Eric Cantor: The House GOP is "Back in the Saddle"

Do you think that the Republican Party going to try and run on the stimulus bill in the midterm elections?

Maybe this video, put together by House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA), can give us a hint!




UPDATE:

In case you are wondering why the above video no longer works, it is because Stage Three Music, the publishers of this song, has demanded that Cantor take this down. “Aerosmith did not approve of its use and also wanted to have it taken down.” said a spokesperson for Stage Three.

More Evidence of Torture Still Translates to Zero Accountability

Recently, over at The Public Record, Jason Leopold took a look at some recently declassified documents from the Department of Defense that continue to make it clear that the Bush Administration knowingly put procedures into place that allowed for the abuse and torture of detainees in U.S. custody. The ACLU has also released reports on five detainee deaths that have occurred in Afghanistan and Iraq. From the Leopold:

Those documents which span thousands of pages include:

• Investigation of two deaths at Bagram. Both detainees were determined to have been killed by pulmonary embolism caused as a result of standing chained in place, sleep depravation and dozens of beatings by guards and possibly interrogators. (Also reveals the use of torture at Gitmo and American-Afghani prisons in Kabul).
• Investigation into the homicide or involuntary manslaughter of detainee Dilar Dababa by U.S. forces in 2003 in Iraq.
• Investigation launched after allegations that an Iraqi prisoner was subjected to torture and abuse at “The Disco” (located in the Special Operations Force Compound in Mosul Airfield, Mosul, Iraq). The abuse consisted of filling his jumpsuit with ice, then hosing him down and making him stand for long periods of time, sometimes in front of an air conditioner; forcing him to lay
  down and drink water until he gagged, vomited or choked, having his head banged against a hot steel plate while hooded and interrogated; being forced to do leg lifts with bags of ice placed on his ankles, and being kicked when he could not do more.
• Investigation of allegations of torture and abuse that took place in 2003 at Abu Ghraib.
• Investigation that established probable cause to believe that U.S. forces committed homicide in 2003 when they participated in the binding of detainee Abed Mowhoush in a sleeping bag during an interrogation, causing him to die of asphyxiation.

These documents make it clear more of what we already know and what I have written about in great detail, that former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, was personally involved in the policies that were implemented regarding treatment of detainees:

Additionally, a Dec. 20, 2005, Army Inspector General Report relating to the capture and interrogation of suspected terrorist Mohammad al-Qahtani included a sworn statement by Lt. Gen. Randall M. Schmidt. It said Secretary Rumsfeld was “personally involved” in the interrogation of al-Qahtani and spoke “weekly” with Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, the commander at Guantanamo, about the status of the interrogations between late 2002 and early 2003.

[...]

“Those techniques were implemented under the supervision and guidance of Secretary Rumsfeld and the commander of Guantánamo, Major General Geoffrey
Miller. These methods included, but were not limited to, 48 days of severe sleep
deprivation and 20-hour interrogations, forced nudity, sexual humiliation, religious humiliation, physical force, prolonged stress positions and prolonged sensory over-stimulation, and threats with military dogs.”

This is not groundbreaking news for anyone who has been following this issue, but rather more evidence that very real crimes were more-than likely committed during Bush's reign in the White House. Couple the results of these reports with an item that came out of Newsweek recently. According to Michael Isikoff, an Internal Justice Department report has preliminary findings concluding that Bush Administration lawyers (including John Yoo) did not act in good faith in issuing legal opinions on issues of torture. The implications of this, that these legal opinions were so outrageous that the actions of these lawyers cannot be viewed in good faith, continue to undercut claims by the Bush Administration and their supporters. Namely, that they believed their actions to be legal. To the contrary, evidence continues to mount that the legal opinions were crafted around policies (which required legal backing) that the former Administration wanted to implement.

Despite all of this, President Obama continues to respond to questions about criminal charges against the Bush Administration by stating that he wishes to "look forward" instead of backward. While Attorney General Holder and President Obama say that "no one is above the law", their language of "moving forward" indicates that serious investigations into lawbreaking are not a top priority. Chris Floyd suggests (though obviously tongue and cheek) that since the current Administration has no interest in pursuing any type of serious investigation into some of the worst crimes that we have seen in recent years, that we have a bipartisan compromise. We take one high level official (Floyd suggests Rumsfeld) and have him take the fall for everything. This way, as Floyd puts it, "The Republicans can claim they got rid of their 'bad apple,' and the Democrats can claim they have 'restored American honor."' After all, isn't this what bipartisan has come to mean these days during this so-called "new age" of government?

Despite calls for investigations and the growing interest of the public to look into criminal wrongdoing, the White House continues to downplay any meaningful action under the guise of putting the past behind us. Part of the "past" that the current Administration is attempting to bury is the complicity of the Democrats in implementing torture policies. It is not just the absence of action that should warrant criticism, but the proactive approach by the Obama Administration to defend and continue some of the worst policies of the Bush Administration; most recently the "state secrets" provision.

Claiming that "no one is above the law" while simultaneously turning a blind eye to crimes committed by the past Administration is inherently contradictory and will not deter future elected officials from committing blatant violations of the law. Actual accountability is not shielding members of your own party from potential investigation nor is it continuing policies like the "state secrets" provision after naming it one of the fundamental problems of the last eight years. The pressure on the Administration for real accountability needs to continue as more evidence continues to see the light of day.

Economists Were Absent from the Discussion on the Stimulus Plan

Media Matters for America recently did a study of Sunday talk shows and twelve cable news programs from January 25 to February 8. It is during this time period that there has been much talk in the media about Obama's stimulus plan and battle within Congress to get some form of the bill passed. Interestingly enough, this study found that out of 460 total guests on the programs measured, only 25 guests (or 5%), were economists.

In addition:

Media Matters purposefully used a broad definition of "economist" to be inclusive, coding as an economist any guest who has a master's degree or doctorate in economics or who has served as an economics professor at a university or college, as best as we could determine. (All current members of Congress were coded as non-economists.)

The show with the most economists? Glenn Beck's show on Fox News.

- Glenn Beck had on 7 economists out of 21 guests which discussed the stimulus (33%).
- The Situation Room had on 3 economists out of 73 guest which discussed the stimulus (4%)
- Lou Dobbs Tonight had on 1 economists out of 27 guests which discussed the stimulus (4%)
- Campbell Brown had on 0 economists out of 26 guests which discussed the stimulus (0%)
- Anderson Cooper had on 0 economists out of 31 guests which discussed the stimulus (0%)
- Neil Cavuto had on 2 economists out of 53 guests which discussed the stimulus (4%)
- The O'Reilly Factor had on 1 economist out of 15 guests which discussed the stimulus (7%)
- Hannity had on 0 economists out of 44 guests which discussed the stimulus (0%)
- Chris Matthews had on 1 economist out of 46 guests which discussed the stimulus (2%)
- Keith Olbermann had on 1 economist out of 15 guests which discussed the stimulus (7%)
- Rachel Maddow had on 1 economist out of 11 guests which discussed the stimulus (9%)

and as for the Sunday talk shows:

- This Week had on 3 economists out of 20 guests that discussed the stimulus (15%)
- Face the Nation had on 1 economist out of 7 guests that discussed the stimulus (14%)
- Meet the Press had on 2 economists out of 14 guests that discussed the stimulus (14%)
- Fox News Sunday had on 1 economist out of 20 guests that discussed the stimulus (5%)

You can view a list of all the guests by clicking here.

Is this really in the best interest of a fully informed citizenry? This system assures that certain important questions will not get asked and it limits the discourse on one of the most important topics that has been recently discussed. Is it any surprise that people are confused about the stimulus plan and began to cling to ideas and phrases similar to those expressed by Joe "The Plumber"? We deserve better than this.

The Dishonesty of the Wall Street Journal

If you are looking for your daily dose of inaccuracy and dishonesty, you need look no further than today's editorial page of the Wall Street Journal. This discussion centers around President Obama's prime-time press conference the other night and his practice of calling on reporters from a pre-arranged list. From the piece (emphasis mine):

The problem wasn't the lighting in the East Room. The President was running down a list of reporters preselected to ask questions. The White House had decided in advance who would be allowed to question the President and who was left out.

Presidents are free to conduct press conferences however they like, but the decision to preselect questioners is an odd one, especially for a White House famously pledged to openness. We doubt that President Bush, who was notorious for being parsimonious with follow-ups, would have gotten away with rescreening his interlocutors. Mr. Obama can more than handle his own, so our guess is that this is an attempt to discipline reporters who aren't White House favorites.

I don't take exception to questioning the practice of preselecting reporters who get to question the President, I take exception to the WSJ's false statement that President Bush would not have gotten away with this practice. One would only need to do a small amount of research before realizing that President Bush also preselected reporters to call on during his press conference. Just the other night on The O'Reilly Factor, former White House spokesman Ari Fleischer blatantly stated that this was the practice:




Not only did President Bush make it an accepted practice to preselect who he would call on, but as noted in this article, the Bush Administration even scripted a whole press conference in the lead-up to the Iraq War to assure that no questions would be asked from the likes of TIME magazine or The Washington Post.

For the Wall Street Journal to suggest that Bush could have never "gotten away with rescreening his interlocutors" is misleading at best and flat-out dishonest at worst.

The Brilliant Decision to Make "Joe the Plumber" a Correspondant for PJTV

I did my best to stay away from Pajamas Media and PJTV.com for a while, but once I heard that "Joe the Plumber" (Joe Wurzelbacher) was following up his trip to Israel with a trip to Washington D.C., I had no choice but to take a glance at the "news" organization that continued to think that this was a good idea.

Pajamas Television describes themselves as follows:

Pajamas Media (PJM) was established in 2004 and is a network of about 100 bloggers that covers news and issues of the day in a refreshingly thoughtful and civil way. Led by CEO Roger Simon, the network includes well known personalities such as the “Instapundit,” Glenn Reynolds (named one of the 10 most influential legal scholars in America by the Social Science Research Network), and well known TV commentator Michelle Malkin. About 1 million people visit the PJM network every week (about 3.5 million monthly), many of whom, are politically center-right, with maybe 40% declaring they are Democrats.

Pick a few videos from the PJTV website and you can clearly see that this website is offering conservative opinion and commentary. I looked for the results of the poll which indicated that "maybe 40%" of the visitors declared themselves Democrats, but as you might imagine...such a poll is not available. Regardless of political or ideological affiliation, it's the content that matters and any website that thinks making Joe The Plumber a correspondent is a good idea is bound to have some riveting footage.

Joe's first assignment for PJTV was to travel to Israel and report what was happening with Israel's "average Joe's". This assignment led to Joe's famous outburst where he declares "I don't think that journalists should be anywhere allowed war!"



Joe did later admit that he got a little emotional on that first day in Israel, but then settled down and asked some important questions. After Joe's stretch in Israel, his next assignment was to travel to Washington D.C. to speak to senators and ordinary Americans about the stimulus package. I won't bore you by posting all five of his "reports" here on my blog, but below is the most interesting one.




The entire validity and accuracy of this "news" organization can be summed up in the clip above. Joe's report begins with his description of attending briefings at The Club for Growth, Heritage Foundation, and Cato Institute. Joe describes these organizations as "bipartisan" or "neutral". This statement is either flat-out ignorance or a lie. Here the language from the Heritage Foundation's website regarding their mission:

To formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.

Cato's mission:

The mission of the Cato Institute is to increase the understanding of public policies based on the principles of limited government, free markets, individual liberty, and peace. The Institute will use the most effective means to originate, advocate, promote, and disseminate applicable policy proposals that create free, open, and civil societies in the United States and throughout the world.

and Club for Growth's mission:

Club for Growth is a national network of thousands of Americans, from all walks of life, who believe that prosperity and opportunity come through economic freedom. We work to promote public policies that promote economic growth primarily through legislative involvement, issue advocacy, research, training and educational activity. The primary tactic of the separate Club for Growth PAC is to provide financial support from Club members to viable pro-growth candidates to Congress, particularly in Republican primaries.

So by the very descriptions found on each of the website of these organizations, they are conservative think-tanks. The Heritage Foundation even uses the word "conservative" in their mission statement. According to Joe The Plumber and PJTV however, these are "neutral" organizations filled with "real brainiacs" and wouldn't you know it...all three organizations advocate voting down the stimulus plan.

Fast forward to the disbelief expressed by both Joe and Roger Simon that Joe was not issued press credentials for interviews because PJTV is viewed as an organization that expresses opinions instead of "hard news". Wurzelbacher and Simon are baffled that they were not granted credentials, but NBC (who has Keith Olbermann) did get credentials. (Need I point out the obvious, that NBC is a well-established news organization?) Joe is "pretty upset" that NBC, who he says has had to retract countless stories, somehow manages to get access to interview Senators and he doesn't. Instead Joe is forced to catch Senator Lindsey Graham next to a subway to get his view on the stimulus package and to listen to Graham talk about why the Republican version of the bill is better. Joe mentions that everything that Graham said is true and that the Republican bill has no pork at all...Joe checked and he couldn't find any!

If you want to torture yourself any further you can check out more videos and "reports", but I think it is quite clear that PJTV offers nothing new or original to broaden the discussion on any of these issues.

Tom Daschle Withdraws His Nomination to Become Health and Human Services Secretary

Tom Daschle withdrew his nomination for Health and Human Services Secretary today amid brewing concerns over back taxes and various conflicts of interest. Obama accepted Daschle's withdrawal with "sadness" and Daschle stated:

"...if 30 years of exposure to the challenges inherent in our system has taught me anything, it has taught me that this work will require a leader who can operate with the full faith of Congress and the American people, and without distraction.
Right now, I am not that leader, and will not be a distraction. The focus of Congress should be on the urgent business of moving the president's economic agenda forward, including affordable health care for every American."

Personally, I think that Daschle withdrawing his nomination is a positive outcome. Just the other day I expressed my concern over Daschle's numerous conflicts of interest and the fact that Daschle represents anything but the change that Obama has stated that he will bring to Washington.



One need only look as far as the level of support that Daschle has received from figures such as Bob Dole and other members of Congress despite his reputation outside the beltway of making millions pushing for the interests of big pharma. How ironic that he would then be tapped to oversee the industry that helped make him so much money. It is also telling the amount of "shock" that is being expressed by various members of Congress in reacting to Daschle's announcement today.



“To tell you the truth, I’m in shock," said Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA). Senator John Kerry even suggested that Daschle's problems are overblown and should not be held against him when you take into account the larger picture. “We’re getting silly here, and people ought to step back and measure these things against the larger picture,” Kerry said, “We’re going to miss his talents being directly involved in the health care reform effort.”



The only surprise that I am feeling is that Daschle decided to withdraw at all. Despite all of these troubles, the vast support for his nomination to this position made it clear that he would have no trouble being confirmed. Washington has operated like this for years and the staunch support of Daschle from all of his beltway friends is a prime example of why he is not a good fit for an Obama White House that wants to change this very system.



Hopefully Obama will take this opportunity to choose a more progressive thinking champion for health care reform when he nominates a replacement for Daschle. It would be a refreshing step-up from a beltway politician who has vast interest in big pharma industries and it would be an indication that Obama is serious about reforming our broken health care system. As The Nation's John Nichols put in his piece this afternoon:

No one -- or, at least, no one who is invested either in securing real health care reform or seeing an Obama presidency succeed -- should mourn Daschle's departure. Daschle was always a better fit with Bush's administration than Obama's.

There is a Story that is Bigger than Daschle's Unpaid Taxes

So it looks like President Obama's nominee to head the Department of Health and Human Services, Tom Daschle, failed to pay $128,000 in taxes. This revelation has predictably elicited criticism from the right and a reassurance from the Administration and Democrats that Daschle is still the most qualified man for the job...and so the Beltway turns.

As Daschle prepares to appear before the Senate Finance Committee to face "tough" questions about all of this (that will more than likely still lead to his confirmation), I couldn't help but feel that this was really not the biggest story that the media should be focusing on in regard to Daschle. After all, Daschle is the guy that Rolling Stone writer Matt Taibbi said would "suck off a corpse for a cheeseburger" in reacting to Daschle's nomination in December.

I tend to agree with the New York Times, Glenn Greenwald, Lawrence Lessig, and Matt Stoller that the issue of focus should actually be a much broader topic that has plagued Washington for years, the issue of lobbying and the conflict of interests it creates. Professor Lawrence Lessig asks this question in response to Politico's "Arena" topic:

Why is the "ethical issue" here whether Mr. Daschle('s accountant) understands the (insanely complex) tax code, and not whether it is appropriate for former Members to trade that status for millions?

It seems as though the "revolving door" of lobbyist turned government official turned lobbyist has become so commonly accepted, that this initial question often gets overlooked. One need only look as far as the lobbying that Daschle's firm Alston and Bird did in regard to pushing for immunity for telecom companies during the FISA debate. Daschle then wrote a piece for the Washington Post which praised Obama for supporting the FISA legislation which gave immunity to telecom companies that spied on Americans. Funny how things work isn't it?

The New York Times article also references Daschle's limbo between lobbying and government:

Affiliated with the firm Alston & Bird, Mr. Daschle has operated in the gap between the popular understanding and legal definition of a lobbyist. There is no evidence that he directly sought to influence his former colleagues or other government officials in ways that would have required him to register as a lobbyist or could have run afoul of the restrictions on former lobbyists entering the Obama administration. But the rules still left plenty of room for him to advise businesses seeking to influence the government or to profit otherwise from the fame and insights he acquired in public life.

“Did he attempt to influence? Maybe,” said Thomas Susman, an official at the American Bar Association and author of its lobbying manual. “Did he advise
others in the business of influencing? Probably. But he wasn’t a lobbyist.”

Illegal? Probably not, but enough to make you feel uncomfortable while reading of these accounts. Glenn Greenwald observes:

Other than his being more extreme than most, and the fact that he and his wife work in tandem as a public-private team, there isn't anything particularly unusual about how Tom Daschle functions. He's quite emblematic of the Beltway syndrome. But that's the point: while it's unreasonable to expect that Obama will be able to avoid all ethically questionable individuals, it seems rather unnecessary to take one of the most ethically compromised Beltway mavens and place him in charge of a massive industry, one that has been lavishing him with undeserved wealth for the past several years.

This is the real story in my view, but perhaps the corporate media views a story like Daschle's as the same old song and dance. Everyone knows Washington is corrupt...so what? After all, it would be quite an undertaking to review all the stories that are similar to Daschle's experience and that would cut into stories about the Obama's choice of puppy for his daughters and Sarah Palin's latest travels. Despite all this, I still think that Daschle will be confirmed due to the strong support he is receiving. Stay tuned!