| "Money is fucking up the democratic party and money can save it, finally a plan to make the Democratic party more responsive to its roots and its beginnings.” -- Sam Seder, radio host, Air America Pre-order today! |
A Reasonable Suspicion of Illegality
Tue Jan 24, 2006 at 04:12:25 PM PDT
The first thing that struck me when General Hayden made the ignorant observation that the Fourth Amendment didn't include a probable cause standard was that someone needed to tattoo the Bill of Rights on his chest, backwards, so he could read it every time he looked in the mirror in the morning. The second thing that struck me about his insistence that a "reasonable suspicion" standard prevails over probable cause for the spying program was that this Administration and the Congress already rejected a reasonable suspicion standard.
In 2002, Republican Senator DeWine introduced an amendment to the PATRIOT ACT that would have lowered the FISA warrant standard for non-U.S. citizens from probable cause to "reasonable suspicion." The DeWine amendment, S. 2659, was rejected in Committee. Glenn Greenwald has a must-read, excellent post on the DeWine amendment here. DeWine's amendment would have lowered the standard ONLY for non-U.S. citizens. The administration expressed serious misgiving about the constitutionality of DeWine's amendment. In the end, his amendment did not pass.
The admission that Bush's spying program uses a "reasonable suspicion" standard rather than a "probable cause" standard is explosive and damning. Why? Because the Bush administration knew--indeed, took the position--that a reasonable suspicion standard with respect to non-U.S. citizens was probably unconstitutional. Yet the administration now applies that same unconstitutional standard to United States citizens?
In the summer of 2002--well after Bush's spying program was already secretly implemented- the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence held a hearing on the DeWine amendment. (Hearing Report PDF) What transpired at that hearing proves that the Bush administration (a) knew that wiretaps of United States citizens are, pursuant to the Constitution, always subject to a probable cause standard; and (b) Congress explicitly rejected a lower standard for non-U.S. citizens.
DeWine himself limited his amendment to apply only to non-U.S. citizens, recognizing that "we must be cautious not to endorse an overly permissive use of the surveillance powers of FISA." The Committee heard testimony from the administration's top lawyers, and from top legal scholars in the field of eavesdropping and criminal law.
James Baker was then counsel for intelligence policy at the Department of Justice and head of the Office of Intelligence Policy and Review, which is the office that prepares and presents to the FISA court "all the applications under the FISA Act for electronic surveillance and physical search of foreign powers and their agents." If there was any expert on FISA warrant and applications at the time, it was Baker. He began his testimony by praising the PATRIOT ACT FISA changes, testifying as follows:
In my view, the changes have allowed us to move more quickly and more effectively and to also be more focused in our approach in dealing with the kinds of threats that Mr. Bowman made reference to. So we at the Department are grateful for the changes that Congress made in the statute, because I believe they've been important and have been employed effectively.
No word of how "ineffective" FISA is there. No testimony there from the Bush' top FISA guy about being hamstrung by the requirements of FISA. Baker then stated the DeWine Amendment "raises both significant legal and practical issues." In his formal statement to the Committee, Baker wrote:
The Department of Justice has been studying Sen. DeWine's proposed legislation. Because the proposed change raises both significant legal and practical issues, the Administration at this time is not prepared to support it.
The Department's Office of Legal Counsel is analyzing relevant Supreme Court precedent to determine whether a "reasonable suspicion" standard for electronic surveillance and physical searches would, in the FISA context, pass constitutional muster. The issue is not clear cut, and the review process must be thorough because of what is at stake, namely, our ability to conduct investigations that are vital to protecting national security. If we err in our analysis and courts were ultimately to find a "reasonable suspicion" standard unconstitutional, we could potentially put at risk ongoing investigations and prosecutions.
The practical concern involves an assessment of whether the current "probable cause" standard has hamstrung our ability to use FISA surveillance to protect our nation. We have been aggressive in seeking FISA warrants and, thanks to Congress's passage of the USA PATRIOT Act, we have been able to use our expanded FISA tools more effectively to combat terrorist activities. It may not be the case that the probable cause standard has caused any difficulties in our ability to seek the FISA warrants we require, and we will need to engage in a significant review to determine the effect a change in the standard would have on our ongoing operations. [Baker testified twice at the hearing that the administration made "aggressive" use of the FISA process, and that the FISA court had not rejected ONE of its warrants under the probable cause standard]. If the current standard has not posed an obstacle, then there may be little to gain from the lower standard and, as I previously stated, perhaps much to lose.
More below the fold...
Extended Debate on Alito? NRO Says Dems Will Do It
Tue Jan 24, 2006 at 02:23:29 PM PDT
Yesterday, I recommended that the national debate on whether Judge Samuel Alito should be on the Supreme Court should be extended:
Because of the importance of this decision and because of the importance of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's decisive influence on so many of the monumental issues the Court faced in the last 25 years, I urge the Senate to extend debate on this most important subject.
It seems clear to me that the significance of Alito's views on executive power, access to the courts, civil liberties, the right to privacy, the federal Commerce power, and a myriad of other issues, is only now coming into proper focus. More time is needed for the Senate to properly carry out its Constitutional function of advice and consent.
An appointment to the Supreme Court is for a lifetime. Samuel Alito is 55 years old and, like Justice O'Connor, is likely to sit on the Court for a quarter century if confirmed.
Given the stakes, an additional period of consideration and debate seems appropriate. The length of this additional period need not necessarily be long nor the debate protracted. It seems to me that with a fairly brief period of consideration, the members of the Senate can chart a course for appropriate action regarding Judge Alito.
Today, Byron York reports that:
Word is that Democrats will stage a talk-a-thon on the Alito nomination when it reaches the Senate floor. The nomination is expected to be approved by the Judiciary Committee this morning, and Majority Leader Bill Frist is expected to move it quickly to the floor. But now it is also expected that Democrats will push for extended debate on the issue, with every Democratic member taking the floor to stretch out debate in what will amount to a non-filibuster filibuster.
This could be encouraging. However, York writes that the Republicans have a counterplan:
But one Republican source says this morning that the GOP plans to "accommodate them without delaying the vote." By that, the source means that Frist will likely keep the Senate open very late to allow Democrats to talk into the night. And then Frist will file for cloture, and unless Democrats choose to filibuster the nomination, which seems highly unlikely, there will be a vote. "Judge Alito will be Justice Alito" before the president's State of the Union address next Tuesday, the source says.
An interesting situation could arise -- the Democrats could take this great opportunity to explain the monumental issues at stake to the American People and the country could have the national discussion that should have commenced in earnest about the extremist Justices that Bush promised to place on the Court. Judges like Scalia, Thomas and Bork. Is that what America deserves and desires? Let's debate it. In the Senate. Exercising its constitutional duty of advice and consent.
Democrats Announce Opposition to Alito Nomination
Tue Jan 24, 2006 at 01:34:30 PM PDT
Update [2006-1-24 16:2:36 by mcjoan]: Big update (hat tip to Viktor in the comments): Senator Bill Nelson (FL) will also vote NO on Alito.
From Senator Reid's staff:
Washington, DC --Following today's party-line vote on Samuel Alito in the Judiciary Committee, leading Democratic Senators joined members of the Judiciary Committee to announce that they were united in their intention to vote against his confirmation in the Senate.
Alito failed to demonstrate his independence from the Executive Branch in his hearings. An independent Supreme Court is essential to protecting the Constitution and preserving the system of checks and balances that preserves our Democracy. Ironically, the vote in the Judiciary Committee came on the same day that Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez was speaking about President Bush's warrantless wiretapping program.
"Judge Alito has failed to demonstrate a commitment to the system of checks and balances enshrined in our Constitution," said Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid. "At a time when the president is abusing his power at every turn, I cannot vote to confirm a judge who won't be an independent check on the executive branch."
...
"Judge Alito has spent 15 years siding with the powerful at the expense of the rights of individuals. He is the wrong choice to replace Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court, where he could be making decisions impacting the rights of our children and grandchildren for the next 20 to 30 years," said Senator Debbie Stabenow.
"Judge Alito took careful cover in platitudes about the law, with which no nominee who has ever come before the Committee could have disagreed. However, the American people were entitled to honest answers, not practiced platitudes. I expected, and the American people deserved, to hear more," said Senator Chuck Schumer.
These statements from Reid, Stabenow, and Schumer are their first statements of opposition to Alito. But I want to be sure not to overlook the critical importance of Senator Feingold's opposition, the first time in his career that he has opposed a Supreme Court judicial nominee.
This break in pattern by the man who is arguably the Senate's most adventurous thinker and independent player ought to serve as a basis for rethinking strategies with regard to blocking the nomination as it now moves to the full Senate -- up to and including the prospect of a filibuster.
Simply put, if Alito is unacceptable to Feingold, then he should be unacceptable to a good many other senators -- including moderate Republicans with whom Feingold has worked closely on campaign finance reform and a host of other issues over the years, such as Maine Senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins and Rhode Island Senator Lincoln Chafee.
...
In an unusually blunt statement, Feingold went out of his way to distinguish the current nominee from the Republican who he backed just a few months ago to serve as the court's chief justice. "Judge Alito's record and testimony do not give me the same comfort I had with Chief Justice Roberts," said Feingold, who explained that, "Judge Alito's record and his testimony have led me to conclude that his impulse to defer to the executive branch would make him a dangerous addition to the Supreme Court at a time when cases involving executive overreaching in the name of fighting terrorism are likely to be such an important part of the Court's work."
Update [2006-1-24 15:43:19 by mcjoan]: And this from
Governor Dean:
While Judge Alito dodged legitimate questions about his judicial record and philosophy, his agenda is clear. His troubling support of unchecked executive power, in light of current scandals over the President's domestic spying program, should concern all Americans. He supports intrusive government power over individual liberties, and has failed to protect crucial Family Medical Leave protections. He used legal technicalities to excuse gross sexual harassment, and supported prosecutors who constructed all-white juries to try black defendants. Worse still, Judge Alito broke his promise to the Senate to recuse himself from cases in which he had a clear conflict of interest--a deeply troubling failure in light of the current Republican corruption scandals.
When the full Senate votes on this nomination, Judge Alito should be rejected.
What Do the States Know that Specter Doesn't?
Tue Jan 24, 2006 at 12:38:39 PM PDT
Today's New York Times tells us:
Senator Specter is one of only a few Senate Republicans who support abortion rights, but he said Judge Alito had convinced him that he does indeed regard the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision as "settled law" not easily overturned.
Really? Specter's convinced Alito regards Roe as settled law?
Funny thing, that. Because over the weekend, the Los Angeles Times featured a story with the headline, "States Step Up Fight on Abortion," with the subhead, "Anticipating a more conservative Supreme Court, lawmakers are proposing bans in hope of forcing the justices to revisit Roe vs. Wade."
INDIANAPOLIS -- Taking direct aim at Roe vs. Wade, lawmakers from several states are proposing broad restrictions on abortion, with the goal of forcing the U.S. Supreme Court -- once it has a second new justice -- to revisit the landmark ruling issued 33 years ago today.
...
The bills are in direct conflict with the Supreme Court's 1973 rulings establishing abortion as a constitutional right...
...
Republican Rep. Troy Woodruff, serving his first term in the Indiana Legislature, wrote House Bill 1096 knowing it would conflict with Roe vs. Wade.
That was precisely his point: He wants his ban appealed to the Supreme Court, in hopes that the justices will overturn Roe and give states the power to make abortion a crime.
It's not just new laws either, the article makes clear. What's old can be made new again:
... At least a dozen states have criminal laws banning abortion. They can't be enforced as long as Roe vs. Wade remains binding. In theory, though, they could take effect immediately upon a reversal, subjecting abortion providers to penalties ranging from 12 months' hard labor in Alabama to 20 years' imprisonment in Rhode Island.
"What the public doesn't realize is that the building blocks are already in place to re-criminalize abortion if Roe is overturned," said Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights in New York.
To be fair, the Los Angeles Times article brings in analysts from all sides, some saying this is nothing but a scare tactic, that Roe will stay in some form or other, and several scenarios - from no change at all to chipping away at the right to outright banning - are all considered.
But that's just the point, isn't it? No one knows for certain if Alito will tip the scale to elimination of the right to choose. Specter seems confident he won't; a dozen or so states seem to believe he will. It's a crap shoot, and gambling with fundamental privacy rights is a high-risk game - a game that shouldn't be played in this country at this level, whatever a GOP senator soothingly tells the New York Times.
Midday open thread
Tue Jan 24, 2006 at 12:30:36 PM PDT
- I just saw an ad for a watch on TV. Does anyone still wear watches? I use my cellphone to tell the time. I've thrown up a poll to assuage my curiosity.
- Conservatives are whining about those mean liberals gaming the Amazon reviews for Kate O'Beirn's crappy book. Except that it was conservatives who invented the tactic. From TAP in 2000:
[M]ost conservative books [receive] 80 percent five-star ratings and 20 percent one-star, as opposed to pro-Clinton books, which receive 20 percent five-star, 80 percent one-star.
- Over at Street Prophets, Pastordan has a cool interview with Ohio Democratic candidate for Guv Ted Strickland.
- Arianna notes chinks in the "Hillary is inevitable" CW.
- The Daily Kos store now has beanies (click on "extras").
- Great article on Schweitzer and Tester from the environmental publication Grist Magazine.
The high-dollar organic grains are about as wild and crazy, as progressive, as Tester gets, which seems to be just about the amount Montanans are pining for these days: not the regressive howlings of Newt Gingrich's "Contract with America" politics, and not the old-school progressivism of politicians like Williams, yet. Like Schweitzer, Tester is homegrown; he knows that guns in Montana are not the same as guns in the inner city. Maybe a word for these new Montana Democrats might be transgressive -- easing, edging, into the future, and moving, finally, out of the past, even as they carry certain useful and beloved elements of it with them.
- Jack Carter, who is running for Senate in Nevada and is related to that Carter, had an op-ed on the War on Terror a few days ago.
- Jesus, Vermont governor Jim Douglas was a first-class wingnut while running his local College Republican chapter in 1970.
- Nice weekend headlines for Abramoff's favorite senator, Conrad Burns of Montana: The Missoulan: "Burns changed vote on bill about the Marianas Islands". Great Falls Tribune: "Burns campaign chairman also a telecom lobbyist". Billings Gazette: "Burns can't escape talk of Abramoff". More Billings Gazette: "GOP urges voting in online Burns poll". Billings Gazette again: "Island official tied to lobbyist met with Burns". And, yeah, more Billings Gazette: "Burns packet includes column by paid-off writer". And believe it or not, there was more. But I think you guys got the point.
- O'reilly is bat shit crazy. And damn, has a bully ever had a thiner skin than that joker?
- Florida Republicans, having failed at finding an alternative to Katherine Harris, have finally rallied around her losing campaign.
- I thank our lucky stars every day that Liddy Dole is in charge of the Republican Senate effort.
Rothenberg updates prediction: more Dem gains in House
Tue Jan 24, 2006 at 12:04:30 PM PDT
It's not online, but beltway political analyst Stuart Rothenberg has updated his House 2006 preditions:
Democrats don't have as many top tier candidates as they need to make major gains. That means that their ability to pick up the 15 seats that they need for a majority depends on the size of the midterm wave.
Democrats still have the potential for major gains (even taking the House), but their current prospects are somewhat lower. As we begin 2006, we are increasing our estimate of likely Democratic gains from 4-6 seats to 5-8 seats, with a bias toward even greater Democratic gains. More competitive GOP open seats would enhance Democrats' chances of taking the House.
CT-Sen: Zack Exley working for Ned Lamont?
Tue Jan 24, 2006 at 11:42:50 AM PDT
Zack Exley ran John Kerry's internet operation. And while I had some public disagreements with him, the guy knows his shit. He's an old union hand, was one of the first people at MoveOn.org, and the Kerry gig was no small feat.
So Joe Lieberman won't be too happy to see this registrant information for what appears to be his challenger Ned Lamont's forthcoming website:
Registrant:
Intarweb Projects
Intarweb Projects
PO Box 1775
Portland, OR 97207-1775
US
Registrar: NameSecure.com
Domain: NEDLAMONT.COM
Created on 01-14-2006
Expires on 01-14-2007
Administrative Contact:
Intarweb Projects
Phone: XXX-XXX-XXXX
E-mail: zackexley@gmail.com
Technical Contact:
Namesecure Inc.
Phone: XXX-XXX-XXXX
E-mail: support@namesecure.com
Lamont's operation won't be amateur or shoestring. This is a legitimate challenge to Lieberman, and one whose conclusion is definitely not preordained.
Update: Zack says in the comments that he's not working the race. Rather, he bought the domain to protect it from squatters or his opponents.
Dems hold united front against Alito
Tue Jan 24, 2006 at 10:52:08 AM PDT
10-8, the vote was along party lines.
So much for the "pro-choice" Specter.
CA-50, TX-28: Next two important races
Tue Jan 24, 2006 at 10:44:43 AM PDT
Good news out of CA-50, where Democrat Francene Busby is in good shape to take this Republican-lean district in an April special election to replace disgraced (and soon to be in jail) former rep Duke Cunningham.
DWT has come into possession of some brand new polling from the 50th CD-- brand new and very exciting. The research was based on interviews with 401 likely April special election voters in December, 2005. The survey shows that voters in the district are ready for a change and are much more receptive to a Democratic message of change than to any Republican message of more of the same. Busby holds an advantage over all opponents tested in both a single-trial heat match-up as well as head-to-head match-ups. Busby has a shot to take the whole ballgame in the special (primary) election in April!
Despite a GOP voter registration advantage in the district, a majority of voters surveyed disapproved of Bush's job performance-- with a plurality of voters STRONGLY disapproving [...]
Once considered a strongly Republican district, the 50th has swerved away from the party of Bush, DeLay, Cunningham, Abramoff and Frist. Only 35% of the voters indicate they will probably or definitely vote for the Republican candidate for U.S. Congress. Moreover, voters are seeking checks and balances in Congress, with 43% saying they want a candidate who would provide a balance to Bush's agenda, while only 34% prefer a candidate who will consistently support the Bush agenda.
This would be a tasty appetizer en route to November's main course. Beltway political observers like Stuart Rothenberg are viewing this race as a bellwether:
April's special election open primary in California's 50th district, and the likely June runoff, give Democrats a terrific opportunity to demonstrate that an electoral wave is building, and that a return to power in one or both houses of Congress is possible in November.
If Democrat Francine Busby wins the special election (or even comes close), the national media will rightly see the results as evidence that a combination of corruption and poor presidential poll numbers are expanding the playing field and putting dozens of additional House districts into play.
Scott Shields has more.
Meanwhile, TX-28 is a rare opportunity to replace one of the most conservative Democrats in the House with a progressive Dem without endangering our party's hold on the seat. The race pits Henry Cuellar (who was endorsed by the Club for Growth) against former Rep. Ciro Rodriguez in the Democratic primary. The two were pitted against each other after DeLay's mid-decade redistricting gambit. Rodriguez lost by only 203 votes in the 2004 primary. No Republican has filed to run for the seat, meaning whoever wins the primary faces only token opposition from a fringe libertarian.
The early numbers, from a Rodriguez internal poll, have Cuellar up 45-30. Not great, but not insurmountable given Cuellar can't muster majority support. The Texas primary will be held March 7.
More on the race here.
Crashing the Gate, two days left for special edition
Tue Jan 24, 2006 at 09:34:43 AM PDT
Publishers Weekly covers our book, and notes the unconventional way our publisher is marketing the book:
Moulitsas Zuniga is pleased to publish with a progressive press. "The way people consume information has changed," he said. "Hence, the way to market books has to adapt."
For Chelsea Green that means not only having finished books available in late February for a manuscript delivered in mid-December, but coming up with an unusual marketing program. In addition to barraging the more than one million daily visitors to the authors' Web sites with information on the book, Chelsea Green is planning a political campaign, complete with campaign buttons, a national field office and local volunteers. Baldwin hired Glenn Smith, whose credits include serving as campaign manager for Ann Richards's first successful run for Texas governor, to head up the book blitz, which will include seven events a month in April and May, from Austin, Tex., to Washington, D.C. Chelsea Green will also partner to market the book with a range of progressive groups.
Chelsea Green is a small press, so the presales are helping fund that promotional book tour.
So, a few reviews have been written so far. We've got good reviews from Matt Stoller and Aaron Barlow.
There's a mixed review from Eugene at My Left Wing, and a good ol' fashioned trashing at Pandagon.
We are taking on every sacred cow in the party, so it's clear that those who disagree with certain points will not like parts of the book. Eugene took exception to our chapter on the single issue groups, and it's no doubt that's a controversial chapter. But those groups have had such a stranglehold on party identity that few people have dared criticize them. Yet surprisingly (to us), every single person we talked to, both inside and outside the party establishment, pointed a finger at the issue groups as a problem. It's hard to ignore the issue groups when debating the problems and future of the Democratic Party.
Meanwhile, Jedmunds at Pandagon takes exception at our explicit refusal to deal with ideology. We knew that would be an avenue of attack for the book's detractors. But as we wrote in the book:
Ask ten people what the Republican Party stands for and you'll get roughly the same ten answers: lower taxes, smaller government, strong national defense, and family values. We can argue about the GOP's fealty to those principles and the ample evidence of hypocrisy, but it's a strong brand born of a very well-defined conservative world-view and set of values. Now ask ten people what the Democratic Party stands for, and you're likely to get ten different answers, many of them negative, courtesy of the Republicans that realized that if the Democrats didn't have a brand, they'd offer one up.
When we first set out to write this book, we figured the entire thesis would revolve around the lack of branding and the lack of a coherent vision. As it turned out, this hasn't been a book about policies or new ideas or message, even though those are critically important in taking back our country. We like to believe the ideas that will lead the Democratic Party to a new governing majority already exist, but they need to be articulated clearly.
The book evolved into a much broader discussion of the nascent people-powered mass movement of the netroots and the grassroots, because the progressive message is likely to emerge from there. It has to come collectively from the party rank and file in all fifty states. The hardest movement-building work is happening in the trenches, outside D.C., and those people are the key to the party's future. We have common principles that bind Democrats from places as diverse as Cambridge, Massachusetts, or Madison, Wisconsin, to places like Big Sandy, Montana, or Raleigh, North Carolina. It is those common principles that need to be teased out, packaged, and delivered in wide public forums.
It's not me and Jerome's job to tease out our message. Our job was to identify the bottlenecks preventing a message from emerging -- the lack of a Vast Left Wing Conspiracy (think tanks, leadership institutes, and media machine), corrupt and ineffective consultants, and yes -- issue groups that put their own interests above the broader goals of the progressive movement. The goal shouldn't be to defend NARAL, it should be to defend a women's right to choose. The goal shouldn't be to defend the Sierra Club, but to defend the environment. And if you care about those issues and others, it's hard to look at recent history and think that those groups have been even remotely effective.
If you think Bob Casey Jr. in Pennsylvania is an evil DINO satan incarnate, then yeah, you won't like this book. If you are interested in building a broad progressive movement that can win and rescue our nation from the incompetent ideologues currently running it to the ground, then you'll like it more.
But either way, we hope the book presents a starting point on a debate that has long been supressed.
Remember, the Special Edition of the book will only be available until Wednesday. So order now if you want to get the Progressive Partner version of the book (slightly different cover and thank you letter, you get the book 3-4 weeks before it hits bookstores, you help fund the book's promotional efforts, and every dime you pay goes to progressive organizations).
And another blurb, this one unsolicited from UVA political scientist Larry Sabato:
No one is spared in this lively, pointed book -- and that makes it a lot of fun. Demcorats should read Crashing the Gate to find their way out of the political wilderness. Republicans should read it to understand what their opponents might do if they get smart. Independents should read it to see what vigorous, two-party comeptition will really look like.
Osama's talking points
Tue Jan 24, 2006 at 08:53:37 AM PDT
Okay, who said:
"Who can forget your President Clinton's immoral acts committed in the official Oval office? After that you did not even bring him to account, other than that he 'made a mistake', after which everything passed with no punishment. Is there a worse kind of event for which your name will go down in history and remembered by nations?"
And who said:
"We call you to be a people of manners, principles, honour, and purity; to reject the immoral acts of fornication [and] homosexuality..."
That's Osama Bin Laden. And wow, he sounds just like Republicans! I'm sure Matthews and the rest of the incompetents in our media were making that comparison back in 2002 when Osama made those comments, right? No?
Let's not forget that ultimately, Osama's vision for the Arab world is far more akin to the Right's vision of America. Remember these old posts? On homosexuality, on militarism, on women's rights, on religion in school, on capital punishment, on free speech, on curtailment of civil liberties, and on a million different other issues Islamic fundamentalists don't share many disagreements with the ideologues running our country.
The reason we hate Islamic fundamentalists is pretty much the same reason we're fighting to take back this country from the Republicans. They are two peas from the same pod, and diametrically opposed to everything we liberals stand for.
Matthews hearts Michael Moore. Today.
Tue Jan 24, 2006 at 08:36:10 AM PDT
So, this is supposed to get us off his back or something?
Matthews: You know, on Hardball we've been raising the question about no-bid contracts and how Halliburton has gotten some profits out of that, and maybe we were right or wrong, but we were raising that issue. Certainly people like Michael Moore raised that question of profiteering.
But Matthews' problem isn't that he hurt Moore's feelings, is that he compared him to Osama Bin Laden. And it wasn't a one-off. He has a history of this sort of thing:
- MATTHEWS implies Al Qaeda is 'trying to get people to vote Democrat for president.' He asks Democratic Senator Breaux: 'Doesn't it put your party in a terrible position of having al-Qaeda rooting for you?' (Hardball, 7/18/04)
- MATTHEWS accuses Democrats of "perhaps exploiting" the death and destruction in Iraq (Hardball, 11/1/05)
- MATTHEWS says Bush sometimes "glimmers" with "sunny nobility" (Hardball, 10/24/05)
- MATTHEWS suggests Bush may "belong on Mount Rushmore" (Hardball, 12/16/05)
- MATTHEWS argues that the U.S. went into Iraq "for altruistic purposes" (Chris Matthews Show, 9/25/05)
- MATTHEWS insists "everybody sort of likes the president, except for the real whack-jobs" (Hardball, 11/28/05)
- MATTHEWS recites GOP talking points during fight over Bush's judicial nominees, describes Democratic efforts as "just sort of pouting and bitching" (Hardball, 5/18/05)
- MATTHEWS levels baseless charge against Democratic efforts to complete intel probe as "disingenuous," "using crocodile tears" (Hardball, 11/1/05)
- MATTHEWS describes Supreme Court debate as division between strict constructionism versus the "loosey goosey" liberal approach (MSNBC, 10/3/05)
- MATTHEWS praises Bush for a "brilliant" speech, before it was delivered, while attacking Democratic critics as "carpers and complainers" (MSNBC, 11/30/05)
- MATTHEWS falsely attacks Democrats for accusing Alito of being "lenient on the mob" (Hardball, 10/31/05)
- MATTHEWS praises John Roberts' confirmation as "miraculously successful" (MSNBC, 9/29/05).
The guy is simply full of shit, and it was time someone called him on it. You can join the chorus as well:
hardball@msnbc.com
(202) 824-6707
Update: Ugh, it never ends. Watch Tweety slobber all over Tom DeLay.
