A new liberal progressive look at the world. Supporting Free Speech and the Constitution from those who would undermine the ideal that is the foundation of America.
I'm glad that President Obama came out yesterday and expressed a sense of weariness over the media's obsession with earmarks while he also outlined his proposal to reduce and reform their use in the future. President Obama said this as he announced that he would sign the $410 billion omnibus spending bill that does include earmarks (they make up less than 2% of the bill) when it arrived his desk.
I want to remind people because the media seems to have forgotten that earmarks were not Obama's issue during the campaign -- they were Republican candidate John McCain's. Seriously people, there are those who are complaining that President Obama did not keep John McCain's campaign promise. President Obama never promised to veto them, just reduce their number and make their sponsors more accountable. Now he did not reduce them in this bill, which was written before he was elected, but he did make them more transparent. We now know who was the author and sponsor of every earmark.
Keith Olbermann pointed this out on Countdown last night. He showed President Obama speaking about this, and then spoke with Newsweek's Richard Wolfe.
"Yesterday, Congress sent me the final part of last year's budget; a piece of legislation that rolls nine bills required to keep the government running into one – a piece of legislation that addresses the immediate concerns of the American people by making needed investments in line with our urgent national priorities."
"That is what nearly 99 percent of this legislation does – the nearly 99 percent you probably haven't heard much about."
In fact, President Obama came out and said quite clearly that earmarks have some value:
"Done right, earmarks give legislators the opportunity to direct federal money to worthy projects that benefit people in their district, and that's why I have opposed their outright elimination."
And he took a swipe at some of the bill's critics:
"I also find it ironic that some of those who railed the loudest against this bill because of earmarks actually inserted earmarks of their own – and will tout them in their own states and districts."
President Obama suggested new guidelines for earmarks that he said were consistent with his pledge to restore "responsibility, transparency, and accountability to the actions government takes." He said that earmarks should be announced and justified ahead of time, shouldn't go to private companies without competitive bidding and shouldn't be traded for political favors.
House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer wrote about the stupidity of the Republican's argument in a USA Today op-ed yesterday:
"Some politicians try to cultivate an image of fiscal discipline by railing against earmarks — and 'pork' also makes a great story for the news media. But as congressional scholar Thomas Mann recently noted, earmarks do not generally increase spending but simply allow members of Congress to direct a small part of a program's funding.
'Abolishing all earmarks would therefore have a trivial effect on the level of spending,' Mann explained, adding that 'hyperbolic attacks on earmarks are a disservice to the public, encouraging people to concentrate way too much attention and energy on a largely symbolic issue and ignore the critical decisions that we face.'"
Today during the White House summit on health President Obama emphasized how health care is interconnected our economic problems and we can not fix one without fixing the other.
"We are here today to discuss one of the greatest threats not just to the well-being of our families and the prosperity of our businesses, but to the very foundation of our economy -- and that is the exploding cost of health care in America today.
"In the last eight years, premiums have grown four times faster than wages, and an additional nine million Americans have joined the ranks of the uninsured. The cost of health care now causes a bankruptcy in America every thirty seconds. By the end of the year, it could cause 1.5 million Americans to lose their homes. And even for folks who are weathering this economic storm, and have health care now, all it takes is one stroke of bad luck -- an accident or illness; a divorce or lost job -- to become one of the nearly 46 million uninsured or the millions who have health care, but can't afford it.
"We did not get here by accident. The problems we face today are a direct consequence of actions we failed to take yesterday.... [T]here are those who say we should defer health care reform once again -- that at a time of economic crisis, we simply cannot afford to fix our health care system as well.
"Well, let's be clear: the same soaring costs that are straining our families' budgets are sinking our businesses and eating up our government's budget too. Too many small businesses can't insure their employees. Major American corporations are struggling to compete with their foreign counterparts. And companies of all sizes are shipping their jobs overseas or shutting their doors for good.
"Medicare costs are consuming our federal budget. Medicaid is overwhelming our state budgets. And at the Fiscal Summit we held here last week, the one thing on which everyone agreed was that the greatest threat to America's fiscal health is not Social Security, though that is a significant challenge; and it is not the investments we've made to rescue our economy; it is the skyrocketing cost of health care.
"That is why we cannot delay this discussion any longer. And that is why today's forum is so important. Because health care reform is no longer just a moral imperative, it is a fiscal imperative. If we want to create jobs and rebuild our economy, then we must address the crushing cost of health care this year, in this Administration. Making investments in reform now, investments that will dramatically lower costs, won't add to our budget deficits in the long-term -- rather, it is one of the best ways to reduce them."
The government will spend $2.5 trillion on health care this year. In less than a decade, it will constitute 20% of GDP. If we're going to improve the economy and take fiscal sustainability seriously, this won't wait. The question isn't whether we can afford to tackle health-care reform; the question is whether we can afford not to.
Rachel Maddow was on "The Tonight Show" with Jay Leno the other night, and they discussed how President Obama is taking on the financial crisis, the economy in general, energy policy, and health care. Leno even asks, "Is he [Obama] biting off too much?"
Today President Obama traveled to Marine Corps base Camp Lejeune in North Carolina to announce his strategy for Iraq. President Obama said today that "This strategy is grounded in a clear and achievable goal shared by the Iraqi people and the American people: an Iraq that is sovereign, stable, and self-reliant."
President Obama's strategy is to remove all combat troops from Iraq in 18 months, while leaving as many as 50,000 troops there in non-combat roles until the end of 2011. Now I was a lowly non-com in the Marines, so I don't claim to be some great strategy, but I do not get the 50,000 troops being left behind. The missions that get described when people are defending leaving 50,000 soldiers and Marines in Iraq, do not require that many soldiers.
The mission that gets described would only require 10,000 U.S. personnel with air support mostly coming from bases in neigboring countries.
During his speech, President Obama declared that:
"To achieve that goal [to remove combat troops from Iraq], we will work to promote an Iraqi government that is just, representative, and accountable, and that provides neither support nor safe-haven to terrorists. We will help Iraq build new ties of trade and commerce with the world. And we will forge a partnership with the people and government of Iraq that contributes to the peace and security of the region."
President Obama does seem to understand the quandaries that remain in Iraq. In today's speech he frankly described many of the challenges:
"Iraq is not yet secure, and there will be difficult days ahead. Violence will continue to be a part of life in Iraq. Too many fundamental political questions about Iraq’s future remain unresolved. Too many Iraqis are still displaced or destitute. Declining oil revenues will put an added strain on a government that has had difficulty delivering basic services. Not all of Iraq’s neighbors are contributing to its security. Some are working at times to undermine it. And even as Iraq’s government is on a surer footing, it is not yet a full partner – politically and economically – in the region, or with the international community."
President Obama also emphasized that the problems in Iraq will not be solved through military means. He stated that:
"critical recognition that the long-term solution in Iraq must be political – not military....The long-term success of the Iraqi nation will depend upon decisions made by Iraq’s leaders and the fortitude of the Iraqi people. Iraq is a sovereign country with legitimate institutions; America cannot – and should not – take their place."
Still he set an almost impossible goal when he declared that they will leave Iraq with Iraqi a "government that is just, representative, and accountable."
David Gregory had an initial take on MSNBC with retired General McCaffrey and retired Colonel Jacobs. The NBC reporter of course is a tool who has no idea what he is talking about when he speaks about the surge. Washington Post reporter Tom Ricks has a really good take on the situation. You can watch it here:
After President Obama's speech last night, the Republicans as the loyal opposition gave their rebuttal. They asked Louisiana Govenor Bobby Jindal to give this response, and to be honest I was interested in what he would have to say. Govenor Jindal is seen as an up-and-coming leader of the party, he has put him self out there as an opponent of the stimulus package. I wanted to see what the opposition had to offer. I was not impressed. The Governor called Obama's economic plans "irresponsible" in his response speech, but offered no real evidence of this, and offered nothing new in the way of ideas. His speech was immediately panned as poorly-delivered.
Even the Fox News panelists, who are always the GOPs’ biggest cheer leaders panned the Governor's response:
BRIT HUME: “The speech read a lot better than it sounded. This was not Bobby Jindal’s greatest oratorical moment.”
NINA EASTON: “The delivery was not exactly terrific.”
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: “Jindal didn’t have a chance. He follows Obama, who in making speeches, is in a league of his own. He’s in a Reagan-esque league. … [Jindal] tried the best he could.”
JUAN WILLIAMS: “It came off as amateurish, and even the tempo in which he spoke was sing-songy. He was telling stories that seemed very simplistic and almost childish.”
Still I think Rachel Maddow had the best rebuttal to the Governor's response. Rachel while discussing with Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews expressed her disbelief that the GOP response to President Barack Obama’s address to Congress referenced Hurricane Katrina, and it left her speechless.
I am sure over the past two weeks you have seen assessments of both the stimulus and the debate over the stimulus, but if you did not see Rachel Maddow's take on Friday night then you missed the best. She plainly and clearly points out that Republicans are not trying to come up with an effective stimulus plan. Personally I believe they are trying to make the situation worse.
She rightly points out that it is completely idiotic to cut food-stamp funding from an economic stimulus package during a recession. Food-stamps are one of the best ways to get money into the economy quickly, and are spent fast. She states correctly that a whopping proportion of the Republican rhetoric about stimulus is just wrong, and it is time for Republicans to get out of the way of the people who are actually trying to save the country.
Former analyst at the National Security Agency, Russell Tice, went on MSNBC's Countdown, and revealed exclusively to Keith Olbermann that American journalists were specifically targeted by the Bush administration for surveillance.
Keith Interviewed Tice over two days. Here is Part 1
In point of fact, every effort to merely 'draw a line in the sand' and declare the past dead, has only served to keep the past alive -- and often to strengthen it.
We compromised with slavery in the Declaration of Independence -- and four score and nine years later we had buried 600,000 of our sons and brothers in a Civil War.
After that War's ending, we compromised with the social restructuring and protection of the rights of minorities in the South. And a century later, we had not only not resolved anything, but black leaders were still being assassinated in the cities of the South.
We compromised with Germany and the reconstruction of Europe after the First World War -- nobody even arrested the German Kaiser, let alone conducted War Crimes trials, and 19 years later there was an indescribably more evil Germany and a more heart-rending Second World War.
We compromised with the Trusts of the early 1900's, and today we have corporations too big to let fail.
We compromised with The Palmer Raids and got McCarthyism, and we compromised with McCarthyism and got Watergate, and we compromised with Watergate and the junior members of the Ford Administration realized how little was ultimately at risk, and grew up to be Paul Wolfowitz and Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney.
Watch Keith Speak about the need to Investigate and Prosecute those who have committed Torture:
This came out earlier this week, and has received too little attention. This week the Pentagon again started pushing a story that 61 former detainees from the Guantanamo Bay had "returned to terrorism since their release from custody."
Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said 18 former detainees are confirmed as "returning to the fight" and 43 are suspected of having done in a report issued late in December by the Defense Intelligence Agency.
Morrell declined to provide details such as the identity of the former detainees, why and where they were released or what actions they have taken since leaving U.S. custody."This is acts of terrorism. It could be Iraq, Afghanistan, it could be acts of terrorism around the world," he told reporters.
Morrell said the latest figures, current through December 24, showed an 11 percent recidivism rate, up from 7 percent in a March 2008 report that counted 37 former detainees as suspected or confirmed active militants.
Get that, they would not provide any details such as identity, actions taken, or even an actual number as some of the numbers are just "suspected" of being militants. So at a time when there is a lot of discussion about closing Gitmo Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell (who has had a problem with telling the truth in the past) makes a wild claim, but no real details are given. Th March figures that are refrenced in the news release are themselves up from a 2007 Pentagon claim (also by Geoff Morrell) of 30 former detainees "returning to terror" after their release from Gitmo. The trouble is that claim was firmly debunked by reports from the hard-working Seton Hall School of Law.
Just as the Government's claims that the Guantanamo detainees "were picked up on the battlefield, fighting American forces, trying to kill American forces," do not comport with the Department of Defense's own data, neither do its claims that former detainees have "returned to the fight." The Department of Defense has publicly insisted that at least thirty (30) former Guantanamo detainees have "returned" to the battlefield, where they have been re-captured or killed. To date, however, the Department has described at most fifteen (15) possible recidivists, and has identified only seven (7) of these individuals by name.
More strikingly, data provided by the Department of Defense reveals that:
- at least eight (8) of the fifteen (15) individuals identified alleged by the Government to have "returned to the fight" are accused of nothing more than speaking critically of the Government's detention policies;
- ten (10) of the individuals have neither been re-captured nor killed by anyone;
- and of the five (5) individuals who are alleged to have been re-captured or killed, two (2) of the individuals' names do not appear on the list of individuals who have at any time been detained at Guantanamo, and the remaining three (3) include one (1) individual who was killed in an apartment complex in Russia by local authorities and one (1) who is not listed among former Guantanamo detainees but who, after his death, has been alleged to have been detained under a different name.
Seton Hall's studies also found that a bare 55% of Gitmo detainess had ever taken up arms against the US and only 8% were suspected of being members of Al Qaida. The vast bulk of Gitmo detainees had been turned in by local warlords for bounty payments with no US witnesses to their alleged involvement in terrorism at all. No wonder their recidivist rate is so low, at a Pentagon figure of 11%. That compares with "an estimated 67.5%" in the general prison population.
Now Seton Hall has released a new report which examinins the Pentagon's dubious claims and overhyped allegations. The report is entitled Propaganda by the Numbers. Their press release states:
Professor Denbeaux of the Center for Policy & Research has said that the Center has determined that “DOD has issued “recidivism” numbers 43 times, and each time they have been wrong—this last time the most egregiously so.”
Denbeaux stated: “Once again, they’ve failed to identify names, numbers, dates, times, places, or acts upon which their report relies. Every time they have been required to identify the parties, they have been forced to retract their false ID’s and their numbers. They have included people who have never even set foot in Guantanamo —much less were they released from there. They have counted people as “returning to the fight” for having written an Op-ed piece in the New York Times and for having appeared in a documentary exhibited at the Cannes Film Festival. They have revised and retracted their internally conflicting definitions, criteria, and their numbers so often that they have ceased to have any meaning— except as an effort to sway public opinion by painting a false portrait of the supposed dangers of these men.
Fourty-three times they have given numbers—which conflict with each other—all of which are seriously undercut by the DOD statement that “they do not track” former detainees. Rather than making up numbers “willy-nilly” about post release conduct, America might be better served if our government actually kept track of them.”
The study notes that the Pentagon keeps hedging the numbers they use:
Eighty-two percent (82%) of the publicly made claims catalogued in the Appendix of this report contain qualifying language, including terms such as: “at least”; “somewhere on the order of”; “approximately”; “around”; “just short of”; “we believe”; “estimated”; “roughly”; “more than”; “a couple”; “a few”; “some”; “several”; and “about.”
Why? Because the Department of Defense "does not keep track of released detainees nor does it follow their post release conduct". It makes these claims up from data collected which might show Gitmo detainee involvement but having previously claimed as recidivists men who were never in Gitmo in the first place and someone whose only terrorist act after release was to pen an op-ed for the new York Times it's amazing that the mainstream takes them seriously.
Rachel Maddow interviewed Mark Denbeaux of the Seton Hall School of Law.who has rese about the Torture and Prisoners and this "Returning to the Battle Field" story:
The final weeks of the Bush Administration has been a full court press of interviews, press conferences, and speech's, all in the attempt to burnish the disgrace that was President George W. Bush.
Mostly they were self-pity fests, but the one thing that comes through loud and clear is that George W. Bush is a Legend in His Own Mind. Man nothing was his fault, nothing he did was really wrong. He just was in the wrong place in the wrong time.
What does it say that this man claims to have never been down any day in office, when things like 911 happened on his watch, two wars started on his watch, a U.S. city was destroyed on his watch, hundreds of thousands of people died in one of the worst natural disasters when tsnamis hit Indonesia and India.
Looks like the Bush legacy tour has finally ended, and luckily so far all of this whining has not changed the mind of this nation. Thank goodness. Dspite all of their spin over the last few weeks by George W. Bush and his enablers, the P.R. blitz hasn't worked out very well for them.
Bush's poll numbers are still in the tank despite their best efforts.
Watch Keith Olbermann remember the Bush Administration in 8 minutes:
Rachel Maddow had a really interesting interview with Matt Taibbi on her MSNBC show. Matt Taibbi has written a very creative article for Rolling Stone, where he gives his views on how Bush will be remembered: Bush Apologizes: The Farewell Interview We Wish He'd Give..
Watch Rachel Maddow discuss the Bush Legacy with Matt Taibbi:
This morning on the Stephanie Miller Show during her "Rightwing World" I heard Brit Hume of Fox News become the latest in a series of conservative wing nuts to demonstrate their ignorance and confusion about the Great Depression. Hume was following the lead of George Will who seems to have taken it as a personal crusade to destroy FDR. In the clip Hume insisted this morning that "the New Deal -- everybody agrees, I think, on both sides of the spectrum now, that the New Deal failed." Really? Everybody agrees? I don't agree. I'm pretty sure a fair amount of economists would not agree.
Hume went on to say that, "President [Franklin] Roosevelt waged what could only be called a jihad against private enterprise." Personally I like the use of "Jihad" here. Nothing like putting such a scary word.
The nutters on the right have been repeating similar nonsense for years, but over the last couple of months they have ratcheted up the rhetoric. It's demonstrably false, and quite preposterous, but then that's never stopped them in the past. David Sirota has jumped into the breach and written a couple of excellentitems lately, responding to the ridiculous Republican talking points related to FDR and the Great Depression.
David Sirota appeared on Fox News to discuss the upcoming economic recovery package, and during the discussion was be told that FDR's New Deal "prolonged the Great Depression". You can watch the clip here.
Sirota devoted his first newspaper column in the New Year to looking at this claim, and whether conservatives have any shred of evidence to support their claim that the New Deal prolonged the Great Depression.
Paul Krugman also wrote a column in November, where he noted the "intellectual industry, mainly operating out of right-wing think tanks, devoted to propagating the idea that F.D.R. actually made the Depression worse."
MSNBC's David Shuster did an entire segment on the patently false conservative argument.
We don't often see this kind of fact-checking segment on national television.
David Schuster was hosting MSNBC's show, 1600 Pennsylvania, and introduced their new feature "Muckraker of the Day". The first Muckraker of the Day was Time's Joe Klein. Now Joe Klein is someone I have had a lot of problems with. I believe he was a great example of all that is wrong with the corporate media in America. However in recent months I believe Joe Klein finally woke up as to the reality of the world that George W. Bush was forging. Joe Klein was yesterday's Muckraker of the Day for his editorial "The Bush Administration's Most Despicable Act". In this article Klein goes after Bush for not telling the truth and Bush's authorization for torture.
Joe Klein gives a great interview with David Shuster where he declares the Administration of George W. Bush is unAmerican.
David Shuster of MSNBC should have his own show. Yesterday he interviewed Senator James Inhofe (a total whack job Repuglican from Oklahoma) who recently released a report citing “more than 650 international scientists” who back up his claims that manmade global warming is a hoax. If you don't know Inhofe, he once said that global warming is “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people.”
This list of scientists was a revision of his original compilation last year of 400 names earlier in the year. Upon close examination though the list fell completely apart. When real experts looked at the report they pointed out that many of the people Inhofe was citing had no background in climate science, and some actually “demanded to be taken off the list, since they didn’t disagree with the scientific consensus on climate change at all.
Since Inhofe basically got away with it he decided to release the report again and this time he cites 650 “experts.” However Inhofe’s new report doesn’t seem to be much better. than the last one.
One scientist Anja Eichler, is cited by Inhofe as believing that half of the earth’s warming is caused by the sun. She has come out and said that her work is being “misinterpreted” by Inhofe. The truth is that she believes the “Earth’s temperature does not change randomly — it changes when it is driven to do so by an external forcing.”
Yesterday David Shuster had Senator Inhofe on to discuss his report, and he brought up the case of Anja Eichler. He pointed out all the problems with Inhofe's report, and at one point actually asked, “Senator, if there is a hoax, isn’t it this report of yours?”
President-elect Barack Obama said Monday a review by his own lawyer shows he had no direct contact with Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich about the appointment of a Senate replacement, and transition aides "did nothing inappropriate."
Obama said today he is prepared to make the review public, but decided to hold off because prosecutors asked for a delay and "I don't want to interfere with an ongoing investigation." Controversy has swirled around the president-elect and his incoming White House chief of staff, Rep. Rahm Emanuel, following Blagojevich's arrest last week on charges he schemed to trade Obama's Senate seat for personal gain.
Watch this NBC news clip:
Here is what Keith Olbermann said on his show today:
On today's Countdown guest host David Schuester revealed a new memo that explains the GOP's strategy for blocking a bridge loan to the auto industry:
Countdown has obtained a memo entitled "Action Alert - Auto Bailout," and sent Wednesday at 9:12am, to Senate Republicans. The names of the sender(s) and recipient(s) have been redacted in the copy Countdown obtained.
The Los Angeles Times reported that it was circulated among Senate Republicans. The brief memo outlines internal political strategy on the bailout, including the view that defeating the bailout represents a "first shot against organized labor." Senate Republicans blocked passage of the bailout late Thursday night, over its insistence on an immediate union pay cut.
From: Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 9:12 AM To: Subject: Action Alert -- Auto Bailout
Today at noon, Senators Ensign, Shelby, Coburn and DeMint will hold a press conference in the Senate Radio/TV Gallery. They would appreciate our support through messaging and attending the press conference, if possible. The message they want us to deliver is:
1. This is the democrats first opportunity to payoff organized labor after the election. This is a precursor to card check and other items. Republicans should stand firm and take their first shot against organized labor, instead of taking their first blow from it.
2. This rush to judgment is the same thing that happened with the TARP. Members did not have an opportunity to read or digest the legislation and therefore could not understand the consequences of it. We should not rush to pass this because Detroit says the sky is falling.
The sooner you can have press releases and documents like this in the hands of members and the press, the better. Please contact me if you need additional information. Again, the hardest thing for the democrats to do is get 60 votes. If we can hold the Republicans, we can beat this.
Watch David fill in for Keith Olbermann here:
The GOP is showing their true colors, and letting everyone know they will not work with the Obama administration to fix the problems of this nation. They killed the auto rescue plan Thursday night for purely partisan reasons. It never was about trying to help the automakers or the economy, but an effort to crush the working class and punish unions. There are many more people in line to suffer if the Big 3 go out of business, but Shelby and his band of brothers couldn't care less.
"Union Busting" is a high priority for these Conservatives fools that have allowed our country to be run into the ground. Can you name anything good that has come out of the eight years of Bush and Conservative dominance? So what is their solution? To take it out on the blue collars of America.
If anything this memo should be used as a reminder that the Employee Free Choice Act should be one of Obama's "high priorities" just after he takes office. Check out this video that explains a few things about it.
Last night, the Senate failed to approve the auto rescue package, voting 52-35 in favor of the bill – just eight short of the 60 votes that were needed. Over on the Wonk Room, Dan Weiss takes a look at the 20 senators who voted for the Wall Street bailout but voted against the auto rescue last night (as well as the 10 others who skipped the vote last night, but voted for the financial bailout):
Yes to TARP, No to auto Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) Sen. Robert Bennett (R-UT) Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC) Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN) Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) Sen. John Ensign (R-NV) Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) Sen. Kay Hutchison (R-TX) Sen. John Isakson (R-GA) Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) Sen. Mel Martinez (R-FL) Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) Sen. John Thune (R-SD)
Yes to TARP, Absent for auto Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID) Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) Sen. Gordon Smith (R-OR) Sen.Ted Stevens (R-AK) Sen. John Sununu (R-NH)
A two-page memo that has been sent to Cabinet members and other high-ranking officials offers a guide for discussing Bush's eight-year tenure during their public speeches.
Titled "Speech Topper on the Bush Record," the talking points state that Bush "kept the American people safe" after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, lifted the economy after 2001 through tax cuts, curbed AIDS in Africa and maintained "the honor and the dignity of his office."
The document presents the Bush record as an unalloyed success.
Flying under the media's radar is the investigation of former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Now it's looking more and more like prosecutor Nora Dannehy's investigation into the US Attorney firings has Alberto Gonzales in its crosshairs. Earlier this week TPM Muckraker reported that prosecutor Nora Dannehy's investigation contacted the ex-Attorney General in connection with the probe.
Now TPM Muckraker is reporting that recent legal filings show that Gonzales' lawyer, George Terwilliger Jr. of White & Case, is no longer representing him in a separate case, a civil suit alleging that law students were denied DOJ jobs thanks to illegal politicization at the department under Gonzales.
Speculation is that Terwilliger has withdrawn from the civil suit so he is able to devote additional time to Dannehy's more serious investigation into criminal wrong-doing.
Countdown covers it as part of the nightly run down of the 50 Bush scandals "BUSHED:
1. The economy is falling fast. We’ll see what tomorrow’s employment report says, but we could well be losing jobs at a rate of 450,000 or 500,000 a month.
2. Infrastructure spending will take time to get going — a new Goldman Sachs report suggests that projects that are “shovel-ready” are probably only a few tens of billions worth, and that a larger effort would take much of a year to get going. Meanwhile, it’s very questionable how much effect tax rebates will have on consumer demand. So it may be hard for stimulus to get much traction until late 2009 — and that’s even if Congress goes along, which may be a problem given all the bad analysis and disinformation out there.
So here’s what I’m wondering: will it, in fact, even be possible to pull the economy out of its nosedive before unemployment goes into double digits? I’m starting to wonder.
