So, the post by Michael Barone that so many of us were agog over this morning is allegedly a hoax:
This is weird. Earlier today I linked to a supposed post by Michael Barone attacking the Bush administration over the fired attorneys scandal. It certainly seemed out of character, given the tone of Barone’s commentary over recent years. Some readers have been pointing out that though the post itself shows up on the specific URL, it doesn’t show up on the main blog page. The post in question very much seems to reside on the US News website. It’s not an instance of spoofing. But Michael Barone has confirmed to Andrew Sullivan that he did not write the post. According to Sullivan, relaying on Barone I assume, a hacker got into Barone’s site and inserted the post.
Here’s what Michael Barone told Sullivan:
“I’m pretty sure I haven’t commented on the firing of the U.S. attorneys. I really haven’t looked into it enough to be able to comment knowledgeably.”
Rather bizarre way of denying it, don’t you think?
I may not always remember what I’ve written, but I always remember what I wrote today.
Here are a couple of things for you to do before the end of the day:
From Barbara Boxer:
There may be no single person who has done more for our environment than Al Gore. That’s why I’m so pleased that Vice President Gore has accepted my invitation to testify before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on March 21st! And I want you to help me give him the warmest welcome possible.
Please sign my online thank you card to Al Gore now — so I can personally deliver it to him when he comes to testify later this month!
Here’s one from Dick Durbin:
Don’t Pardon Scooter Libby!
Recently, Lewis “Scooter” Libby was found guilty of obstructing justice and lying under oath during an investigation of the Administration’s role in the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame.
Now, some are saying that the White House is considering pardoning Scooter Libby for his role in this mess. That would be a terrible decision, and I hope you’ll join me in speaking out against it.
Tell President Bush to respect the findings of the jury — Don’t Pardon Scooter Libby!
Indeed.
(Matthews, by the way, had the juror back this afternoon, saying that she thinks it’s fine if Bush pardons Libby. Denis Connor pretty much said the same thing here. Michael Smerconish rightly pointed out that they are giving Bush exactly the cover he needs to pardon Libby. It occurs to me that all that weepy nonsense from Wells wasn’t for the trial after all, but rather to build this kind of sympathy for the aftermath.)
Check out this fine decision by PoliticsTV (the fine folks who brought you the Jane and Marcy show during the Libby trial) to not prostitute themselves for FOX. Very nicely done.
Finally, if you overate at lunch and feel the need to purge, you might want to head over to TBOGG’s place to watch this excruciating Michele Malkin video, which I assume is indicative of the kind of “humor” she will be sharing with the FOX audience on her new program “It’s Out There.” Let’s just say that Stephen Colbert doesn’t have anything to worry about. (For that matter, the freshman improv class at Santa Monica High doesn’t have anything to worry about.)
Rudy’s going to try to make this an issue of family privacy, but to the extent his ex-wife and estranged son want to talk about the issue it’s unclear what the hell that actually has to do with anything.
True, but we already know how this will be handled by Rudy and the right wing. They will follow the Cheneys gay daughter formula. If anyone brings it up, Rudy and his followers will immediately growl in the impudent reporter’s face about the invasion of privacy, even if the kids and the ex are out there stumping for Hillary. They will further go out and condemn any Democrat who brings it up saying “this is not a gooood man.” The press will be flummoxed and drop it. So will the Democrats. The wingnuts and the Christian Right will ignore it just as they self-servingly ignored Cheney’s glaring hypocrisy about his daughter.
The Republican base does not really care about social conservatism. It just hates liberals. This is something people have not yet come to terms with.
The Democrats need to make it unpalatable for the base to accept Rudy for other reasons than his personal behavior, which they don’t really care about. For instance, the conservative base would be very unhappy with Rudy if gay groups gave him an award for his open and tolerant attitude. It’s not that they care that he’s worn more ugly evening gowns than Celine Dion. But they just can’t stand anyone that liberals like.
Therefore, I wholeheartedly welcome Rudy into the race because he proves that the culture war is over and that we no longer have to worry about it. I congratulate the Republicans for their new found embrace of social tolerance and progressive values. If they are willing to nominate a man who looks like this, then I think we have to admit that they have come a long way.
Welcome to our big tent, Republicans. Come over here and let all us liberals give you a great big kiss.
Obama paid late parking tickets Racked up penalties while at Harvard
By David Abel, Globe Staff | March 8, 2007
Barack Obama is no longer a scofflaw, at least in Cambridge and Somerville.
Two weeks before the US senator from Illinois launched his presidential campaign, he paid parking tickets he received while attending Harvard Law School, officials said yesterday.
Obama received 17 parking tickets in Cambridge between 1988 and 1991, according to the city’s Traffic, Parking & Transportation Department.
Of those tickets, he paid only two while he was a student and paid them late, said Susan Clippinger, the office’s director.
In January, about when the Globe began asking local officials about Obama’s time at Harvard, including any violations of local laws, someone representing the senator called the parking office to inquire about the decades-old tickets.
On Jan. 26, the remaining $375 in fines and fees were paid by credit card using the city’s website, Clippinger said. She said she didn’t know who paid them.
“I think it’s fabulous he finally paid them,” Clippinger said by phone yesterday. “I think others who owe us money should pay us, too.”
Jen Psaki, a spokeswoman for the Obama campaign, said last night that the senator paid for the tickets out of a personal account.
She would not comment on why it had taken him so long to pay the tickets and fees. “All I can do is confirm that he paid all the tickets and late fees in full,” she said.
Clippinger said her records show that Obama received the tickets between Oct. 5, 1988, and Jan. 12, 1990, for violations including parking in a resident-only area, blocking a bus stop, and failing to put money in meters.
He received most of the tickets in fall 1988, in his first year at Harvard Law School, a grueling trial for many of the students. A meter violation then cost only $5; the penalty for not paying promptly tacked on another $15. At times, he received multiple tickets in the same day for exceeding the time limit at a meter.
In total, he incurred $140 in fines and $260 in late fees. In February 1990, he paid two of the tickets, one for $10 and the other for $15.
“He’s certainly not our worst ticket scofflaw,” Clippinger said. “Unfortunately, it’s not that abnormal. It’s actually pretty run of the mill.”
Obama’s payment of the Cambridge tickets was reported yesterday by The Somerville News.
The Globe reported in January that in Somerville, where Obama lived while attending Harvard, the senator still owed the city $73 in excise taxes and $45 in late penalties for parking in a bus stop in 1990 and in a street-sweeping zone in 1991. Both of the tickets had been paid.
Tom Champion, a spokesman for the city of Somerville, said he called Obama’s office after receiving a query about the late fees from the Globe in late January.
It’s not so much that he had parking tickets. It’s what it says about the character of the man. Anyone who gets that many parking tickets shows that he can’t be bothered to follow the normal rules. And the more people dig into Obama’s past the more of these shady dealings come to light. Sure, each story may be trivial in itself. But when you add them up a picture begins to emerge of a spoiled, somewhat corrupt young politician “cutting corners” while he’s pretending to be a man of the people. (And would all these major papers waste resources on something that isn’t important? I think not.)
I hope the Globe puts at least one more reporter full time on this parking ticket story. Who knows where it might lead? He might have been late with his rent more than a time or two. Or perhaps, he had a history of under-tipping in Cambridge coffee shops. (Who can believe he didn’t after this parking ticket scandal?)
All these stories shine the light in the dark corners of the life of a privileged ivy leaguer who couldn’t even be bothered to move his car so the hard working man who cleans his streets could properly do his job. It shows the typical liberal contempt for the average American who doesn’t get to go to Harvard. How many bus drivers and meter maids are in Iraq today, defending this country so “taxachusetts liberals” like Obama can spit in their faces?
Thank goodness the NY Times company is back on track. We haven’t seen the likes of this kind of in-depth investigative journalism for oh, 15 years or so. They’re back in the saddle.
I’ve written a lot about how the Democrats need to hold Republicans accountable for what they do or they will rise from their electoral graves and return to do it again — just as they have been doing since the dawn of the dirty tricks, modern conservative movement. Character assassins are not impressed by Christian forgiveness and the American people are too busy working two jobs to pay off their sub-prime mortgages and their 28% interest credit cards to notice the details. It’s up to the Democrats to do this.
So when George W. Bush has the utter chutzpah to nominate the biggest contributor to the Swift Boat Liars as an ambassador, it is imperative that the Democratic senate reject him. Otherwise Republicans will once again be assured that there is no price to pay, even when they lose elections.
During the hearing for this reprehensible GOP moneybags, John Kerry was appropriately steely eyed and angry. Jim Webb says he won’t vote for the guy. The nomination has been tabled for now. But it still isn’t settled and it really shouldn’t even be a question.
Joe Lieberman was beaming. “Sam Fox represents what America is all about,” he said, “and that’s why he will be, when confirmed, an extraordinary ambassador.”
The scene was last week’s Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Connecticut’s junior senator was making a highly unusual appearance to lobby for Fox’s nomination to be the U.S. ambassador to Belgium.
Fox has come under fire from Democrats because of his role in helping to bankroll the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth in 2004 – the group that many Democrats still hold responsible for John Kerry’s narrow loss to President Bush that year.
The day after the 2006 election, Lieberman, elected as an independent, got a $10,500 contribution from Fox and another $10,500 from Fox’s wife. Both are generous GOP donors.
Lieberman dropped into Fox’s confirmation hearing last week to praise the St. Louis businessman, a somewhat unorthodox step for a senator who is not a committee member.
[…]
Lieberman concluded his testimony by telling colleagues, “I’m honored to call Sam Fox my friend. I appreciate his friendship. And I’m honored to ask you to send him to Brussels as our next ambassador.”
Lieberman left, and later Kerry roared in. The session became more like prosecutor vs. witness, as Kerry wanted to know who asked Fox to give to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
“I can’t tell you specifically who did because, you know, I don’t remember,” Fox said. “As a matter of fact, I …”
Kerry interrupted. “You have no recollection of why you gave away $50,000?”
“I gave away $50,000 because I was asked to,” Fox replied.
He decried the current campaign finance system, but said he gave the money because “politically it’s necessary if the other side’s doing it.”
Kerry didn’t seem to believe Fox did not know how the money was used. Fox’s contribution is dated Oct. 29, 2004, and the senator cited reports from the summer and fall of 2004 about the Swift Boat group’s allegations.
In August 2004, Kerry said, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Fox’s hometown newspaper, wrote: “The smear campaign was funded and orchestrated by a coterie of Texans with strong ties to the Bush family and political director Karl Rove.”
Then, said Kerry, “a month later [actually two months later], you nevertheless contribute to that very group that is smearing and spreading lies.”
“Yes sir,” said Fox, “all of the [similar groups] were smearing lies.” Later, he added, “I have never gotten involved in the campaign side,” meaning he simply gave money but did not dictate or help create policy.
Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., asked Fox point blank: “Did you have anything to do with the messaging, any involvement in the messaging of the Swift Boat ads?”
“No,” Fox said, “absolutely none.”
Kerry said this week he still had “unanswered questions” for Fox. So did other Democrats.
As the hearing ended, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., a 2008 front-runner for the party’s presidential nomination, looked squarely at Fox.
“I found your statement somewhat unsatisfying to say that you gave because it’s ugly out there and … somebody asked you to give,” Obama said, adding later, “I would have preferred you saying, you know, `In retrospect looking back, contributing to the Swift Boat campaign was a mistake and I wish I hadn’t done it.'”
It doesn’t matter what he says or what he feels. He’s a lying piece of garbage, as he proved when he bankrolled those swiftboat scum. If this guy is confirmed by a Democratic senate the word will once again go forth that there will be no price to pay for character assassination. Indeed, Republicans will laugh their asses off. Not only can you destroy a man’s reputation, his friends and allies will reward you for it. (And then you can do it to them too!)
Lieberman took money from this creep — the same man who spent $50,000 to perpetuate lies about Kerry’s war record in 2004 in one of the most despicable examples of character assassination in American history. He made a point of making an unusual appearance at his confirmation hearing which also proves that the establishment’s failure to properly oppose Lieberman’s candidacy resulted in Lieberman finally showing his true Republican colors in the most partisan political way possible. If it looks like a despicable Republican duck and walks like a despicable Republican duck…
It’s not that Democrats have to make a note of every slight and issue payback. But they do have to draw some bright lines. The swift boat project was beyond the pale and anyone who had anything to do with it should never be rewarded at the hands of Democrats. If they do not make it a point to hold these people accountable in any way they can, they are the architects of their own demise. The ghost of Don Segretti is working feverishly as we speak, training the zombies to do the same thing to the next presidential candidate. That’s how Republican zombies and Joe Lieberman work. They don’t have consciences.
I’m not sure it matters whether or not Bush pardons Libby. The bootlicker-in-chief is, after all, a subservient little maggot whose greatest honor in life will be that he took a fall for three sociopaths — Cheney, Rove, and Bush. The media sharks smell blood in the water and America knows the score. The country’s been taken over and the law subverted. Replay Kurt Vonnegut, Jr:
It so happens that idealism enough for anyone is not made of perfumed pink clouds. It is the law! It is the U.S. Constitution.
But I myself feel that our country, for whose Constitution I fought in a just war, might as well have been invaded by Martians and body snatchers. Sometimes I wish it had been. What has happened instead is that it was taken over by means of the sleaziest, low-comedy, Keystone Cops-style coup d’etat imaginable.
I was once asked if I had any ideas for a really scary reality TV show. I have one reality show that would really make your hair stand on end: “C-Students from Yale.”
George W. Bush has gathered around him upper-crust C-students who know no history or geography, plus not-so-closeted white supremacists, aka Christians, and plus, most frighteningly, psychopathic personalities, or PPs, the medical term for smart, personable people who have no consciences.
To say somebody is a PP is to make perfectly respectable diagnosis, like saying he or she has appendicitis or athlete’s foot. The classic medical text on PPs is The Mask of Sanity by Dr. Hervey Cleckley, a clinical professor of psychiatry at the Medical College of Georgia, published in 1941. Read it!
Some people are born deaf, some are born blind or whatever, and this book is about congenitally defective human beings of a sort that is making this whole country and many other parts of the planet go completely haywire nowadays. These were people born without consciences, and suddenly they are taking charge of everything.
PPs are presentable, they know full well the suffering their actions may cause others, but they do not care. They cannot care because they are nuts. They have a screw loose!
And what syndrome better describes so many executives at Enron and WorldCom and on and on, who have enriched themselves while ruining their employees and investors and country and who still feel as pure as the driven snow, no matter what anybody may say to or about them? And they are waging a war that is making billionaires out of millionaires, and trillionaires out of billionaires, and they own television, and they bankroll George Bush, and not because he’s against gay marriage.
So many of these heartless PPs now hold big jobs in our federal government, as though they were leaders instead of sick. They have taken charge. They have taken charge of communications and the schools, so we might as well be Poland under occupation.
They might have felt that taking our country into an endless war was simply something decisive to do. What has allowed so many PPs to rise so high in corporations, and now in government, is they are so decisive. They are going to do something every fuckin’ day and they are not afraid. Unlike normal people, they are never filled with any doubts, for the simple reason that they don’t give a fuck what happens next. Simply can’t. Do this! Do that! Mobilize the reserves! Privatize the public schools! Attack Iraq! Cut health care! Tap everybody’s telephone! Cut taxes on the rich! Build a trillion-dollar missile shield! Fuck habeas corpus and the Sierra Club and In these Times, and kiss my ass!
IMPEACH! On Tuesday, forty Vermont towns passed resolutions asking Congress to do just that. As far as I’m aware, only three were defeated, while six were tabled for another day. Another twenty or more towns passed resolutions demanding the troops come home. The opporunity here is far bigger than seeing Scooter spend time in jail. The bigger target is in excising the sociopaths who run the country, and the tool to accomplish that is impeachment.
Did something change in the defense after its opening statement about Rove (Libby “will not be sacrificed so Karl Rove can be protected”) that led to its refusal to follow up during the trial? Did the prosecutor have new information that has not yet been made public about Libby and Cheney? If so, that evidence would have been irrelevant to the precise charges against Libby but might have come into play if Libby and Cheney testified. Their appearances might have made them vulnerable to additional perjury and obstruction charges if they were found to have lied on the stand. But who might have proved that? The missing piece in the extensive evidence and testimony that detailed the administration’s concerted attack on Wilson, orchestrated by Cheney, is the conversations among Libby, Cheney — and Rove. Rove had made a deal with Fitzgerald. Rove changed his testimony, escaped prosecution and went back for a fifth time before the grand jury. Fitzgerald owned Rove. Only if Libby and Cheney appeared could Fitzgerald cross-examine them about their discussions with Rove, which presumably Rove had already testified about before the grand jury. Rove was the hostile witness against Cheney whom the prosecution had waiting in the wings, the witness who was never called. If Libby had come to the stand in his own defense, and summoned Cheney as well, Fitzgerald might have been prompted to call Rove from the deep to impeach Libby’s and Cheney’s credibility and reveal new incriminating information about them. Instead, Libby remained silent, Cheney flew off to Afghanistan and Rove never appeared. Rove was the missing witness for the prosecution.
How interesting. I suppose the question is, how and why did the Libby team find this out after the trial began?
I just heard a juror on Hardball say that Libby is a very nice guy who just got caught in a lie and it snowballed and that she hopes he gets a pardon, preferably soon. She agrees that the case was trivial and wishes she had been on a jury for the real crime. Kate O’Beirne agrees, naturally. She is also sitting right next to the juror saying that Libby didn’t lie and wasn’t really guilty. The juror says nothing. How much do people want to bet that this woman is going to end up being the poster girl for the Free Scooter campaign?
I have to say that I think the conservatives are winning the spin war on this. By the time they are done, everyone in the country is going to believe that poor little Scooter was railroaded and that it’s perfectly normal for a president to immediately pardon his aides when they are found guilty in a court of law. Hell, he can hire him back!
Republican administrations always break the law and when they are caught they always pardon their own. I guess we’ve just become so used to it now that people don’t even find it shocking anymore.
If this happens, from this day forward, Republican administrations know they have no obligation to uphold the law while in office, ever. Why should they?
Kos had this up yesterday so I assume you’ve already seen it. Still, it’s worth memorializing throughout the blogosphere:
This is the network that certain Nevada politicians think the party should legitimize as a regular news organization by having them host a Democratic debate. Fair, balanced and sometimes even technically factual.
Evidently, the thinking is that Fox viewers are just naive babes in the woods who can be turned into Democrats if only they can hear Democrats debate. Let’s suppose their average viewer, a 63 year old white conservative Republican male tunes in to his usual programming and instead finds a woman, a black man, a trial lawyer, a New England senator, a peace candidate from Ohio and the man who gave the Pentagon papers to the NY Times debating. And let’s further suppose he listens intently and is intrigued by what he hears. These Democrats are making a lot of sense. What’s going on?
Assuming that ridiculous scenario is plausible, the question is, will they still be intrigued once their favorite Fox commentators weigh in with their analysis right after the debate?
You be the judge. Here’s the analysis after the first Fox-hosted debate in 2003:
TONY SNOW, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: Welcome to Washington. I’m Tony Snow. You’ve just seen a debate by Democratic presidential candidates at Morgan State University in Baltimore, Maryland. The debate, sponsored by the Congressional Black Caucus Institute and Fox News channel.
We’re going to talk about the debate for the bulk of the hour. Joining me now in Washington, our panel: Fred Barnes, executive editor of the “Weekly Standard”; Mort Kondracke, executive editor of “Roll Call”; Ceci Connolly, national correspondent for the “Washington Post,” all Fox News contributors.
Fred, impressions first. Any winners tonight?
FRED BARNES, EXECUTIVE EDITOR, “WEEKLY STANDARD”: Not really. Maybe Al Sharpton. It makes a difference when Sharpton’s there. It was much livelier debate, as a result. That’s for sure. He wasn’t there in New Mexico last week, although Lieberman was livelier tonight than he’s been before and so on.
So, it was a zippier debate but, I think, uneventful in the outcome of the Democratic presidential fight.
I think Democrats have one problem in these debates and that is they talk about an America, they criticize what’s going on and they create a picture of an America that I think most people don’t recognize, you know. It’s an America where the Patriot Act is creating a police state and where, as Al Sharpton said, soldiers come home and they can’t get an education, they can’t get a house, you know. They can’t get a job or anything like that.
You know, there’s this health care crisis that is ruining the country and we’re involved in another Vietnam. And people in Florida are denied the right to vote. I don’t think most Americans recognize that as the real America.
MORT KONDRACKE, EXECUTIVE EDITOR, “ROLL CALL”: Obviously, they are not appealing to the whole of America. What they are trying to do is to appeal to the Democratic primary voter. And the way that you appeal most to Democratic primary voters is to beat up on George Bush.
I mean, practically anytime anybody asked a substantive question they had a little bit of an answer about what they would do, you know, on the subject, but the rest of it was an attack on what George Bush has not done or failed to do or lied about or et cetera, et cetera.
And it’s because the Democratic primary core voters are so enraged at George Bush that they have to — you know, they have to feed that beast.
And the most — the best example of this is Joe Lieberman, who’s probably the most moderate of them all and constantly is waving the bloody shirt of Florida, you know, that black voters were disenfranchised, were prevented from going to the polls in Florida, et cetera, et cetera. It’s replaying the sore of the 2000 election.
So, you know, that’s what this is all about. This was not an attempt to appeal to the average voter.
SNOW: CECI?
CECI CONNOLLY, “WASHINGTON POST”: Not a bad political strategy, necessarily, though. I mean, if you talk about — think about it, one of these Democrats is hoping to get a big chunk of black voters out in those primaries, especially that South Carolina primary, which I think is third in the line, right after Iowa and New Hampshire.
So I think it’s understandable why you heard some of that rhetoric this evening. You heard a lot of beating up on Attorney General John Ashcroft, a lot of talk about the Patriot Act, civil rights. Although interestingly, none of them were very specific about how they’d want to change those things or what their prescriptions are for some of those problems.
I think that it’s got to be very difficult right now if you’re a Democratic primary voter to make a decision between this group.
SNOW: And one of the reasons why it was difficult, Fred, is with the exception of what one sort of exchange between Howard Dean and Joe Lieberman, nobody’s taking shots at each other. At this point, it’s all trying to differentiate themselves from the president rather than each other.
BARNES: It is mainly that. There’s one other example, though. Dennis Kucinich takes shots at the other candidates, particularly the ones who voted in favor of the war resolution in Congress, and that’s Gephardt and Kerry in particular. Graham voted against it.
But, you know, they generally agree. They’re saying the same things, you know, and blaming Bush for all of them. At one time, I think it was Sharpton, some schools have closed in St. Louis. Sharpton said it was Bush’s fault.
KONDRACKE: I thought that the one substantively — besides the fight between Lieberman and Dean over Israel, which we can presumably discuss some more, the other interesting substantive point tonight was on the question of whether we can win or should win the conflict in Iraq or pull out.
And Lieberman, Dean, and Kerry all said this one way or another we have to win this or we have to succeed there, and not one of them was willing to say that he’s against voting for the $87 billion that the president is asking for.
SNOW: All right. We’re going to take a quick break. When we return, Carl Cameron is going to be in Spin Alley, hearing from the various candidates and their camps. We’ll bring that to you right after a short break. Stay with us
Do you think that intrigued Fox viewer is as sanguine in his unexpected impressions as he was a few minutes before?
Carl Cameron then went over the highlights of the debate, including this observation, which surely would have been a surprising detail they hadn’t thought of:
Joe Lieberman, of all of the interruptions that we saw in this debate, and there were a bunch of them by supporters of Lyndon Larouche, a man running who’s been running for president as an independent and Democrat for years, a convicted tax cheat and something of a rabble-rouser.
Lots of interruptions today, at least three targeted at Joe Lieberman. And there were a number of people from the Lieberman campaign that pointed out the Larouche folks have a history of sort of anti-Semitism, and they felt as though perhaps he was being singled out for these interruptions.
Those anti-semitic, Lyndon Larouche Democrats are extremely rude, aren’t they? It’s a good thing this was a Fox debate where all the viewers who were unaware of LaRouche could be educated about him. (Psst. I think they were b-l-a-c-k too.)
Up to this point, we have not heard from one proclaimed Democrat since the last candidate spoke. Cameron finally intereviewed Elijah Cummings, member of the CBC, who sponsored the event with Fox and then the big finale:
SNOW: Welcome back. Time for final thoughts of our panelists.
Ceci Connolly, when somebody comes up to you tomorrow and says, “How did the debate go,” what are you going to tell them?
CONNOLLY: A little bit snoozy, I have to confess.
But I wanted to come back for one second to Iraq, since that is so important right not. And for as much trouble as, I think, President Bush is having right now in Iraq, you saw that these Democratic candidates are not very clear on what to say about the issue either.
They were asked a straight yes or a no, would you support the president’s request for $87 billion? And the only word to give the one- word answer was Representative Kucinich, who said a firm no.
The other interesting thing on Iraq tonight, I thought, was that Senator Graham had some of the toughest things to say about President Bush. He actually answered yes to the question of do you think President Bush misled Americans…
SNOW: Deliberately.
CONNOLLY: Deliberately misled the American public. He also called it a quagmire. And he said it’s a distraction from the war on terror.
KONDRACKE: This was not a debate. There really was very little mixing it up among the candidates. The only person who was challenging any other candidate is Joe Lieberman, who took on Howard Dean today on Israel and took on Kerry on the issue of putting more troops into Iraq.
BARNES: Tony, there were two questions I liked that we haven’t heard before. One, what about allowing naturalized citizens to become president, to run for president? I think it was Senator Graham who said he would favor that change in the Constitution. So would I.
And then, what’s their favorite song. And some candidates were uncomfortable in trying to figure out what to say.
SNOW: Well, a lot didn’t have favorite songs, but they thought them up on the fly.
OK, panel. Thank you very much, and thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for watching.
That’s all the time we have. Stay tuned. HANNITY & COLMES is up next with more on the Democratic debate and President Bush’s run for reelection.
Here’s Hannity:
HANNITY: Still to come tonight, Peter Fenn and Betsy Hart. They go head to head on tonight’s debate. And later — well, the very latest on the California recall. There’s a lot of news out of California today.
But first, joining us from Washington, the co-director of Empower America, our good friend, it’s Tuesday. That means Tuesdays with Bill Bennett.
Bill, I wonder if you agree with me. I watched this debate tonight, watched these nine candidates, and I come away from this that not one of these guys is qualified to be president of this great land. I come away that they have no serious plan to deal with the war on terror. They have – – I heard more shrillness from these guys. I’m not intimidated at all by what I heard tonight.
BILL BENNETT, EMPOWER AMERICA: There wasn’t a lot of gravitas, I guess you’d say. I think that would be fair. There was a lot of attitude. There was a lot of dissing Bush. I have to tell you, though, Sean, I found it — although not edifying, I found it entertaining and interesting. I disagree with Congressman Davis about Dean and Lieberman. This was — this was Al Sharpton’s show. I mean, it was Al Sharpton…
HANNITY: I agree.
BENNETT: … and eight mostly white, mostly dull people.
(LAUGHTER)
HANNITY: Yes!
BENNETT: You know, he was…
HANNITY: Yes!
BENNETT: I mean, he was interesting and funny and natural wit and verve. And he also, you know, would make a great high school principal. I mean, given the disruption in the hall, and so on. Now, you know the record. This guy is not a great guy, the Tawana Brawley case and all. But boy, he is a presence in the Democratic Party. And by the way, he has made Jesse Jackson disappear. He is — you know, he is the new — he is the new guy in that role.
HANNITY: Yes.
BENNETT: But I think, in terms of the larger picture, Sean, the more serious point is, if Al Gore and Hillary were watching, if the DLC, the Democratic Leadership Council, was watching, they have to say somebody there may get the nomination, but nobody there tonight…
HANNITY: Can win.
BENNETT: … I think showed that they could be the president.
So this is what the average 63 year old white, male conservative Republican Fox viewer that the Democrats think they will reach can expect to see. They will watch the Fox news All Stars insult and trivialize the candidates. They can see them imply that convicted felon Lyndon laRouche is an anti-semitic Democrat. They can watch them barely restrain their (very clever) sarcastic and patronizing racism by continuously pointing out that Al Sharpton “won” the debate. Throughout these exchanges the Fox all-stars are smirking and giggling like a bunch of schoolboys at the fat kid they stuck the “kick me” sign on.
Let’s be clear here. Fox news likes to host Democratic debates in order to maintain the fiction they are an unbiased network. But they also format them in such a way as to send plenty of coded, rightwing messages to their viewers, the most hardcore Republicans in the nation.
Fox News particularly likes to host the Congressional Black Caucus debates for the express purpose of riling and entertaining the racist Republican pigs who watch their network, on behalf of the Republican Party. I know how they’re received — I watched that one in the company of a racist Republican and he got the message loud and clear.
After the Nevada debate the CBC plan another Fox debate for this cycle. It’s a big mistake. The CBC and the Democratic party gain absolutely nothing by doing this.
John Edwards has done the right thing by refusing to appear at the Nevada debate. I hope the other Democrats follow. I also fervently hope that the CBC does not allow itself to be used again by FOX News to subtly convey a derisive, racist message to its viewers. It is wrong to subject good Democrats to this kind of coverage in order to see their candidates and their issues debated and discussed. There are plenty of other venues that don’t feature “analysis” that isn’t exclusively hostile to Democrats.
Something is rotten in the heart of Washington; and it lies in the vice-president’s office. The salience of this case is obvious. What it is really about – what it has always been about – is whether this administration deliberately misled the American people about WMD intelligence before the war. The risks Cheney took to attack Wilson, the insane over-reaction that otherwise very smart men in this administration engaged in to rebut a relatively trivial issue: all this strongly implies the fact they were terrified that the full details of their pre-war WMD knowledge would come out. Fitzgerald could smell this. He was right to pursue it, and to prove that a brilliant, intelligent, sane man like Libby would risk jail to protect his bosses. What was he really trying to hide? We now need a Congressional investigation to find out more, to subpoena Cheney and, if he won’t cooperate, consider impeaching him.
