Via
TBogg, we find a headline over at
MSNBC:
The Case for Joe Biden:
A long time political consultant argues that the senior senator from Delaware is the Democrat’s best shot.
Whenever anybody asks what should be done first when the revolution comes -- take out the punditry class (like Joe Klein) or the the political consultant class (like Bob Shrum) -- I am always torn. Tonight, for obvious reasons, I lean towards the consultants. Hard to say who does more damage.
Discuss.
Update: Tom, from the comments: "Good God. Don't kill Bob Shrum. He writes the best concession speeches in the business. We need such experience on the front lines."
|
AOL wants to know what you think. So does
MSNBC.
Update: Just so everyone knows -- The Crooks & Liars servers are down. They should be up soon with all kinds of Olbermann O'Reilly ass-kicking goodness.
|
John McCain clapped like a trained monkey. Cindy Sheehan
got herself arrested:
WASHINGTON - Activist Cindy Sheehan, who was invited to
President George W. Bush's State of the Union speech, has been arrested, according to CNN.
Sheehan, who was invited to attend the address by California's Democratic Rep. Lynn Woolsey (news, bio, voting record), was reportedly already seated in the House chamber when she was detained, CNN said.
A Capitol police official reportedly said Sheehan had unfurled a banner, which is a violation of House rules.
Parents of fallen soldiers have been special guests at Bush's State of the Union speeches. But Sheehan was one invited guest he couldn't have been eager to see: Sheehan, gained international fame with her anti-war protest outside Bush's Texas ranch last year.
"I'm proud that Cindy's my guest tonight," Woolsey said in an interview before the speech, and reported arrest. "She has made a difference in the debate to bring our troops home from Iraq."
Think Progress is live debunking the speech.
Update: AP is reporting a
different Sheehan story:
Sheehan, who had been invited to attend the speech by Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif., was charged with demonstrating in the Capitol building, a misdemeanor, said Capitol Police Sgt. Kimberly Schneider. Sheehan was taken in handcuffs to police headquarters a few blocks away and her case was processed as Bush spoke.
Schneider said Sheehan had worn a T-shirt with an anti-war slogan to the speech and covered it up until she took her seat. Police warned her that such displays were not allowed, but she did not respond, the spokeswoman said.
Police handcuffed Sheehan and removed her from the gallery before Bush arrived. Sheehan was to be released on her own recognizance, Schneider said.
(graphic thanks to Valley Girl)
Update: Bradblog is posting updates.
Update II: Arianna will be on with Anderson Cooper.
|
SOTU open thread (
Think Progress has the text). Pay special attention to fawning bloviators, I expect they will really outdo themselves tonight.
Someone will say something ungodly stupid before this evening is over, and my cable just went out (big storm here in Oregon, dogs are terrified) so please let me know what I'm missing.
I like to think of it as one of God's random acts of kindness.
Update: MSNBC says Cindy Sheehan has been arrested at the SOTU.
(thanks to sans-culotte for the photo)
|
So how come CNN has three conservatives and one "progressive"
commenting on the SOTU? Personally I'd rather hear Bill Bennett opine about
pickin' the ponies.
And over at Orcinus,
David Niewert writes a letter to Maria Cantwell withdrawing his support after her vote on Strip Search Sammy. Good on him. They call it "vote trading." We call it "betrayal." Hardly seems like we're speaking the same language any more.
Update: The General lays claim to Cantwell's uterus.
|
Today is the final day to vote for the Bloggies. We've been nominated for
Best Political Blog. All our fellow nominees are excellent and it's impossible to make a bad choice with
Wonkette,
Kos,
Talking Points Memo and
Crooks & Liars also in the running.
Your vote will be critical in helping to determine who wins the coveted prize, a
right-wing Christian book. I think it is fair to say they did not anticipate the popularity of lefty political blogs this year.
|
Continuing its tradition of journalistic excellence, the
Washington Post sends its best and brightest to bash the blogs:
Elected Democrats and their liberal base are in one of their periodic splits between pragmatism and symbolism. Under pressure from blogs and liberal groups, Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) yesterday attempted an obviously doomed filibuster against the Supreme Court nomination of Samuel Alito -- and Kerry got only 25 of the 60 needed votes.
Don't worry Dana, we will unleash no swarm of "hate speech" upon your tender ears explaining the difference between 41 and 60. Nobody thinks enough of this particular mistake to impute you with any partisan motives.
Is there some sort of basic literacy test you have to fail to work at the Washington Post?
(hat tip Teddy)
|
One of my favorite websites on all the internets is Vinyl Mine, where Jim H. has his trademark "Coffee and Cigarettes" MP3 mixes. He's got a
Burt Bacharach fetish going on at the moment and one one of the mixes includes "Alfie," "The Look of Love" and "Raindrops." Another has a very good
Mice Parade track that I'm fond of, but somehow the Bacharach seems quite right tonight. Burt has, of late, grown quite
political.
And Wendy Wasserstein died today. Here's a piece from
the New Yorker she wrote in 1999 on discovering her true calling as a Shiksa Goddess.
Enjoy.
|
I can't say it often enough, it was a great effort these past few days. Time to relax and revel in the fact that your labors sucked much of the joy out of wingnuttia tonight, and that the "weak liberal" meme is dissolving even as the dittoheads piddle themselves silly over our bad language and righteous indignation.
And on that note, I highly recommend:
1. Hooking up with your local chapter of
Drinking Liberally and making the acquaintance of like-minded people over a few beers. From the minute I started reading blogs I made a real effort to meet other residents of upper blogistan and I've made some of the best friends I've ever had and I think it's saved what bits of my sanity the Bush Junta had yet to shred. There are Drinking Liberally get-togethers all over the country, not only in places like New York and Los Angeles but Walla Walla Washington and Ames, Iowa. Actually I don't drink but that never seems to matter, the topic of politics with like-minded people is quite intoxicating enough.
2. Watching Keith Olbermann. Not only is he the best newscaster on television, his program is a regular beacon of hope. It would be great to give him the ratings power to wrestle free of the restraints placed on him by management (they complain if he books too many "liberals" on the show) and it's a great way to say informed. Just make sure you change the channel before Rita Cosby comes on or she could start talking about porn and your dog might barf in your shoe (true story).
3. Seeing what's going on with the Democrats in your area. You can check out the
Democracy for America website where they have community meet-ups listed by zip code, and the
DNC has links to each state's Democratic Party. Nothing will be as effective in the fall of 2006 as boots on the ground.
Above all remember that the thing Karl Rove fears even more than Patrick Fitzgerald and vigorous physical exercise is people like us getting motivated and mobilized. So throw him a sleepless night or two and get connected.
|
The Judiciary Committee hearings on Alito were a real eye opener for me and I think for many others as well. Not so much because the members of the committee were in such disarray -- that's been going on for a long time -- but because as we sat here together and watched them collectively I got a sense in reading the comments that some seismic shift was happening, that people finally realized that enough was enough. Something had to be done, someone had to start agitating for change and it wasn't going to come from within the Democratic establishment.
I want to take a moment to thank each and every person who took the time to participate in the comments section on this and other blogs to voice your frustration and your willingness to do something. It really took me by surprise, I have to say, to hear people so engaged and ready to mobilize. This amazing move to fight this battle came from the ground up. DC pundits are feeling threatened, and many have tried to dismiss this as John Kerry's cynical attempts to manipulate the grass roots, but that's a mistake. It was a groundswell that swept me and other bloggers up and called out for direction, and somehow John Kerry heard that and he stepped into a leadership position and he gave it to us. He gave our frustrations a focus, he offered us a chance to stand up and fight regardless of the likelihood of success, and that was all we asked. He validated our efforts and he let people know that their voices were being heard in spite of the timidity gripping many of his peers.
I frankly think the passion of the netroots community surprised him. For those who want to criticize him for not acting earlier or better, I do not think he had any reason to believe that this kind of support was extant or that we would have his back. He put his neck on the line over at Kos and the Huffington Post, not knowing what was going to come back. The outpouring of gratitude that came back to him for his efforts was extremely moving.
Next time he'll know. And so will we.
We shook things up. People like Joe Biden and Barak Obama were extremely irked about being put on the spot. Diane Feinstein changed her vote, and it's entirely possible others did likewise and we just didn't hear it. We forced those who voted for cloture into publicly opposing us, and now we know where things stand. And everyone across the political spectrum knows we're here now. They are starting to get a glimmer of the kind of muscle we can put behind something we believe it. It was a great moment, a grand and noble fight and I am so proud of each and every one of you for taking part in it.
The next big battle on the horizon are the NSA wiretap hearings coming up next week. On February 6 the Judiciary Committee will begin questioning Alberto Gonzales. I hope everyone will stop by
Glenn Greenwald's blog and take time to look over his post on the points he believes will be the most important to cover during this process and to contribute your ideas. Glenn has a lot of people's ears right now after his work on the topic
made headlines so it's a great way to prepare for and contribute to something that's going to be very critical for all of us.
I don't think anyone can look at the Alito battle on the part of the netroots community and say it was anything other than a huge success. We proved we could show up and we knew how to fight for what we believe in, no matter the odds, just because it's the right thing to do. Your courage, your conviction and your fearlessness are inspirational.
If anyone's been looking for the heart of the Democratic party, it's right here.
Update: I'd also like to take this opportunity to invite the "lurkers" to join in the comments, people who stop by but haven't felt that the time was right to participate in the conversation. Please feel free to introduce yourself. The natives are friendly and the water is warm.
|
Here's the
list:
Akaka, Daniel K. (D-HI) Yes
Alexander, Lamar (R-TN) Yes
Allard, Wayne (R-CO) Yes
Allen, George (R-VA) Yes
Baucus, Max (D-MT) Yes
Bayh, Evan (D-IN) No
Bennett, Robert F. (R-UT) Yes
Biden, Joseph R., Jr. (D-DE) No
Bingaman, Jeff (D-NM) Yes
Bond, Christopher S. (R-MO) Yes
Boxer, Barbara (D-CA) No
Brownback, Sam (R-KS) Yes
Bunning, Jim (R-KY) Yes
Burns, Conrad R. (R-MT) Yes
Burr, Richard (R-NC) Yes
Byrd, Robert C. (D-WV) Yes
Cantwell, Maria (D-WA) Yes
Carper, Thomas R. (D-DE) Yes
Chafee, Lincoln (R-RI) Yes
Chambliss, Saxby (R-GA) Yes
Clinton, Hillary Rodham (D-NY) No
Coburn, Tom (R-OK) Yes
Cochran, Thad (R-MS) Yes
Coleman, Norm (R-MN) Yes
Collins, Susan M. (R-ME) Yes
Conrad, Kent (D-ND) Yes
Cornyn, John (R-TX) Yes
Craig, Larry E. (R-ID) Yes
Crapo, Mike (R-ID) Yes
Dayton, Mark (D-MN) No
DeMint, Jim (R-SC) Yes
DeWine, Mike (R-OH) Yes
Dodd, Christopher J. (D-CT) No
Dole, Elizabeth (R-NC) Yes
Domenici, Pete V. (R-NM) Yes
Dorgan, Byron L. (D-ND) Yes
Durbin, Richard (D-IL) No
Ensign, John (R-NV) NV NV
Enzi, Michael B. (R-WY) Yes
Feingold, Russell D. (D-WI) No
Feinstein, Dianne (D-CA) No
Frist, William H. (R-TN) Yes
Graham, Lindsey (R-SC)Yes
Grassley, Chuck (R-IA) Yes
Gregg, Judd (R-NH) Yes
Hagel, Chuck (R-NE) NV NV
Harkin, Tom (D-IA) NV NV
Hatch, Orrin G. (R-UT) Yes
Hutchison, Kay Bailey (R-TX) Yes
Inhofe, James M. (R-OK) Yes
Inouye, Daniel K. (D-HI) Yes
Isakson, Johnny (R-GA) Yes
Jeffords, James M. (I-VT) No
Johnson, Tim (D-SD) Yes
Kennedy, Edward M. (D-MA) No
Kerry, John F. (D-MA) No
Kohl, Herb (D-WI) Yes
Kyl, Jon (R-AZ) Yes
Landrieu, Mary L. (D-LA) Yes
Lautenberg, Frank R. (D-NJ) No
Leahy, Patrick J. (D-VT) No
Levin, Carl (D-MI) No
Lieberman, Joseph I. (D-CT) Yes
Lincoln, Blanche L. (D-AR) Yes
Lott, Trent (R-MS) Yes
Lugar, Richard G. (R-IN) Yes
Martinez, Mel (R-FL) Yes
McCain, John (R-AZ) Yes
McConnell, Mitch (R-KY) Yes
Menendez, Robert (D-NJ) No
Mikulski, Barbara A. (D-MD) No
Murkowski, Lisa (R-AK) Yes
Murray, Patty (D-WA) No
Nelson, Bill (D-FL) Yes
Nelson, E. Benjamin (D-NE) Yes
Obama, Barack (D-IL) No
Pryor, Mark L. (D-AR) Yes
Reed, Jack (D-RI) No
Reid, Harry (D-NV) No
Roberts, Pat (R-KS) Yes
Rockefeller, John D., IV (D-WV) Yes
Salazar, Ken (D-CO) Yes
Santorum, Rick (R-PA) Yes
Sarbanes, Paul S. (D-MD) No
Schumer, Charles E. (D-NY) No
Sessions, Jeff (R-AL) Yes
Shelby, Richard C. (R-AL) Yes
Smith, Gordon H. (R-OR) Yes
Snowe, Olympia J. (R-ME) Yes
Specter, Arlen (R-PA) Yes
Stabenow, Debbie (D-MI) No
Stevens, Ted (R-AK) Yes
Sununu, John E. (R-NH)Yes
Talent, Jim (R-MO) Yes
Thomas, Craig (R-WY) Yes
Thune, John (R-SD) Yes
Vitter, David (R-LA) Yes
Voinovich, George V. (R-OH) Yes
Warner, John (R-VA) Yes
Wyden, Ron (D-OR) No
TOTAL 72 Yes 25 No
Please, please take time to call, fax and email the Senators who supported us and voted "no" on cloture. Let them know that we appreciate them, and that we will remember this.
Thanks to everyone who participated. You're amazing. We showed up. We fought hard. And this is only the beginning.
Contact information
here.
|
The announcement this morning that Lincoln Chaffee would vote "no" on Alito but "yes" on cloture was a hollow gesture to NARAL and the pro-choice community he pretends to cultivate. A vote for cloture is a vote for Alito. It's that simple.
I write this post with great regret because I am a long time supporter of NARAL, an unabashed feminist and pro-choice advocate who understood why they backed Chaffee in the first place. As Democrats quickly tried to shed a commitment to choice in a rush to become "Republican lite," it was a way for NARAL to say don't take us for granted -- don't assume we will be here just because the other guy is worse. I thought it was an effective way to telegraph to Democrats that if they wanted the tremendous money and resources NARAL could put behind a candidate, they were going to have to take a stand.
I just got off the phone with NARAL and I am being told that they do not consider Chaffee's vote on cloture to be significant. They are not going to pull their support for him over this.
Let's just be clear. Lincoln Chaffee is getting ready to vote for the single biggest blow to choice in this country since Roe v. Wade was passed 33 years ago. This ridiculous little kabuki about voting AGAINST Alito and FOR cloture is a sham, and if NARAL is going to look the other way they no longer deserve to be the guardians of a woman's right to choose in this country.
They had the money. They had the manpower. They did not organize effectively to oppose Alito's confirmation, and now they are rubber stamping his ascendancy to the Supreme Court.
I don't want to take people's efforts away from calling their Senators and keeping the pressure on as we come down to the wire, but watching groups like NARAL sit this one out is unacceptable. They should be calling Chafee right now and letting him know that they will cut him off if he throws his vote with the Gang of 14. Anything less is unacceptable, and a mockery of everything they purport to stand for.
NARAL Pro-Choice America1156 15th Street, NW Suite 700
Washington, DC 20005
Main Number: 202.973.3000
Main Fax: 202.973.3096
can@ProChoiceAmerica.orgfeedback formUpdate: Georgia10 at Kos says ditto that.
Update II: Meteor Blades, from
the comments: "Some of us can multitask on the phone. I've probably contributed $5000 to NARAL over the years, and I just finished telling them that they need to speak publicly and NOW regarding Chafee."
|
Per
Gilliard:
9am Monday morning shut down the Senate switchboard.
You can use these toll-free numbers (and ask for the Senators by name): 888-355-3588 or 888-818-6641.
Tanya has more info and individual contact numbers if the toll free numbers get jammed.
|
We scratch, they bleed.
The best sign that the status quo is in flux up is the sudden, loud chorus of establishment types wanting to dicipline liberal bloggers back into their caves.
John has a few choice words for
Katarina Vanden Heuvel, who seems to be channeling the GOP via
Jim VandeHei over the Kaine/Murtha SOTU blogospheric non-controversy:
Your post focuses on an issue that was barely discussed in the blogosphere at all, except for a few comments back on Jan 18 -- yet your headline frames the issue as if it was a hotly contested debate. Most of us just nodded our heads and said OK. Did you suddenly turn on your computer two weeks after the fact and find that your monitor was frozen on this post? Arianna objected to Kaine being the speaker primarily because she felt he was much weaker on national defense than John Murtha is and that is a big issue for the Democratic Party. Your whole post is a straw man argument because the main premise is wrong. It only pushes the meme that liberal bloggers are irrational and unwieldy when that is simply not the case. Please do us a favor and if you are going to be a critic of the blogosphere (we welcome you with open arms) then do us the courtesy of actually reading what we write.
Katarina notes that Ezra Klein is "no Brad Pitt." I know Ezra and I'm with
David E. and Mrs. TBogg on that one -- is she blind?
|
From
the comments:
My theory is that a lot of the creepy freepers who post on lefty sites are just low-level right-out-of-college cubicle jockeys at right wing think-tanks. They're getting paid to skulk around and regurgitate winger talking points. Just a theory of course.
Have you ever noticed that a lot of them tend to post a lot during business hours and then disappear on the weekends? I guess that's when their busy date-raping one another ...
I've noticed this a lot over at the HuffPo. There seem to be a couple of people whose job it is to just jump in and leave right-wing talking points at the top of every thread. It doesn't happen if you post at night, and then they won't show up until business hours the next day.
No point, really, just nice to know the tactics of the enemy.
Update: William N. provides
this link for the skeptics.
|
The filibuster turnout has been insane. I'm hearing from Sean-Paul Kelley that eFax service is out, that's how many faxes are being sent. The Dems -- and no doubt the GOP -- have to be shocked that we could show up like this.
I'm not surprised in the least.
But Ken Salazar is still more afraid of Mullah Dobson than he is the members of his own party, apparently. Read what one organizer, a teacher from Colorado who was one of the people who pounded the pavement to put Salazar in office in the first place, is now saying
over at Kos:
This was the same populist wave that propelled you to high office, sir, and now I'm calling in whatever chit my role in your election earned me. I'm afraid I'll only be able to view the choice you make in the coming days in one of two ways: If you choose to be a union man and join your fellows in solidarity by supporting the filibuster of Judge Alito, you will earn my admiration and support. If you choose to sit on the fence and leave Democrat men and women of principle to fall on their swords alone, you will earn my political enmity for all eternity. For me, at least, primary season 2010 will begin the day after you vote in favor of cloture.
Trust in the folks who put you in office, Senator Salazar; people like me won't leave you hanging later if you support us now. Ask Mark Cloer, the Republican State Rep from District 17, who faced a primary challenge from his right because he crossed party lines to vote against a moronic school voucher program. I, a flaming liberal from Boulder, walked and dropped literature for Cloer, a Republican in Colorado Springs, at the behest of a grateful CEA. Representative Cloer won, by the way - better to have a Republican who stands on principle than a Democrat who could win in the Springs, right, Senator?
If indeed Salazar is on his knees blowing Mullah Dobson and is willing to throw the country into the shitter for the next thirty years just so some foaming fascist won't say mean things about him, well we know where he stands. Especially if Holy Joe splits off from the gang of 14 and supports the filibuster, you can count me in for making Salazar's life miserable every day we can on the road to 2010.
Salazar contact info once again:
Denver Metro Region
2300 15th Street, Suite 450
Denver, CO 80202
Phone: (303) 455-7600
Fax: (303) 455-8851
Washington, D.C.
U.S. Senator Ken Salazar
702 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
(202) 224-5852 main
(202) 228-5036 fax
Pikes Peak Region
(719) 328-1100
High Plains Region
(970) 542-9446
Arkansas River Region
(719) 542-7550
Four Corners Region
(970) 259-1710
Western Slope/I 70 West Region
(970) 241-6631
North Central Region
(970) 224-2200
Alamosa
(719) 587-0096
Alamosa 719-587-0098 (fax)
Fort Morgan 970-542-3088 (fax)
Colorado Springs 719-328-1129 (fax)
Fort Collins 970-224-2205 (fax)
Pueblo 719-542-7555 (fax)
Durango 970-259-9789 (fax)
Grand Junction 970-241-8313 (fax)
Denver 303-455-8851 (fax)
You can also send a telegram here.
Oh well, look on the bright side. If Alito gets confirmed thanks to Kenny Boy, I'm sure the photoshoppers will have a field day whipping up entertaining images of him his new best buddy the Mullah for the next six years.
Update: Colorado bloggers are saying that Salazar is now running from his own constituents as he tries to avoid being answerable for this one.
|
I'm hearing that most of the Senate email and phone message boxes are full, so below are the fax numbers for key senators. If you don't have a fax machine you can send one from your computer (the free fax services seem to be overloaded, so there must be a lot of people participating, a very good sign). These links will give you instructions for
Windows XP,
Windows 2000,
OS X-Panther and
OS X-Tiger. If you have any tech trouble ask someone in the comments for help (and any techies who can chime in will be greatly appreciated).
You can also sign up for a
30 day free trial at eFax.
Senator Ted Stevens [AK] REPUBLICAN SWING VOTE
Washington 202-224-2354 (fax)
Fairbanks 907-451-7290 (fax)
Juneau 907-586-8922 (fax)
Anchorage 907-258-9305 (fax)
Kenai 907-283-4363 (fax)
Wasilla 907-376-8526 (fax)
Bethel 907-543-1637 (fax)
Ketchikan 907-225-0390 (fax)
Senator Blanche Lambert Lincoln [AR] DEMOCRAT SWING VOTE
Washington 202-228-1371 (fax)
Dumas 870-382-1026 (fax)
Texarkana 870-774-7627 (fax)
Little Rock 501-375-7064 (fax)
Fayetteville 479-251-1410 (fax)
Jonesboro 870-910-6898 (fax)
Senator Mark Pryor [AR] DEMOCRAT NOT SUPPORTING
Washington 202-228-0908 (fax)
Little Rock 501-324-5320 (fax)
Senator Dianne Feinstein [CA] (thank for supporting)
Washington 202-228-3954 (fax)
Fresno 559-485-9689 (fax)
San Francisco 415-393-0710 (fax)
Los Angeles 310-914-7318 (fax)
San Diego 619-231-1108 (fax)
Senator Barbara Boxer [CA](thank for supporting)
Washington 415-956-6701 (fax)
Los Angeles 213-894-5042 (fax)
San Francisco 415-956-6701 (fax)
San Bernadino 909-888-8613 (fax)
San Diego 619-239-5719 (fax)
Sacramento 916-448-2563 (fax)
Fresno 559-497-5111 (fax)
Senator Ken Salazar [CO] DEMOCRAT NOT SUPPORTING
Alamosa 719-587-0098 (fax)
Fort Morgan 970-542-3088 (fax)
Colorado Springs 719-328-1129 (fax)
Fort Collins 970-224-2205 (fax)
Pueblo 719-542-7555 (fax)
Durango 970-259-9789 (fax)
Grand Junction 970-241-8313 (fax)
Denver 303-455-8851 (fax)
Senator Christopher J Dodd [CT](thank for supporting)
Washington 202-224-1083 (fax)
Wethersfield 860-258-6958 (fax)
Senator Joseph I Lieberman [CT] DEMOCRAT SWING VOTE
Washington 202-224-9750 (fax)
Hartford 860-549-8478 (fax)
Senator Joseph R Biden Jr [DE] (thank for supporting)
Washington, 202-224-0139 (fax)
Wilmington, 302-573-6351 (fax)
Milford 302-424-8098 (fax)
Senator Thomas R Carper [DE] DEMOCRAT SWING VOTE
Washington, 202-228-2190 (fax)
Senator Bill Nelson [FL] DEMOCRAT NOT SUPPORTING
Washington 202-228-2183 (fax)
Tallahassee 850-942-8450 (fax)
West Palm Beach 561-514-4078 (fax)
Tampa 813-225-7050 (fax)
Jacksonville 904-346-4506 (fax)
Coral Gables 305-536-5991 (fax)
Ft. Myers 239-334-7710 (fax)
Davie 954-693-4862 (fax)
Orlando 407-872-7165 (fax)
Senator Daniel K Inouye [HI] DEMOCRAT SWING VOTE
Washington 202-224-6747 (fax)
Wailuku Maui 808-242-7233 (fax)
Lihue Kauai 808-246-9515 (fax)
Kaunakakai 808-560-3385 (fax)
Honolulu 808-541-2549 (fax)
Hilo 808-961-5163 (fax)
Kealakekua 808-961-5163 (fax)
Senator Daniel K Akaka [HI] DEMOCRAT NOT SUPPORTING
Washington 202-224-2126 (fax)
Honolulu 808-545-4683 (fax)
Hilo 808-935-9064 (fax)
Senator Tom Harkin [IA] DEMOCRAT SWING VOTE
Washington 202-224-9369 (fax)
Des Moines 515-284-4937 (fax)
Cedar Rapids 319-365-4683 (fax)
Davenport 563-322-0417 (fax)
Dubuque 563-582-2342 (fax)
Sioux City 712-252-1638 (fax)
Senator Richard J Durbin [IL](thank for supporting)
Washington 202-228-0400 (fax)
Marion 618-997-0176 (fax)
Springfield 217-492-4382 (fax)
Chicago 312-353-0150 (fax)
Senator Barack Obama [IL] (thank for supporting)
Washington 202-228-4260 (fax)
Springfield 217-492-5099 (fax)
Chicago 312-886-3514 (fax)
Marion 618-997-2850 (fax)
Senator Evan Bayh [IN] DEMOCRAT SWING VOTE
Washington 202-228-1377 (fax)
Indianapolis 317-554-0760 (fax)
Senator Mary Landrieu [LA] DEMOCRAT NOT SUPPORTING
Washington 202-224-9735 (fax)
Lake Charles 337-439-3762 (fax)
New Orleans 504-589-4023 (fax)
Shreveport 318-676-3100 (fax)
Baton Rouge, 225-389-0660 (fax)
Senator Edward M Kennedy [MA](thank for supporting)
Washington 202-224-2417 (fax)
Senator John F Kerry [MA](thank for supporting)
Washington 202-224-8525 (fax)
Worcester, 508-831-7381 (fax)
Springfield, 413-736-1049 (fax)
Boston 617-248-3870 (fax)
Fall River 508-677-0275 (fax)
Senator Barbara A Mikulski [MD] DEMOCRAT SWING VOTE
Washington 202-224-8858 (fax)
Salisbury 410-546-9324 (fax)
Greenbelt 301-345-7573 (fax)
Annapolis 410-263-5949 (fax)
Hagerstown 301-797-2241 (fax)
Baltimore 410-962-4760 (fax)
Senator Paul S Sarbanes [MD] DEMOCRAT SWING VOTE
Washington 202-224-1651 (fax)
Salisbury 410-860-2134 (fax)
Cumberland 301-724-4660 (fax)
Silver Spring 301-589-0598 (fax)
Baltimore 410-962-4156 (fax)
Bryans Road 301-375-8914 (fax)
Senator Olympia Snowe [ME] REPUBLICAN SWING VOTE
Washington 202-224-1946 (fax)
Bangor 207-941-9525 (fax)
Presque Isle 207-764-6420 (fax)
Biddeford 207-284-2358 (fax)
Auburn 207-782-1438 (fax)
Augusta 207-622-7295 (fax)
Portland 207-874-7631 (fax)
Senator Susan Collins [ME] REPUBLICAN SWING VOTE
Washington 202-224-2693 (fax)
Biddeford 207-283-4054 (fax)
Portland 207-828-0380 (fax)
Caribou 207-493-7810 (fax)
Bangor 207-990-4604 (fax)
Augusta 207-622-5884 (fax)
Lewiston 207-782-6475 (fax)
Senator Carl Levin [MI] DEMOCRAT SWING VOTE
Washington 202-224-1388 (fax)
Grand Rapids 616-456-5147 (fax)
Saginaw 989-754-2920 (fax)
Escanaba 906-789-0015 (fax)
Traverse City 231-947-9518 (fax)
Lansing, 517-377-1506 (fax)
Warren, 586-573-8260 (fax)
Detroit 313-226-6948 (fax)
Senator Debbie A Stabenow [MI](thank for supporting)
Washington 202-228-0325 (fax)
Senator Mark Dayton [MN] DEMOCRAT SWING VOTE
Washington 202-228-2186 (fax)
Fort Snelling 612-727-5223 (fax)
Biwabik 218-865-4667 (fax)
East Grand Forks 218-773-1993 (fax)
Senator Max Baucus [MT] DEMOCRAT SWING VOTE
Washington 202-224-0515 (fax)
Senator Kent Conrad [ND] DEMOCRAT NOT SUPPORTING FILIBUSTER
Washington 202-224-7776 (fax)
Minot 701-838-8196 (fax)
Grand Forks 701-746-1990 (fax)
Fargo 701-232-6449 (fax)
Bismarck 701-258-1254 (fax)
Senator Byron L Dorgan [ND] DEMOCRAT NOT SUPPORTING FILIBUSTER
Washington 202-224-1193 (fax)
Grand Forks 701-746-9122 (fax)
Bismarck 701-250-4484 (fax)
Minot 701-838-8196 (fax)
Fargo 701-239-5112 (fax)
Senator Ben Nelson [NE] DEMOCRAT SUPPORTING ALITO
Washington 202-228-0012 (fax)
Lincoln, 402-476-8753 (fax)
Omaha 402-391-4725 (fax)
Senator Robert Menendez [NJ] DEMOCRAT SWING VOTE
Washington 202-228-2197 (fax)
Senator Frank Lautenberg [NJ] DEMOCRAT SWING VOTE
Washington 202-228-4054 (fax)
Camden 856-338-8936 (fax)
Newark 973-639-8723 (fax)
Senator Jeff Bingaman [NM] DEMOCRAT SWING VOTE
Washington 202-224-2852 (fax)
Senator Harry Reid [NV] (thank for supporting)
Washington 202-224-7327 (fax)
Reno 775-686-5757 (fax)
Carson City 775-883-1980 (fax)
Las Vegas 702-388-5030 (fax)
Senator Charles Schumer [NY](thank for supporting)
Washington 202-228-3027 (fax)
Binghamton 607-772-8124 (fax)
Rochester 585-263-3173 (fax)
Buffalo 716-846-4113 (fax)
Red Hook 845-758-1043 (fax)
Melville, 631-753-0997 (fax)
New York 212-486-7693 (fax)
Albany 518-431-4076 (fax)
Syracuse, 315-423-5185 (fax)
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton [NY](thank for supporting)
Washington 202-228-0282 (fax)
Buffalo 716-854-9731 (fax)
Albany 518-431-0128 (fax)
New York 212-688-7444 (fax)
Hartsdale 914-472-5073 (fax)
Lowville 315-376-6118 (fax)
Melville 631-249-2847 (fax)
Syracuse 315-448-0476 (fax)
Rochester 585-263-6247 (fax)
Senator Ron Wyden [OR](thank for supporting)
Washington 202-228-2717 (fax)
Senator Jack Reed [RI] DEMOCRAT SWING VOTE
Washington 202-224-4680 (fax)
Cranston 401-464-6837 (fax)
Providence 401-528-5242 (fax)
Senator Lincoln D Chafee [RI] REPUBLICAN SWING VOTE
Washington 202-228-2853 (fax)
Senator Tim Johnson [SD] DEMOCRAT SUPPORTING ALITO DESPITE SAYING HE'S "TROUBLED"
Washington 202-228-5765 (fax)
Aberdeen 605-226-2439 (fax)
Sioux Falls 605-332-2824 (fax)
Rapid City 605-341-2207 (fax)
Senator Patrick J Leahy [VT] DEMOCRAT SWING VOTE
Washington 202-224-3479 (fax)
Senator James M Jeffords [VT] INDEPENDENT SWING VOTE
Washington 202-228-0776 (fax)
Senator Patty Murray [WA] DEMOCRAT SWING VOTE
Washington 202-224-0238 (fax)
Everett 425-259-7152 (fax)
Seattle 206-553-0891 (fax)
Spokane 509-624-9561 (fax)
Vancouver 360-696-7798 (fax)
Yakima 509-453-7731 (fax)
Senator Maria Cantwell [WA] DEMOCRAT SWING VOTE
Washington 202-228-0514 (fax)
Everett 425-303-8351 (fax)
Spokane 509-353-2547 (fax)
Vancouver 360-696-7844 (fax)
Tacoma 253-572-5859 (fax)
Seattle 206-220-6404 (fax)
Richland 509-946-6937 (fax)
Senator Herb Kohl [WI] DEMOCRAT SWING VOTE
Washington 202-224-9787 (fax)
Senator Russell D Feingold [WI](thank for supporting)
Washington 202-224-2725 (fax)
Milwaukee 414-276-7284 (fax)
Middleton 608-828-1203 (fax)
Senator Robert C Byrd [WV] DEMOCRAT SUPPORTING ALITO DESPITE THREAT TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL SEPARATION OF POWERS
Washington 202-228-0002 (fax)
Charleston 304-343-7144 (fax)
Senator John D Rockefeller IV [WV] DEMOCRAT SWING VOTE
Washington 202-224-7665 (fax)
Fairmont 304-367-0822 (fax)
Martinsburg 304-262-9288 (fax)
Charleston 304-347-5371 (fax)
Beckley 304-253-2578 (fax)
Urban Pirate also has a good
cut & paste list of fax numbers.
The Young Turks are still broadcasting
live with their on-air filibuster.
Just a personal note to the three Democratic men -- Salazar, Pryor and Conrad -- who have told all us women to go fuck ourselves: we are going to have long memories of this one.
To the keyboards!
Update: From
Democrats.com:
Good news and bad news: Sen. Obama told George Staphylococcus he will (reluctantly) support the filibuster (#14), but also that it would fail - without identifying which Democrats would cause it to fail, which would help us turn them around. Obama said he opposed "procedural maneuvers" and wished Democrats had framed the substantive issues better.
Update: Biden has said he will vote against cloture -- but just once. We'll put him on the thank-you list -- for now.
Update II: I'm being told eFax services are down because of overuse. Somebody's been busy. We're getting it done.
|
Normally at Late Nite we humbly gather together to use our keyboards to battle the forces of darkness and banish the downright stupid, but seeing as how today was devoted to putting Strip Search Sammy in the unemployment line I thought it would be nice to discuss a bit of lighter fare. Sort of a palate cleanser before we resume again tomorrow.
My friends Paul Cullum and Jerry Stahl both have pieces in the LA Weekly that are worthy of note. Paul's story concerns
the cautionary Hollywood tale of filmmaker Eric Red, and -- well, you really just sort of have to read it to believe it. And Jerry says everything I hope I would say about
the James Frey brouhaha if I was a much better writer and had actually read the book. Plus he is wickedly funny.
OT -- MAN people are pissed at the White House pool boy. I emailed
his article yesterday to a bunch of people because I thought it was pretty amusing and despite the fact that it was totally wrong headed and utterly missed the point, he had a glimmer of a clue about what was going on. I suppose I just read a lot more of VandeHei's stuff than most people do so I was pleasantly suprised that it was relatively free of his normal slavish fabrications and rabid
shrine-to-Tom-Delay fellatio. This was more of a gentle GOP foot massage.
Oh well, all I can tell you is that people are spitting blood. If anything happens at least I'll be able to say that this one didn't start with me.
Update: You can see Amato visiting
live with the Young Turks. He's a star, that one.
Update II: Gilliard schools pool boy about oh so many things. Go witness the carnage.
|
The Young Turks are having a live, on-air "filibuster" until the Democrats get the 41 votes they need to support it. Brad Friedman of
Brad Blog will be hosting from 5pm-8pm PT, and I'll be a guest at 7:00 PT. You can listen online
here.
Update: John Amato of
Crooks & Liars will be on the Young Turks at 9:30.
|
Just got off a conference call with Ted Kennedy and others, and we got a better idea where the Dems are on all of this.
Some notes:
Maria Cantwell is reportedly quite wobbly, and might be succeptible to pressure. If Cantwell falls, Murray will potentially fall too.
Levin, Harkin, Bayh, Lautenberg, Lincoln, Pryor and Lieberman (who has not in fact committed) all need pressure. As do Baucus and Menendez.
Kennedy says the press have been able to convince people that the Dems are obstructionist; they have been successful in spreading the perception that Daschle was an obstructionist, and look what happened to him. This is something the Democrats have seemed to internalize. They believe that voting their conscience on this matter is "obstructionist," and they think they will pay a fearsome price back home if they are perceived thusly, so PLEASE let them know that just the opposite is true.
Georgia10 at Kos is holding a great war room on the filibuster. She provides a really helpful list of fax numbers:
AR: Lincoln(D) (202) 228-1371
AR: Pryor(D) (202) 228-0908
CA: Boxer(D) (202) 226-6701
CA: Feinstein(D) (202) 228-3954
CO: Salazar(D) (202) 228-5036
CT: Dodd(D) (202) 224-1083
CT: Lieberman(D) (202) 224-9750
DE: Biden(D) (202) 224-0139
DE: Carper(D) (202) 228-2190
FL: Nelson(D) (202) 228-2183
HI: Akaka(D) (202) 224-2126
HI: Inouye(D) (202) 224-6747
IA: Harkin(D) (202) 224-9369
(319) 365-4683
(515) 284-4937
(563) 582-2342
(712) 252-1638
IL: Durbin(D) (202) 228-0400
IL: Obama(D) (202) 228-4260
IN: Bayh(D) 202-228-1377
LA: Landrieu(D) (202) 224-9735
MA: Kennedy(D) (202) 224-2417
MA: Kerry(D) (202) 224-8525
MD: Mikulski(D) (202) 224-8858
MD: Sarbanes(D) (202) 224-1651
MI: Levin(D) (202) 224-1388
MI: Stabenow(D) (202) 228-0325
MN: Dayton(D) (202) 228-2186
Local (612) 727-5223
MT: Baucus(D) (202) 224-0515
ND: Conrad(D) (202) 224-7776
ND: Dorgan(D) (202) 224-1193
NE: Nelson(D) (202) 228-0012
NJ: Corzine(D) (202) 228-2197
NJ: Lautenberg(D) (202) 224-9707
and (202) 228-4054
NM: Bingaman(D) (202) 224-2852
NV: Reid(D) (202) 224-7327
NY: Clinton(D) (202) 228-0282
NY: Schumer(D) (202) 228-3027
OR: Wyden(D) (202) 228-2717
RI: Reed(D) (202) 224-4680
SD: Johnson(D) (202) 228-0368
VT: Leahy(D) (202) 224-3595
VT: Jeffords(I) No FAX listed
WA: Cantwell(D) (202) 228-0514
WA: Murray(D) (202) 224-0238
WI: Feingold(D) (202) 224-2725
WI: Kohl(D) (202) 224-9787
WV: Rockefeller(D) (202) 224-7665
WV: Byrd(D) (202) 228-0002
Vulnerable Republicans:
Lincoln Chafee Fax: (202) 228-2853 / (401) 453-5085
Susan Collins: Fax: (202) 224-2693 / (207) 990-4604
Olympia Snowe: Fax: (202) 224-1946 / (207) 874-7631
Ted Stevens: Fax: (202) 224-2354
You can send a free fax
here.
Make some noise...
Update: mcjoan has more on the Kennedy conference call and is keeping the pressure on at DKos.
Update: I am going to leave this post up for a while but I will be updating the list. If you find any more functional fax numbers please leave them in the comments below and I will keep putting them up.
|
From
Democrats.com:
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.
Then the White House called its media whores at the NY Times (David Kirkpatrick), AP (Jesse Holland), Pentagon Post (Charles Babington), CNN (Miles O'Brien), and MSNBC (Chris Matthews) and told them to trash John Kerry for daring to challenge the will of Emperor Bush, and to repeat over and over that Democrats did not have enough votes to stop Alito.
But even as Karl Rove was doing his dirty work, progressive activists like you were calling your Senators urging them to support John Kerry's filibuster.
And one by one, Democratic Senators began to turn around.
And from
Sean-Paul Kelly:
Just got off the phone with someone highly placed in the filibuster fight: this is doable. It is an uphill battle, no doubt, but that person's words were: the momentum is shifting and has shifted perceptibly since Thursday. Senators are responding to the fact that this is the right thing to do, for the good of the country. This stuff is real. But they are also responding to Atrios' storyline:The Democrats shocked Washington today by holding together, dropping a mighty turd in the punchbowl of the Bush administration, dealing a deadly blow to his nomination of Alito. The president won't be too happy tonight as he gives the 2006 state of the union speech.
The pressure, the phone calls, the emails and the blogposts are working....
We can, my contact said, pull this miracle off.
Sean-Paul Barbara Mikulski is one of the most vulnerable. Here is her contact information (thanks Prof):
Senator Barbara A Mikulski [MD] DEMOCRAT SWING VOTE
Washington, 202-224-4654 (phone), 202-224-8858 (fax)
Salisbury, 410-546-7711 (phone), 410-546-9324 (fax)
Greenbelt, 301-345-5517 (phone), 301-345-7573 (fax)
Annapolis, 410-263-1805 (phone), 410-263-5949 (fax)
Hagerstown, 301-797-2826 (phone), 301-797-2241 (fax)
Baltimore, 410-962-4510 (phone), 410-962-4760 (fax)
If you have any trouble getting through anywhere, leave the info in the comments because I'll be actively adjusting the contact info as I hear about this kind of stuff. (I've heard some Senate members may be turning off their toll-free numbers and their mailboxes are full.) It looks like the filibuster Dems want to reach out to us on this one, we'll be on a conference call with them soon. I will have more, much more as quickly as I know anything. In the mean time, I'm BEGGING you to take part in this. There is nothing more important you will do this weekend, or the next, to affect quite possibly the next 30 years in this country.
The fight is on. Let's not get outflanked on this one by Bill Frist, and let's prove we know how to show up.
Update: Phone mailboxes seem to be full. You can send a free fax
here and
here.
Update: As Colleen military mom pointed out in the comments, when sending a fax use an address with a city and zip code from that office. You can find zip codes for any city
here.
|
Wow. And more
wow. That guy
Elmendorf must be feeling it today.
I guess the lesson here is -- watch what you say to the Washington Post. You could print most anything short of Bush/Abramoff b&d photos on the front page of the NYT and it would not get the scrutiny from the netroots community that the tiniest line buried in the back of the Style section of the WaPo now gets. Within minutes after an article appears online my inbox is stuffed with people disecting every shill-tinged word.
If you put a hundred people in a room and hired them to do nothing but sit there and pick the Washington Post apart day after day, line by line, looking for bs with blood in their eyes it would not be more effective.
Thanks to everyone who takes the trouble to do so.
Update: Scott Sheilds at MyDD has more on
the Pool Boy's article.
|
Digby has one of those
must-read Digby posts that pulls together so many things that everyone is feeling but nobody else knows how to express:
The right has mau-maued the press by going aggressively in their face with everything they've got every time they write a word that can cause them trouble. And back in the day, they carefully fed the press the kind of tabloid scandal stories that made good copy and caused ratings to rise. They work this stuff from all angles.
We can be nice liberals and continue that highly successful strategy (for them) or we, the great unwashed blogosphere, can mau-mau the media into being accountable for what they write. It isn't pretty --- they are calling us nasty names and everything. But for the first time in memory we actually have a vehicle for pushing back from the other side and we literally represent millions of people who are willing to take the time to join the fight. That's powerful juju.
Over time, they will see that we are actually giving them an excuse to lean the other way. When Karl calls up Len, he can say that liberals are on the rampage --- what does he want him to do, ignore his own readers? We liberal bloggers and readers can produce some ballast on the other side so that the press has a way to resist the wingnuts.
This is a huge change and everyone involved is going to resist. Tonight they were talking about the "angry left on both coasts" on Lehrer, as if we aren't real Americans again. That's nonsense, as we know. My traffic comes from all over the country, much of it deep in the heart of Red America. They don't know what they are dealing with.
Every time I look at my Technorati links these days there are a lot more wingnuts than there used to be. You're never quite sure what they're saying since it's always misspelled but you're pretty sure it's supposed to be insulting, in that sort of ham-fisted, remedial, back-of-the-class monobrow humor that finds its apex in the word "booger." Anyway, these are the people who are usually castigating me for my awful language and doing their part to spread the meme "sandpaper snatch" such that Kate O'Beirne will most assuredly never walk into a room wearing taffeta again.
But something is happening, I'm not sure what but things are changing rather quickly and I really don't know why. Witness
this article in the WaPo, where the Pool Boy almost gets it. Except
I couldn't get anyone interested in the "draft Murtha" thing, I think 49 people showed up and commented at the DU board, nobody was into it. When I woke up the next morning I found out they'd chosen Kaine for the SOTU rebuttal before I made my way over to Kos and saw he'd linked to it, and I half figured the Democratic leadership had seen it there and it had forced their hand. But there was no way to be sure. How that rated an article in the WaPo is a bit of a mystery.
And then there is this galloping dose of bullshit:
"The bloggers and online donors represent an important resource for the party, but they are not representative of the majority you need to win elections," said Steve Elmendorf, a Democratic lobbyist who advised Kerry's 2004 presidential campaign. "The trick will be to harness their energy and their money without looking like you are a captive of the activist left."
I'm going to let
James field this one (from the
comments):
If your name is accompanied by the words "Democratic lobbyist who advised Kerry's 2004 presidential campaign," then you deserve a warm glass of shut-the-hell-up.
It's like quoting Axl Rose for tips on keeping the band together.
Until their bid to turn us all into cash machines and vault Joe Biden into the Democratic candidacy actually succeeds (at which point I will give up and open a vein) we'll be here every night doing our FDL Late Nite action thing.
Tonight those fine folks at
the Chris Matthews blog want you to contact your
local Toyota dealer and tell them about the feeling Chris is giving you. I got emails from people who said Intuit called them personally after last night's action, and we hear Verizon has hired someone to watch the traffic on the Matthews blog so give 'em a few hits too.
You can also contact:
Toyota
- Don Esmond, Senior VP
tel. 310-468-5212
fax 310-468-7846
don_esmond@toyota.com
- Dennis Cuneo, Senior VP
tel. 212-223-0303
fax 212-750-3564
dennis_cuneo@tma.toyota.com
- Ms Pat Pineda, VP Ext. Affairs
pat_pineda@tma.toyota.com
- Main #: 800-331-4331
Comment form
I feel like I should end it all with "fuck something" just so nobody in wingnutia is disappointed. It makes them all so happy.
|
Matt Stoller and
John Aravosis had a Deborah Howell encounter yesterday at the Washington Press Club.
The Hotline Blogometer recounts the affair where after an hour and a half of listening to Howell and others describe her experience like she was the sole survivor of the Bismark, Matt Stoller grabbed the microphone and said "The antagonism here is coming from you guys....Nothing happened to you!" Aravosis says Stoller went on for a bit more -- "You're fine...it's not like you were hit by a car...you're sitting here, eating a nice meal" or words to that effect.
Once all the shrieking hysteria passes and they look back and see all the unnecessary PMSing they did over a few trolls, they're all going to wish jukeboxgrad never existed. When Brady first started peddling his story about "hundreds and hundreds" of comments filled with hate speech, I'm sure he never counted on some tech whiz to show up and resurrect archives and run the kind of sophisticated analysis that allowed him to reconstruct what really happened. He's put together an amazing diary over at Kos that recounts exactly what went on, an incredible bit of detective work that is really stunning in its scope. Please
go have a look, thank him for all the effort he's put into documenting the whole thing and hit that "recommend" button. It deserves to be seen by everyone, an insurance policy to guarantee that the story gets told correctly one day after O'Reilly and his fulminations about Soros-funded terrorists are long forgotten.
Gilliard has more: "We're going to have a reasonable discussion. But we're prepared for it to be unreasonable."
Atrios: "Boo hoo. People were mean. Welcome to my world."
|
A new,
non-partisan study has confirmed what
Bloomberg has long been asserting -- donations by Casino Jack's victims, the Indian Tribes, to Democrats suggest he was not, in fact, "directing" money their way:
The analysis shows that when Abramoff took on his tribal clients, the majority of them dramatically ratcheted up donations to Republicans. Meanwhile, donations to Democrats from the same clients either dropped, remained largely static or, in two cases, rose by a far smaller percentage than the ones to Republicans did. This pattern suggests that whatever money went to Democrats, rather than having been steered by Abramoff, may have largely been money the tribes would have given anyway. (my emphasis)
Someone should tell
Tim Russert, who went on the Today Show this morning and did a Deborah Howell-style non-correction of
Katie Couric's gaff yesterday with Howard Dean saying that "Democrats get raging mad when you suggest this is a bipartisan scandal."
Someone should tell Li'l Debbie herself, who in a highly unusual move for an ombudsman
sent an email to her fans which said "The Post stands by its reporting that Jack Abramoff directed campaign money to some Democrats."
And here I thought ombudsmaning meant representing readers at the paper rather than hawking the party line.
Maybe that's the source of all my confusion. I'm not fluent in any Scandinavian languages. Who knew the word
ombudsman was Swedish for "snake oil salesman?"
(You can leave comments for Li'l Debbie at the
Open Letter to the Washington Post Blog)
|
Jim VandeHei does his bit in the
WaPo today to keep the heat up on the Democrats:
"There's no doubt in my mind it is legal," Bush said. Democrats have accused Bush of breaking the law by authorizing the spying program without approval from Congress or the courts. The debate is expected to dominate hearings, scheduled to begin Feb. 6, on the highly classified NSA program.
It's nice how easily Bob Barr and other concerned Republicans are left out of the picture so as not to hinder a sweeping and damning generalization.
Just so we're clear: Casino Jack is a bipartisan scandal because Abramoff's victims gave money to Democrats even though there's no evidence that any of them did anything wrong. The NSA wiretap scandal is just so much partisan bickering, a Democrats-only brouhaha and nobody has bothered to clue in poor befuddled Bob Barr.
Steve Soto has more on what you
probably won't find in the White House Pool Boy's next article.
|
From
her website:
Washington, DC – U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) today announced that she will vote no on cloture regarding the nomination of Judge Samuel A. Alito, Jr. to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.
“Based on a very long and thoughtful analysis of the record and transcript, which I tried to indicate in my floor statement yesterday, I’ve decided that I will vote no on cloture.”
If DiFi can change her mind, so can anyone else.
Salazar:
Denver Metro Region
2300 15th Street, Suite 450
Denver, CO 80202
Phone: (303) 455-7600
Fax: (303) 455-8851
Washington, D.C.
U.S. Senator Ken Salazar
702 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
(202) 224-5852 main
(202) 228-5036 fax
Pikes Peak Region
(719) 328-1100
High Plains Region
(970) 542-9446
Arkansas River Region
(719) 542-7550
Four Corners Region
(970) 259-1710
Western Slope/I 70 West Region
(970) 241-6631
North Central Region
(970) 224-2200
Alamosa
(719) 587-0096
To the phones. Make it happen.
|
Arianna Huffington's relentless efforts to slog through the tedious hours of pompous beltway bloviating and the ridiculous kabukis played out on
Press the Meat from week to week have finally paid off. Tim Russert
whips around this morning and snaps like a toy poodle who's just been peed on by a Great Dane. What happened to the benign Sunday morning patriarch we look to for wisdom and thruthiness?
He appears to be in a bit of a snit.
It's hard to imagine, but I don't think Father Tim thought twice about
accepting a gig for which he normally charges $50,000 to $60,000 to give a speech on ethics in the media. We can assume his supporting cast has grown accustomed over the years to stifling their guffaws at his disproportional self-image and didn't tip him off to the absurdity factor. So he was no doubt surprised when Arianna pointed out the obvious: that the man who has done more than anyone to normalize wingnut eliminationist rhetoric in mainstream political discourse, who equipped himself with an inviolable set of principles when it meant covering for pedophilia fantasist Scooter Libby but whipped them off quicker than a pair of whore's panties when it came to Richard Clarke and who still has not explained his extremely dubious role in the whole CIA leak case but feels free to limbo around this awkward fact as he covers the story from week to week, might be a bit challenged giving a lecture on the ethics of anything but most especially the media.
It probably never occurred to him that the little
wink-wink, nudge-nudge action with fellow bloviator James Carville last week over Carville's new XM radio sports show was inappropriate due to the fact that Timmeh's son is Carville's co-host and Russert was using precious NBC moments more aptly devoted to, say, the NSA leak case to push his kid's show without bothering to clue the audience in.
But it sure as hell jostled his gated community gravitas when someone pointed it out for him.
Big white bwana man went whimpering to Lloyd Grove at the New York Daily News this morning, resurrecting his rather phantasmagorical 1996 claim that Arianna hired a private detective to follow his wife around. An assertion for which he has no proof other than something he read in an Ed Rollins book (more reliable recitations can be found scratched into the walls of bus station bathrooms), but as a regular practitioner of fact-free journalism this is not a problem for Father Tim.
This ethics conference should be a real hoot: Peggy Noonan will talk about the secret communiques of Vatican II as revealed to her by Flipper, Fred Barnes' chin will be dusted for
George Bush's ball prints and Tim will serve up $50,000 worth of pontification on his favorite theme -- "It's news if I say it is."
This is a man whose limber set of "ethics" was
openly and officially mocked by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald. Whoever booked this rodeo clown show must be a fan of the theater of the absurd.
Feel free to leave your paeans to the righteousness of Father Tim at the
Tim Russert blog. He'll see it.
Update: The guy who ghost wrote Rollins' book says it was all aa
crock of shit.
|
Seriously, if you haven't seen the clip of
Matthews interviewing Antonio Villaraigosa, you must. It's high camp even by Tweety standards. He tells the mayor of Los Angeles that Mexicans are the hardest working people in the world, "natural Republicans" who want to open up flower shops and bodegas. I don't think John put the part up where Tweety asks him if he likes to speak in Spanish because it's more "up-beat," and Villaraigossa look at him like he's a mental patient and says he was born in the United States and English is his first language.
I think Tweety is losing his grip, the boycott must really be bothering him. Which is an excellent reason to keep the pressure up because watching him come unglued will if nothing else provide entertaining Crooks & Liars fodder.
Tonight we're targeting the fine folks at Intuit who bring you Quicken and TurboTax. Since it's tax season and they probably do a good part of their business at this time of year your thoughtful communiques will be doubly effective. Intuit is located in the Bay Area, so there are likely to be lots of folks working there who will be sympathetic to us lefties who don't want to be compared to Osama bin Laden. It would be oh so helpful to let them know that these and other quite outrageous things are being said on a nighly basis on a show they sponsor.
Intuit/TurboTaxSteve Bennett, Pres.
tel. 650-944-6000
fax 650-944-5295
Scott Gulbransen, Comm.
858-525-7594
scott_gulbransen@intuit.comAnd stop by the
Open Letter to Chris Matthews blog and say hi to John and Matt, they've been putting in a ton of work and we most likely have them to thank for orchestrating the extra bevy of bats in Tweety's belfry.
Update: Digby's right, we need to support John Kerry for doing what we've wanted him to do all along. So please
freep this stupid poll while you're at it. No guts, no glory.
|
Honoring that great conservative tradition of "what, you think I do this for free?" it turns out FoxNews.com science columnist Steven Milloy has been on the payroll of Philip Morris since 2000, curiously the same time he
started his job:
On March 9, 2001, he wrote a column for the website headlined "secondhand smokescreen." The piece attacked a study by researcher Stephen Hecht, who found that women living with smokers had higher levels of chemicals associated with risk of lung cancer. "If spin were science, Hecht would win a Nobel Prize," Milloy wrote. For good measure, he heaped scorn on a 1993 Environmental Protection Agency report that also linked health risks and secondhand smoke. Later that spring, he authored another smoking-related piece for FoxNews.com. In that one, he cast aside two decades of research on the dangers of exposure to secondhand smoke and concluded, "Secondhand smoke is annoying to many nonsmokers. That is the essence of the controversy and where the debate should lie--the rights of smokers to smoke in public places versus the rights of nonsmokers to be free of tobacco smoke." You might chalk it up to Milloy's contrarian nature. Or to his libertarian tendencies. Except, all the while, he was on the payroll of big tobacco. According to Lisa Gonzalez, manager of external communications for Altria, the parent company of Philip Morris, Milloy was under contract there through the end of last year. "In 2000 and 2001, some of the work he did was to monitor studies, and then we would distribute this information within to our different companies," Gonzalez said. Although she couldn't comment on fees paid to Milloy, a January 2001 Philip Morris budget report lists Milloy as a consultant and shows that he was budgeted for $92,500 in fees and expenses in both 2000 and 2001.
I wonder why they suspected him. It never would've occurred to me there was anything weird about a science expert whose health advise is "smoke 'em if you've got 'em."
|
Ken Salazar has himself a
Tim Russert moment:
There are members of the U.S. Supreme Court that I very much disagree with. Clarence Thomas, for example, I think is an abomination when you contrast him to the leadership and principles of someone like Thurgood Marshall. I've been in front of the court and I know the justices.
The comparison is quite natural. They knew each other, after all, during their stints in Harry Belafonte's band.
Meanwhile, Salazar has said he will vote against filibuster, and says that if Democrats try to block the vote he will
call a meeting of the Gang of 14.
(via
Talk Left)
|
Why are GOP cartoons so
ubiquitously unfunny?
Filibuster Update:: From
Democrats.com:
Three Democrats (Ben Nelson, Tim Johnson and Robert Byrd) support Alito. So right now, without the support of any Republicans, we still have 42 possible votes for a filibuster.
There are 4 moderate Republicans who should be targeted (Lincoln Chafee, Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, and Ted Stevens).
Three Democrats (Mary Landrieu, Ken Salazar, and Dianne Feinstein) oppose Alito but also said they oppose a filibuster. So we must persuade them that a vote against Alito is meaningless if they don't support a filibuster.
If any of these are your senators,
you know what to do.
Filibuster Update II: CNN confirms Kennedy joins Kerry in calling for filibuster. White House concern trolls say they have enough votes to overturn a filibuster and that "the move makes the Democrats look bad." Remind me -- isn't that what Bill Frist thought when he found himself standing on the Senate floor with the wind whistling up his shorts on the Bolton cloture vote?
|
They don't seem to like me very much
over at the NRO. Offhand I can't think of a prouder moment in my life.
In other news,
Crooks and Liars has video where you can watch Katie Couric school Howard Dean about the fact that Democrats received $1.5 million in donations from Jack Abramoff. Because the Center for Responsive Politics told her so. Except
they didn't.
Let's see if NBC has a functional ombudsman. His name is
David McCornick:
david.mccormick@nbc.com212-664-3984
Meanwhile,
reports are circulating that John Kerry will lead a filibuster of Alito -- reader LHM writes to say this has been confirmed with Kerry's office.
Sounds like this feisty thing might be contagious, huh??
Update: Kerry's office says they are
working on the 41 Senators needed for a filibuster and they want people to
call their Senators and tell them to support it. The main Senate number is 888-355-3588.
If there was ever a moment worthy of working yourself into a good case of carpal tunnel syndrome, this would be it.
Update II: Sean-Paul Kelley reports that Lieberman will vote yes on filibuster and Byrd will vote no.
Update III: DeWine is citing the Washington Post editorial
in favor of confirming Alito. The New York Times this morning
supports filibuster.
|
Sorry for the image, which has absolutely nothing to do with the post at hand, or
the fucking up of Fred Barnes' book, which I might add I played no part in. I just couldn't resist.
No, tonight we send love letters on behalf of Chris Matthews. To show how much we appreciate when Chris
claimed on his show tonight that poor Tom Delay is being unfairly tarred by those nasty Democrats in an unscrupulous ad about Casino Jack, and Anne Kornblut of the NYT actually used the term "Swift Boated." Yes I know the ironies abound.
Anyway, one of Chris's advertisers is Verizon. A lovely company I'm sure who have done absolutely nothing wrong and should be treated with the greatest respect. So great is our respect for Verizon that we have to wonder, ever so nicely, if they agree with Chris that you or me (people of the liberal persuasion) should be compared to a known terrorist and mass murderer like Osama bin Laden. Chris has
now repeated this several times.
I'm sure the folks at Verizon will only appreciate your sincere concern for the organizations they are associating their products with, so look at it this way. You are doing them a big favor. Not in a Victor Davis Hanson climbing up on the rooftop with a rifle and scope and thinning out the neighborhood kind of way, but one they will most assuredly appreciate nonetheless.
Here is how you contact the fine folks at Verizon:
Verizon
- Ivan Seidenberg, Chmn & CEO, Verizon Corp. Branding
212-395-2121
- Judy Verses, Sr. VP Natl. Mktg.
703-390-7017
judy.verses@verizon.com
- Jerri DeVard, Sr. VP Mktg.
jerri.devard@verizon.com
- John Bonomo, PR
212-395-7756
john.j.bonomo@verizon.com
- Sharon Cohen-Hagar, PR
972-718-6205
sharon.cohen-hagar@verizon.com
Please join us tomorrow night when we shower all the love we feel for the IRS on those helpful folks at TurboTax..
(graphic via
Jesus' General)
|
Bully for
Glenn Greenwald:
Knight Ridder -- WASHINGTON - A July 2002 Justice Department statement to a Senate committee appears to contradict several key arguments that the Bush administration is making to defend its eavesdropping on U.S. citizens without court warrants.
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the law governing such operations, was working well, the department said in 2002. A "significant review" would be needed to determine whether FISA's legal requirements for obtaining warrants should be loosened because they hampered counterterrorism efforts, the department said then.
President Bush, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and other top officials now argue that warrantless eavesdropping is necessary in part because complying with the FISA law is too burdensome and impedes the government's ability to rapidly track communications between suspected terrorists.
In its 2002 statement, the Justice Department said it opposed a legislative proposal to change FISA to make it easier to obtain warrants that would allow the super-secret National Security Agency to listen in on communications involving non-U.S. citizens inside the United States.
Today, senior U.S. officials complain that FISA prevents them from doing that.
(snip)
Glenn Greenwald, an Internet blogger, first connected the earlier Justice Department statement to the Bush administration's current arguments on his Web log, called Unclaimed Territory.
While we don't have billions or a warmongering diapered class who piddle themselves every time George Bush screams "orange alert," we sure do have a corner on the smart kids.
|
As I said on the washingtonpost.com
online chat this morning, prior to the fall of 2005 nobody would have suggested that Jack Abramoff was anything other than a self described "right-wing ideologue" and a GOP operative, a man who once famously
said "it is not our job to seek peaceful coexistence with the Left. Our job is to remove them from power permanently."
Suddenly the GOP and the president himself began calling Abramoff an "equal money dispenser" and there is every appearance that management of the Washington Post have gone along with a decision to deceive the public by painting the scandals currently threatening the Republican party as "bipartisan."
Witness Chris Cillizza's washingtonpost.com blog, where
he recently mentioned that despite his decision to only deal with scandals plaguing current governors and members of Congress, an editor stepped in and added to his list Rep. Frank Ballance, a Democrat who had resigned in June, 2004. Even Cillizza himself said that "Ballance was unnecessarily included for, frankly, balance."
While I'm perfectly willing to believe Deborah Howell is too much of a dingaling to do anything other than mindlessly repeat what she has heard from others, it is impossible to divorce her repetition of an Abramoff GOP talking point from this context. Both Jim Brady's and the Washington Post's decision to characterize the response of their online readers as a problem of "uncivility" is an attempt to slap a cheap coat of whitewash over an insidious, festering problem that continues to plague their management and the reporters who continue to suck it up to earn front-page status for their articles.
Since Jim Brady keeps dismissing this criticism anytime somebody puts a microphone near him (you can witness the latest on
The News Hour, but it's really no different than
Air America or
Hugh Hewitt or whenever he opens his mouth) and keeps referring to some "hate speech" that had to be removed from the blog, I'll ask one more time -- please define "hate speech."
Here are
three comments that appeared on the post.blog before the comments were taken down. They were three of ten that were never restored. I am obviously lacking in some sort of acumen, so if anybody could tell me how they qualify as "hate speech" I'd be really grateful:
Willis wrote: "But contrary to what some commenters have said here, Abramoff did direct donations to Democratic candidates and committees. Our reporters have documents showing this to be the case, and I have asked that we post at least some of them so that readers can see for themselves."
That was two hours ago. Now, it takes me about ten minutes to scan a document, and upload it to my own website, and post a URL -- and that's because I'm not very good at all this "internets" stuff.
Willis claims that there are documents in which Jack Abramoff directs his clients to give to Democrats. One assumes that these include signed letters or memos from Abramoff to his clients, or emails directly from Abramoff to his clients --- and one assumes that if such documents actually existed, the Post would have written about them as part of what Deborah Howell described as Susan Schmidt's "explosive" investigative work on the Abramoff scandal.....
But to date, all the Post (and Willis) have ever come up with are these facts
1. Native Americans tribes give money to both parties
2. Some Native American tribes were represented by a firm that Abramoff worked for
3. Some of these tribes gave money to some Democrats -- but since Abramoff has been around, they aren't giving Democrats as much
So, Willis, where are your "documents"? Its been two hours plus -- ten times as long as it would take for you to scan and post the "Abramoff memo" you need to show us that you aren't lying through your teeth....
Posted by: paul lukasiak | Jan 17, 2006 10:31:19 AM | Permalink
------------------------------------------------------
well, its now three hours and counting since Willis claimed that "Abramoff did direct donations to Democratic candidates and committees. Our reporters have documents showing this to be the case" and also claimed that he was going to get those documents posted...
but instead of posting these "explosive" documents, the Post deletes Willis's claim....
Posted by: paul lukasiak | Jan 17, 2006 11:29:24 AM | Permalink
------------------------------------------------------
Howard Kurtz has a hilarious water carrying defense of Schmidt and Howell, with the pertinent excerpt posted after at Romenesko:
Fort Washington, Md.: Reporter Sue Schmidt and ombudsman Deborah Howell have both asserted repeatedly that Jack Abramoff gave money to Democrats as well as Republicans. The FEC shows no record of any Democrat getting any money from Abramoff, period. Some Indian tribes who were among Abramoff's victims contributed funds to some Democrats, but suggesting that that somehow is a donation from Abramoff defies logic. How does the Post justify passing on what appears to be nothing but GOP spin as fact?
Howard Kurtz: Howell's column Sunday said that a number of Democrats "have gotten Abramoff campaign money." That was inartfully worded. I believe what she was trying to say, and I have not discussed this with her, is that some Democrats have received campaign cash from Abramoff clients, and that this may have been orchestrated by the convicted lobbyist. That's why you have a number of Democrats (as well as many Republicans, now including Denny Hastert) giving back the tainted dough or donating it to charity. Even National Review Editor Rich Lowry says this is basically a Republican scandal -- we are talking about a Bush fundraiser and Tom DeLay pal -- but where the tangled web has extended to Democrats, we need to mention that too.
Posted at 12:50:56 PM
So, the bullsh-t continues. Here's Kurtz saying, Democrats received money from tribes through Abramoff, which "may have been orchestrated by the convicted lobbyist." Note, Kurtz completely glosses over the inconvenient fact that these same tribes were among Abramoff's victims. After all, it is critical, as Howard was advised in the White House talking points e-mail not to "get off message". By the end of the remark, he concludes, "but where the tangled web has extended to Democrats, we need to mention that too."
So, in the absence of any proof that Abramoff was channeling tribal funds to Democrats, "the tangled web has been extended to Democrats"???
Good work, Howard. Have your received Karl's appreciative e-mail yet?
As for Howell, reliable sources in the newsroom state that she will be reporting that WMDs have, in fact, been discovered in Iraq, and that Iran successfully conducted a nuclear weapons test over the Christmas holiday.
Posted by: Richard Estes | Jan 17, 2006 1:43:58 PM | Permalink
When Brady spoke with
Jay Rosen, he said:
If you want to take issue with articles in The Post or on washingtonpost.com, go right ahead. If you want to complain that you think we're biased to the left or right -- and, believe me, we get it from both sides -- have at it. But if you want to viciously attack and insult Post or Post.com staffers or other blog commenters, then go somewhere else to do it. That'’s the deal we'’ve had with a large majority of our loyal readers for years, and we've decided that'’s going to be our policy going forward.
I just don't understand how the removal of these three comments jibes with the policy Brady outlined, or how they qualify as "hate speech" in any way.
And the larger problem remains. There is a serious institutional bias toward the right that the Post is apparently pursuing at its own peril. According to the
Washingtonian:
"The Web site simply has to come through, ours and that of other newspapers, for us to be successful, [Washington Post chairman Don] Graham told investment analysts Wednesday in New York.
Would anyone like to explain how the recent actions of Howell, Brady, John Harris, Sue Schmidt, Richard Morin and the Washington Post management don't serve to completely defeat this objective?
Their stock is in freefall. Their credibility is in shreds. They have spared no effort to make enemies of the "fever swamp," better known as their online readership.
Hugging the GOP is sucking the life out of them like corporate cancer. No wonder they're cranky.
Update: The estimable
Lambert also weighs in.
|
