| |
 |
Tuesday, February 27, 2007 |
Tony Newman: $125 for a Pack of Cigs!. The results are in: The tobacco ban in California prisons is fueling a violent black market where cigarettes are now selling for $125 a pack!
On July 1, 2005, a policy went into effect banning smoking in all California prisons. The legislation, sponsored by Assemblyman Tim Leslie (R-Tahoe City) was sold as a way to save millions in healthcare costs and improve the health of prisoners and corrections workers alike. While there is some logic to this rhetoric, the new prohibition has not prevented prisoners from smoking. Instead, it has led to a huge prison black market in cigarettes and increased violence behind bars!
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that banning cigarettes can never deliver on its promise to rid jails of cigarettes, but would inevitably lead to skyrocketing black-market prices and violence. My op-ed in the SF Chronicle, published just two weeks after the ban went into effect, predicted the collateral consequences of the ban.
The policy and ban may have one silver lining: it makes clear that cigarette prohibition, whether in our prisons or on the streets of America, would be disastrous. Outlawing cigarettes may seem crazy but when the Drug Policy Alliance commissioned a Zogby Poll last July, we were shocked to find that 45% would support a federal law making cigarettes illegal within five to ten years. Fifty-seven percent of 18- to 29-year-olds would support making cigarettes illegal.
Elected officials, public heath professionals and all those who want to reduce the harms of smoking, beware of prohibition. All we need to do is look at the prison ban to see the dire consequences of banning tobacco. Smoking is bad; prohibition is worse! [The Huffington Post | Full Blog Feed]
1:46:57 PM 
|
|
Hillary Responds to Ethics Allegations: Whoopsie!. 
Sen. Hillary Clinton has for five years running neglected to report her involvement with a Clinton family charity in her ethics disclosures. After Sen. Bill Frist and Rep. Nancy Pelosi attracted attention (though no penalties) for the same oversight, it seems bizarre at best that Hillary's professional army of advisers would have neglected to report the senator's role in the foundation. (The family foundation is separate from the better known William J. Clinton Foundation.) More importantly, such pet charities generate temptations for additional ethics violations: An individual connected to a certain corporation can make a contribution to a particular charity as a way of currying favor with a politician. Notorious examples include the Ted Stevens Foundation, a charity whose mission is to "honor and recognize the career of Sen. Stevens." A 2004 foundation dinner was attended by executives whose corporations had business before the Senate Appropriations Committee, which Stevens led. Ethics violator extraordinaire Tom DeLay also established a charity whose major donors turned out to be major corporate players. Finally, there's a personal ethics issue. Here's the Post: The retired chief of the IRS branch that oversees tax-exempt nonprofits said family-run foundations are commonly created by wealthy Americans, allowing them to earn tax breaks by donating to a charity whose future good works they can control. Such charities need only to give 5 percent of proceeds each year to maintain a tax exemption. The Post's numbers indicate that the Clintons have given away about 10 percent of what they have put into their private charity. In a sense, holding Hillary accountable for this is unfair since the tax code routinely hands out favors like this to the wealthy, but she is running for president[~]and as a Democrat[~]so maybe we can fairly ask a little more from her? [MotherJones.com | MoJo Blog - Social Issues and Political Commentary]
12:58:11 PM
|
|
Armed Chimps Draw Mixed Reviews
NRA: "Welcome to the Club!"
Neocons: "Are They Being Armed by Iran?"
by William D. Hartung
Associated Press International
NEW YORK -- February 23, 2007 -- A report in the Washington Post has revealed that chimpanzees in West Africa have been observed making spears from sticks "and using the tools to hunt small animals." The development has been cited as "the first routine production of deadly weapons ever observed in animals other than humans."
Reactions to the report were mixed. NRA spokesperson Wayne Lapierre enthusiastically embraced the news: "I say, welcome to the club! Humans aren't the only ones who need protection from threats to their homes and families. And now that animals are able to arm themselves, the gun control zealots won't be able to argue that no one needs to hunt with an AK-47."
Other analysts expressed alarm. Former UN Ambassador John Bolton said "It's clear that these chimps couldn't have developed this technology on their own. Mark my word, we will find the hand of the Iranian leadership behind this, as they try to destabilize West Africa and divert U.S. attention from their nucular program."
Vice President Cheney, who was busy provoking China during a brief trip to Asia, asserted that "nothing is off the table" as the US crafts a response to the arming of the chimps. He further argued that "this should finally put the lie to assertions by granola-eating, ankle-biting animal rights activists who claim that animals are innocent victims of human aggression."
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph Biden has a different perspective: "If the administration moves towards war with the chimps without seeking Congressional approval, they will spark a constitutional crisis."
Chimp spokesperson Howard Rubinstein termed the debate "much ado about nothing." He noted that "U.S. military spending is 600 trillion times what the chimps are spending, and spears are a poor match for tactical nuclear weapons."
In related news, Sen. Hillary Clinton argued that her term on the Senate Armed Services Committee made her "far more qualified" than her rival Sen. Barack Obama to deal with the "chimp crisis."
William D. Hartung is a Senior Fellow at the World Policy Institute in New York. Email to: hartung@newschool.edu
9:29:34 AM
|
|
Pariah or Prophet?
by Chris Hedges
I can[base ']t imagine why Ralph Nader would run again. He has been branded as an egomaniac, blacklisted by the media, plunged into debt by a Democratic Party machine that challenged his ballot access petitions and locked him out of the presidential debates. Most of his friends and supporters have abandoned him, and he is almost universally reviled for throwing the 2000 election to George W. Bush.
I can[base ']t imagine why he would want to go through this one more time. But when Nader hinted in San Francisco that he might run if Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton became the Democratic Party nominee, I knew I would be working for his campaign if he indeed entered the race. He understands that American democracy has become a consumer fraud and that if we do not do battle with the corporations that, in the name of globalization, are cannibalizing the country for profit, our democratic state is doomed.
I spent the last two years reporting and writing [base "]American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America.[per thou] The rise of the Christian right[~]the most dangerous mass movement in American history[~]can be traced directly to the corporate rape of America. This movement, which calls for the eradication of real and imagined enemies, all branded as [base "]satanic,[per thou] at home and abroad, is an expression of rage. This rage rises out of the deep distortions and dislocations that have beset tens of millions of Americans shunted aside in the new global marketplace. The massive flight of manufacturing and professional jobs overseas, the ruthless slashing of state and federal assistance and the rise of an unchecked American oligarchy have plunged many Americans into deep economic and personal despair. They have turned, because of this despair, to [base "]Christian[per thou] demagogues who promise magic, miracles, angels, the gospel of prosperity and a fantastic Christian utopia. And the Republicans and the Democrats are equally culpable for this assault.
There are only two solutions left. We must organize to fight the corporate state, to redirect our national wealth and resources to fund a massive antipoverty campaign and curb the cycle of perpetual war that enriches the military-industrial complex and by extension the two political parties that dominate Washington, or we must accept an inevitable Christo-fascism backed by these corporations. Don[base ']t expect glib Democratic politicians such as John Edwards, Sen. Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama to address these issues. They are, as Nader understands, hostage to corporate money.
Nader, perhaps better than anyone else, has grasped the long, disastrous rise of the corporate state.
He and his small army of activists helped write citizen legislation in the 1960s and 1970s that gave us, among many bills, the Clean Air Act, the Mine and Health Safety Act and the Freedom of Information Act. He worked with and was courted by sympathetic Democrats. Presidential candidate George McGovern saw him as a potential running mate, but Nader refused to be enticed directly into the political arena. He was a skilled Washington insider, one of the greatest idealists within the democratic system.
But the corporations grew tired of Nader[base ']s activism. They mounted a well-oiled campaign to destroy him. These early attempts were clumsy and amateurish, such as General Motor[base ']s use of private detectives to try to dig up dirt on his private life; they found none. The campaign was exposed and led to a public apology by GM. Nader was awarded $425,000 in damages, which he used to fund citizen action groups.
Lewis Powell, who was the general counsel to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and would later be appointed to the Supreme Court, wrote a memo in August 1971 that expressed corporate concerns. [base "]The single most effective antagonist of American business is Ralph Nader,[per thou] the memo read, [base "]a legend in his own time and an idol to millions of Americans. ... There should be no hesitation to attack [Nader and others].[per thou]
Corporations poured hundreds of millions into the assault. They set up pseudo-think tanks, such as the Heritage Foundation, which invented bogus disciplines including cost-benefit and risk-management analysis, all geared to change the debate from health, labor and safety issues to the rising cost of big government. They ran sophisticated ad campaigns to beguile voters. These corporations wrenched apart, through lavish campaign donations and intensive and shady lobbying, the ties between Nader[base ']s public interest groups and his supporters in the Democratic Party. Washington, by the time they were done, was besieged with 25,000 corporate lobbyists and 9,000 corporate action committees.
When Ronald Reagan, the corporate pitch man, swept into office he set out to dismantle some 30 governmental regulations, most put into place by Nader and his allies, all of which curbed the abuse of corporations. The Reagan White House worked to gut 20 years of Nader legislation. And, once a fixture on Capital Hill, Nader became a pariah.
Nader, however, did not give up. He turned to local community organizing, assisting grass-roots campaigns around the country such the one to remove benzene, known to cause cancer, from paint in GM car plants. But by the time Bill Clinton and Al Gore took office the corporate state was ascendant. Nader and his citizen committees were frozen out by Democrats as well as Republicans. Clinton and Gore never met with him.
[base "]We tried every way to get the Democrats to pick up on issues that really commanded the felt concerns and daily life of millions of Americans,[per thou] Nader says in the new documentary about his life, [base "]An Unreasonable Man,[per thou] [base "]but these were issues that corporations didn[base ']t want attention paid to, and so when people say why did you do this in 2000, I say I[base ']m a 20-year veteran of pursuing the folly of the least worse between the two parties.[per thou]
The Clinton administration pushed through NAFTA, gutted welfare, gave up on universal healthcare, deregulated the communications industry and abolished federal aid to families with dependent children. It further empowered the growing corporate state and exacerbated the despair that has fueled its allies in the Christian right.
[base "]For 20 years,[per thou] Nader says in the film, [base "]we saw the doors closing on us in Washington, on our citizen groups and a lot of other citizen groups, and what are we here for? To improve the country. We couldn[base ']t get congressional hearings, even with the Democrats in charge.[per thou]
There is a fascinating rage[~]and rage is the right word[~]expressed by many on the left in this fine film about Nader. Todd Gitlin, Eric Alterman and Michael Moore, along with a host of former Nader[base ']s Raiders, spit out venomous insults toward Nader, a man they profess to have once admired, the most common charge being that Nader is a victim of his oversized ego.
This anger is the anger of the betrayed. But they were not betrayed by Nader. They betrayed themselves. They allowed themselves to buy into the facile argument of [base "]the least worse[per thou] and ignore the deeper, subterranean assault on our democracy that Nader has always addressed.
It was an incompetent, corporatized Democratic Party, along with the orchestrated fraud by the Republican Party, that threw the 2000 election to Bush, not Ralph Nader. Nader received only 2.7 percent of the vote in 2000 and got less than one-half of 1 percent in 2004. All of the third-party candidates who ran in 2000 in Florida[~]there were about half a dozen of them[~]got more votes than the 537-vote difference between Bush and Gore. Why not go after the other third-party candidates? And what about the 10 million Democrats who voted in 2000 for Bush? What about Gore, whose campaign was so timid and empty[~]he never mentioned global warming[~]that he could not carry his home state of Tennessee? And what about the 2004 cartoon-like candidate, John Kerry, who got up like a Boy Scout and told us he was reporting for duty and would bring us [base "]victory[per thou] in Iraq?
Nader argues that there are few[~]he never said no[~]differences between the Democrats and the Republicans. And during the first four years of the Bush administration the Democrats proved him right. They authorized the war in Iraq. They stood by as Bush stacked the judiciary with [base "]Christian[per thou] ideologues. They let Bush, in violation of the Constitution, pump hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars into faith-based organizations that discriminate based on belief and sexual orientation and openly proselytize. They stood by as American children got fleeced by No Child Left Behind. Democrats did not protest when federal agencies began to propagate [base "]Christian[per thou] pseudo-science about creationism, reproductive rights and homosexuality. And the Democrats let Bush further dismantle regulatory agencies, strip American citizens of constitutional rights under the Patriot Act and other draconian legislation, and thrust impoverished Americans aside through the corporate-sponsored bankruptcy bill. It is a stunning record.
Bush is the worst president in American history. If Gore, or Kerry, had the spine to take him on, to challenge corporate welfare, corporate crime, the hundreds of billions of dollars in corporate bailouts and issues such as labor law reform, if either had actually stood up to these corporate behemoths on behalf of the working and middle class, rather than mutter thought-terminating clichés about American greatness, he could have won with a landslide. But Gore and Kerry did not dare to piss off their corporate paymasters.
There are a few former associates in the film who argue that Nader is tarnishing his legacy, and by extension their own legacy. But Nader[base ']s legacy is undiminished. He fights his wars against corporate greed with a remarkable consistency. He knows our democratic state is being hijacked by the same corporate interests that sold us unsafe automobiles and dangerous and shoddy products. This is a battle not for some unachievable ideal but to save our democracy.
[base "]I don[base ']t care about my personal legacy,[per thou] Nader says in the film. [base "]I care about how much justice is advanced in America and in our world day after day. I[base ']m willing to sacrifice whatever [OE]reputation[base '] in the cause of that effort. What is my legacy? Are they going to turn around and rip out seat belts out of cars, air bags out of cars?[per thou]
These corporations, and their enraged and manipulated followers in the Christian right, tens of millions of them, if left unchecked will propel us into despotism. The corporate state has rigged our system, hollowed out our political process and steadily stripped citizens of constitutional rights, federal and state protection and assistance. This may be the twilight of American democracy. And it is better to stand up and fight, even in vain, than not to fight at all.
Chris Hedges[base '] latest book is [base "]American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America.[per thou]
9:27:47 AM
|
|
Elayne Boosler: First Lady. Just in time for Oscar week, First Lady Laura Bush says the Iraq war is "wearing".
"WHO are you wearing?"
The blood of 3140 U. S. soldiers.
I remember when First Ladies used to be role models; accomplished and involved human beings, women we were proud to have be our best faces forward. First to come to mind is of course Eleanor Roosevelt, but so many more as well contributed to the betterment of people and country. They did so with their bravery, brains and moral courage. It's time to not only expect more from our presidents again, but also hope that a true First Spouse breaks through the wasted and vacuous First Stepford tradition that has overtaken the White House the better part of the last few decades. Speaking of war, of conscience, of Firsts, here are some real women to admire:
Martha Washington (First Lady 1789-1797)
She remained beloved by Revolutionary War veterans, and was publicly known to provide financial support or to intercede on behalf of those among them in need.
Dolly Madison (First Lady 1809-1813)
A patriot in action, not rhetoric. In the hours preceding the burning of Washington by British troops during the War of 1812, she famously refused to leave the White House before being assured that the large portrait of George Washington was removed from the walls and taken safely away from potential destruction by the encroaching enemy.
Sarah Polk (First Lady 1845-1849)
She outlived her husband by about forty years. She had been such a beloved First Lady that during the Civil War, both sides respected her neutrality, and she entertained officers from both armies.
Lucy Hayes said in 1876, "Woman's mind is as strong as man's...equal in all things and is superior in some." After the Civil War started, Lucy deplored being a woman, wishing she could take up arms for her country. She spent a substantial amount of time with her husband in camp with the 23rd Ohio, earning the nickname "Mother of the Regiment".
Lou Hoover (First Lady 1929-1933) said, "It is very possible to have both a home and a career in this modern age". She created controversy by eliminating outdated social customs such as the refusal to receive pregnant women at the White House, and by inviting all Congressional wives, including the wife of African-American Congressman Oscar DePriest from Chicago, to the White House. For that she was highly criticized, but never regretted her decision.
Mamie Eisenhower in 1953 strongly campaigned to invite African-American opera singer Marian Anderson to perform at the inauguration. She also made sure her African American staff had accomodations in still segregated Washington, and were welcomed at all the Inaugural events.
Lady Bird Johnson's accomplishments read more like a successful presidents tenure in office. She toiled for integration, campaigning without her husband through the south, where she was spit on by segregationist protesters and hit with a picket sign, and she never flagged in her dedication to equality. She raised the profile of women in education, politics and public life. She raised the President's consciousness on the equal competence of women in public service and influenced his efforts to advance women. She said, "If you achieve the precious balance between a woman's domestic and civic life, you can do more for zest and sanity in our society than by any other achievement..." She got project Head Start off the ground. She introduced "Beautification," an umbrella title for a wide variety of efforts, legislation and public campaigns that were a combination of rural and urban environmentalism, national parks conservation, anti-pollution measures, water and air reclamation, landscaping and urban renewal.
Jackie Kennedy showed the world America had a brilliant, educated and thoughtful First Lady, back when education was valued instead of derided by people who think wallowing in ignorance makes them patriotic, and calling people who like to think and learn "elites". She traveled abroad and spoke to leaders in their own languages. She campaigned for American textiles and industry. She brought the fine arts to Washington, and made culture accessible and available. She restored the White House. Knowing she couldn't ask for the restoration money it would take, she looked at how many people toured the White House every day, designed a little booklet of White House information and history, put a dollar price tag on it, and raised millions to restore Washington.
The only quotable quote of Laura Bush's that I found that wasn't a repulsican talking point was "The role of First Lady is whatever the First Lady wants it to be."
I guess she didn't want much.
Source: National First Ladies Library
 [The Huffington Post | Full Blog Feed]
9:25:07 AM
|
|
Steve Young: READY OR NOT, HERE WE COME: General Pace Undermines Troops. At long last, General Pace, have you no conscience?
You as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff should know that there are American troops in harm's way. And, no, I don't mean that they are under the command of this president.
It's that stoo-pid report of yours that says because of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan there is a significant risk that the U.S. military won't be able to fully respond to another crisis.
Report, schmort. Didn't you get the memo? The Vice President just had a friend who traveled from Baghdad to Basra and "found the situation dramatically improved from a year or so ago."
Perhaps, instead of issuing reports that sound like they were dictated by bin Laden you should have read the headline this morning.
23 Killed in Attack. Cheney OK.
Did you read that? Cheney was okay. And that was only 14 nameless deaths. Christ, General, over 3100 hundred of our soldiers have died in Iraq and the Vice President is still okay. If the Vice President can survive with that kind of carnage why would a lack of readiness be any less progressable?
Really, sir, how the hell is your report going to create any fear in the next country we're going to invade? Iran. North Korea. Granada. Pick one. Now they'll think we're just warmongering out of our ass.
And what makes you think war readiness has anything to do with how ready we are to fight a war? They're only words, sir. Words aren't worth diddly if you don't say them. If they're not worth saying then you don't say them. It's like saying that, in some way, the Veterans benefits the Republican congress had spent years cutting had some negative effect on Walter Reed Hospital's treatment of our wounded and sick. Like rats read committee reports.
You, above all people, should know that admitting that our military is weakening plays right into Al Quaeda's hands? It's like that Pelosi fella. Not questioning her patriotism, you know. Just her judgement...in how she chooses to subvert the country.
I sure hope Tony Snow will step in today to tell us how what you reported is a good thing. You know, like the British pull out being a sign that conditions are improving.
Let's try this one on...
"The President welcomes the report, but until the Libby trial is over, you understand that he cannot comment on the specifics of it except to say what General Pace meant was that you in the media can fight all the hypothetical wars you want but it's the real wars this president is concerned with and, if you didn't notice, we're in the middle of one right now and anything less than victory is unacceptable, unless you think that somehow losing this war is preferable to winning it and have not stopped beating your wife. That's why... Hey, Helen! Look, a cow!"
See how it's done, General? It doesn't matter how bad the facts "on the ground" are, it's how you say they aren't.
Unless, of course, you don't want to be a Fox News expert when you retire.
Award-winning TV Comedy Writer Steve Young is the author of "Great Failures of the Extremely Successful" and his weekly column appears in the LA Daily News Sunday Opinion page...to the left of O'Reilly's...really. And if you want to overdose on Steve, click here for :Steve's Latest Blatant Infomercial.
 [The Huffington Post | Full Blog Feed]
9:20:39 AM
|
|
Iraqi Oil Agreement Reveals the True Winners in Iraq. The Iraqi oil deal, which now goes before the country's parliament, spells the end of the country as a nation state, and signals a great Bush victory in the war.
The Byzantine, nearly incomprehensible scheme for dividing up oil revenues on the basis of population is little more than a sick joke, a façade for the biggest rip off of resources since the British first barged into Mesopotamia over a century ago. The distribution of the money by population in reality provides a means why which the U.S. can pay for the arms and troops it hopes will control those populations.
This law sanctions contracts between regions and foreign oil companies. It effectively puts an end to a nationalized petroleum industry that provides most of the revenue to sustain the country. Oil revenue divvied up among three regions effectively ends Iraq[base ']s viability as a nation. Over time, the oil revenues might sustain some sort of Kurdistan, along with a Shia state, and a Sunni state, albeit a small one. The Sunnis don[base ']t have much oil [~] as of now.
While the deal, on its face, splits up control of Iraq[base ']s oil among Kurds, Shia and Sunnis, the real power of course is in the hands of the international companies that will strike contracts with one or another of the different entities, put up most or all of the money for exploration, development of infrastructure, and actual production through "device of production" agreements. These agreements, infrequently used in the business, mean that oil revenue will first go to the companies to recoup their expenses and exploration costs. They will be considerable since the industrial infrastructure will have to be rebuilt in many areas and because much of the country has not been mapped. Arguments among the parties will be settled in courts outside the country.
Iraq currently has the second or third largest known reserves in the world. It may well turn out to have the biggest reserves when the nation is completely mapped. These reserves will become more important over time because Saudi Arabia's vast pool of untapped oil is widely believed to be beginning a decline and anyway has been overstated by the Saudis. This deal presents a serious challenge to whatever control OPEC still has over prices and production.
Much of the Iraqi oil goes down through the Persian Gulf. During the war between Iraq and Iran, the U.S. was engaged in supporting Saddam with naval protection for Iraqi tankers, ready to reflag them if necessary, so they might appear to be our own. Now we don't have to reflag them. Our companies will own them.
As for Iran, our interests in the Persian Gulf, that is, the West's interests [~] the big oil companies are American and British [~] become ever more important. There is no question that, if challenged, we will fight Iran for that oil. After all, it will increasingly become the key source of supply for us and probably much of Europe.
People who say the U.S. lost the war are wrong. Bush and the oil companies won.
-- James Ridgeway [MotherJones.com | MoJo Blog - Social Issues and Political Commentary]
9:19:06 AM
|
|
LARRY IS RIGHT.
I TOO AM NO FAN OF HILLARY CLINTON AS A PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE, FOR REASONS RELATED ENTIRELY TO ISSUES.
I WAS OPPOSED TO MANY ACTS OF THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION INCLUDING THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT, WELFARE REFORM AND THE MILITARY ACTIONS IT OFTEN FAVORED.
BUT THIS CHARACTERIZATION OF THE CLINTONS IS A BIT LUDICROUS. THAT IS, THE CHARACTERIZATION BY BOB HERBERT. FRANKLY, I'M ALSO SUPRISED BY MAUREEN DOWD'S ATTITUDE. AND THE COMMENDS BY BOB GEFFEN, THOUGH I REALIZE HE WAS GOADED INTO THEM.
Larry Beinhart: A Window Into the Soul of the New York Times. Bob Herbert is a columnist for the New York Times. He is generally a liberal. He usually makes sense. I usually like his columns a lot. He just wrote one attacking both Bill and Hillary Clinton.
I am not a fan of Ms. Clinton. I disagree with her on the issues and worked on Jonathon Tasini's underfunded campaign against her in the New York primary for Senate. She had forty million dollars for her most recent Senate race and that also bothered me.
But Herbert's attack barely mentions issues. It doesn't deal with the problem of money in politics. It's a foaming at the mouth attack on an image that he has of them:
If Bill and Hillary Clinton were the stars of a reality TV show, it would be a weekly series called "The Connivers." The Clintons, the most powerful of power couples, are always scheming at something, and they're good at it.
What I found interesting was that no one questioned whether the Clintons would be willing to get down in the muck and start flinging it around. That was a given.
... the relentlessly vicious, sleazy, mendacious politics that have plagued the country throughout the Bush-Clinton years.
... fed up with just the sort of mean-spirited, take-no-prisoners politics that the Clintons and the Bush crowd represent.
I remember Bill Clinton in the primaries and then in his two presidential races, first against Bush I, and then against Bob Dole. I defy anyone to describe any of those campaigns as "vicious, sleazy, mendacious ... mean-spirited, take-no-prisoners." Herbert lumps in Clinton with Bush, but in comparison to the president who had John Kerry swift boated and spread rumors about John McCain's black love child, Clinton's campaigns were models of decency, rectitude and relevance.
Indeed, as I recall, and as most of us remember it, the Clintons were the victims of relentless right-wing attacks, a hysterical eight year campaign to dig up any kind of dirt that could be found - it didn't matter if it was provable, or false, or trivial, or irrelevant - and fling it at them.
So why does Bob Herbert remember those years so differently?
The explanation that comes to mind is that he is at the New York Times. One of the political mysteries of recent years is the vitriolic anti-Bill Clinton mud-slinging from the Times -- which lead the charge on Whitewater -- and the pass they gave the Bush crowd, (and how the Washington Bureau of the Times continues to act as a PR conduit for the administration even after the editorial pages have awakened). This is, perhaps, how the corporate climate at the Times thought of Bill. In Herbert's column you can hear them muttering and gossiping down the halls and in their emails, full of anger, but empty of facts.
There is something seriously wrong with someone -- with a sub-culture -- that can't distinguish between the Clinton years and the Bush years, that can't distinguish between the politics that Clinton practiced and that Bush practices, that can't tell the difference between lying about personal sex acts and lying about public policies that result in the deaths of hundreds of thousands, murder, chaos, rampant rapes, and the rule of gangs, that doesn't remember that one administration increased open government and the other has kept secret how many staff the vice president has. The list of differences is so long that it could go on for pages. And they are such significant differences.
Bob Herbert's column -- full of slander and empty of facts, like a good, old-fashioned Rush Limbaugh assault on the Clintons -- says little about the Clintons, but a great deal about Bob Herbert and the culture of his world, the NY Times.
The NY Times is the flagship of the mainstream media. Editors everywhere else, in every newspaper, radio and TV newsroom, look to the NY Times. For good reason. It is our best newspaper and it is dedicated to being the best. So when the Times is wrong, it matters. When the Times is wrong -- as they were in the coverage of the Clinton, Bush, WMDs, Iraq, and now Iran -- it matters. It's worth calling them out on.
  [The Huffington Post | Full Blog Feed]
9:18:08 AM
|
|
© Copyright 2007 Patricia Thurston.
|
|
|
|
|
