects to leave before the start of the court's next term in October, or whenever the Senate confirms her successor. There was no immediate word from the White House on who might be nominated to replace O'Connor.

Since a woman is retiring from the Supremes, and not Injustice Rehnquist, will Bush replace her with another woman? Can you say Edith Jones (subject of an earlier post)? Or will Torture Guy get the nod?

I hope Harry Reid's gambit of naming the Senators he would agree to put on the Court works.

Reid later offered four names of people he said would be good for the court: GOP Sens. Mel Martinez of Florida, Mike DeWine of Ohio, Mike Crapo of Idaho and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina.

It would be nice to get a justice who isn't to the right of Attila the Hun for once. I could live with Lindsey Graham. Not my first choice, but no Clarence Thomas, either.



*The infamous John Riggins, Washington Redskin Hall of Fame running back, met Sandra Day O'Connor at a party, and, having imbibed too much, greeted her thusly: "C'mon, Sandy baby, loosen up. You're too tight."

Conyers Response to Milbank

Conyers to Milbank

John Conyers has already responded to Milbank's smear of an article. Click on the link above to see photographs of the event (which show how ridiculous Milbank's article really is).

June 17, 2005
Mr. Michael Abramowitz, National Editor
Mr. Michael Getler, Ombudsman
Mr. Dana Milbank
The Washington Post
1150 15th Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20071


Dear Sirs:

I write to express my profound disappointment with Dana Milbank's June 17 report, "Democrats Play House to Rally Against the War," which purports to describe a Democratic hearing I chaired in the Capitol yesterday. In sum, the piece cherry-picks some facts, manufactures others out of whole cloth, and does a disservice to some 30 members of Congress who persevered under difficult circumstances, not of our own making, to examine a very serious subject: whether the American people were deliberately misled in the lead up to war. The fact that this was the Post's only coverage of this event makes the journalistic shortcomings in this piece even more egregious.

In an inaccurate piece of reporting that typifies the article, Milbank implies that one of the obstacles the Members in the meeting have is that "only one" member has mentioned the Downing Street Minutes on the floor of either the House or Senate. This is not only incorrect but misleading. In fact, just yesterday, the Senate Democratic Leader, Harry Reid, mentioned it on the Senate floor. Senator Boxer talked at some length about it at the recent confirmation hearing for the Ambassador to Iraq. The House Democratic Leader, Nancy Pelosi, recently signed on to my letter, along with 121 other Democrats asking for answers about the memo. This information is not difficult to find either. For example, the Reid speech was the subject of an AP wire service report posted on the Washington Post website with the headline "Democrats Cite Downing Street Memo in Bolton Fight". Other similar mistakes, mischaracterizations and cheap shots are littered throughout the article.

The article begins with an especially mean and nasty tone, claiming that House Democrats "pretended" a small conference was the Judiciary Committee hearing room and deriding the decor of the room. Milbank fails to share with his readers one essential fact: the reason the hearing was held in that room, an important piece of context. Despite the fact that a number of other suitable rooms were available in the Capitol and House office buildings, Republicans declined my request for each and every one of them. Milbank could have written about the perseverance of many of my colleagues in the face of such adverse circumstances, but declined to do so. Milbank also ignores the critical fact picked up by the AP, CNN and other newsletters that at the very moment the hearing was scheduled to begin, the Republican Leadership scheduled an almost unprecedented number of 11 consecutive floor votes, making it next to impossible for most Members to participate in the first hour and one half of the hearing.

In what can only be described as a deliberate effort to discredit the entire hearing, Milbank quotes one of the witnesses as making an anti-semitic assertion and further describes anti-semitic literature that was being handed out in the overflow room for the event. First, let me be clear: I consider myself to be friend and supporter of Israel and there were a number of other staunchly pro-Israel members who were in attendance at the hearing. I do not agree with, support, or condone any comments asserting Israeli control over U.S. policy, and I find any allegation that Israel is trying to dominate the world or had anything to do with the September 11 tragedy disgusting and offensive.

That said, to give such emphasis to 100 seconds of a 3 hour and five minute hearing that included the powerful and sad testimony (hardly mentioned by Milbank) of a woman who lost her son in the Iraq war and now feels lied to as a result of the Downing Street Minutes, is incredibly misleading. Many, many different pamphlets were being passed out at the overflow room, including pamphlets about getting out of the Iraq war and anti-Central American Free Trade Agreement, and it is puzzling why Milbank saw fit to only mention the one he did.

In a typically derisive and uninformed passage, Milbank makes much of other lawmakers calling me "Mr. Chairman" and says I liked it so much that I used "chairmanly phrases." Milbank may not know that I was the Chairman of the House Government Operations Committee from 1988 to 1994. By protocol and tradition in the House, once you have been a Chairman you are always referred to as such. Thus, there was nothing unusual about my being referred to as Mr. Chairman.

To administer his coup-de-grace, Milbank literally makes up another cheap shot that I "was having so much fun that [I] ignored aides' entreaties to end the session." This did not occur. None of my aides offered entreaties to end the session and I have no idea where Milbank gets that information. The hearing certainly ran longer than expected, but that was because so many Members of Congress persevered under very difficult circumstances to attend, and I thought - given that - the least I could do was allow them to say their piece. That is called courtesy, not "fun."

By the way, the "Downing Street Memo" is actually the minutes of a British cabinet meeting. In the meeting, British officials - having just met with their American counterparts - describe their discussions with such counterparts. I mention this because that basic piece of context, a simple description of the memo, is found nowhere in Milbank's article.

The fact that I and my fellow Democrats had to stuff a hearing into a room the size of a large closet to hold a hearing on an important issue shouldn't make us the object of ridicule. In my opinion, the ridicule should be placed in two places: first, at the feet of Republicans who are so afraid to discuss ideas and facts that they try to sabotage our efforts to do so; and second, on Dana Milbank and the Washington Post, who do not feel the need to give serious coverage on a serious hearing about a serious matter-whether more than 1700 Americans have died because of a deliberate lie. Milbank may disagree, but the Post certainly owed its readers some coverage of that viewpoint.

Sincerely,

John Conyers, Jr.

Random Jottings

-- Harry Reid has been a great choice to lead the Senate Democrats. While the left blogosphere wailed when he got the job, I was happy -- he's the guy who worked on Jim Jeffords for a year to get him to switch from Republican to Independent (see "The Jim Whisperer", on salon.com). Therefore saving us from total Republican domination of government, until this year.

-- Censorship is everywhere. I watched "Remember The Titans", the Denzel Washington film about the first integrated football team in Alexandria, Virginia two nights ago with my friend's two kids. It was being shown on the Disney Channel. When they showed the scene in the lockerroom where Ronnie Bass kisses the quarterback (who has accused Bass of being a girl, or "one of them", for having long hair) Disney cut out the kiss! This made the next two scenes incomprehensible -- the other players reaction's to the kiss, and a subsequent scene in the cafeteria where the character Petey asks Bass if he's "like that".

Apparently Disney, which gives domestic partner benefits to gay couples, can't show a man kissing another man, even in jest. Sad.

-- Good news for US Women's National Team fans: April Heinrichs has submitted her resignation as coach of the national team. She was a terrible judge of talent (two time National Player of the Year Abby Wambach barely got on the 2003 World Cup squad) and a pathetic tactician (unless you like boot-and-chase soccer). Farewell & good riddance Ape.