Democrats and Inevitability

"Trusting Democrats to handle the evils of the world is like trusting my kitten to guard my house"....

More at http://www.imao.us

I, Republican

Thanks to AlexF for this link. :-)

Remind me not to move to Michigan

Doctors refusing to treat people on "moral" grounds? What's moral about that?

ABC releases biased poll results

Michelle Malkin got a hold of the poll question ABC was using to judge public opinion on the Terry Schialvo case. Regardless how you feel about the cased, this is shameful. Thanks to Carl for alerting me to this.

The New York Times > Washington > Under Bush, a New Age of Prepackaged TV News

Regulate the labeling of music, political ads, food, etc... but lay the blame at news directors feet for the lack of labeling "News".

Isn't this a violation of Federal Law? You're not supposed to propagandize your own population. Smith-Mundt?

link

Govt-made TV news bulletins are blurring the lines between PR and journalism in US

NEW YORK - IT IS the kind of TV news coverage every president covets.

'Thank you, Bush. Thank you, USA,' a jubilant Iraqi-American told a camera crew in Kansas City in a segment about reactions to the fall of Baghdad.

A second report told of 'another success' in the Bush administration's 'drive to strengthen aviation security'; the reporter called it 'one of the most remarkable campaigns in aviation history'.

A third segment, broadcast in January, described the administration's determination to open markets for American farmers.

To a viewer, each report looked like any other 90-second segment on the local news. But in fact, the federal government produced all three.

The report from Kansas City was made by the State Department. The 'reporter' covering airport safety was actually a public relations professional working under a false name for the Transportation Security Administration. The farming segment was done by the Agriculture Department's office of communications.

Under the Bush administration, the federal government has aggressively used a well-established tool of public relations: pre-packaged, ready-to-serve news reports that major corporations regularly distribute to TV stations to pitch everything from headache remedies to vehicle insurance.

In all, at least 20 different federal agencies have made and distributed hundreds of TV news segments in the past four years, records and interviews show.

Many were subsequently broadcast on local stations across the country without any acknowledgment of the government's role in their production.

The administration's efforts to generate positive news coverage have been much more pervasive than previously known.

At the same time, records and interviews suggest widespread complicity or negligence by television stations, given industry ethics standards that discourage the broadcast of pre-packaged news segments from any outside group without revealing the source.

Federal agencies are forthright with broadcasters about the origin of the news segments they distribute. But the reports themselves are designed to fit seamlessly into the typical local news broadcast. In most cases, the 'reporters' are careful not to state in the segment that they work for the government.

Their reports generally avoid overt ideological appeals. Instead, the government's news-making apparatus has produced a quiet drumbeat of broadcasts describing a vigilant and compassionate administration.

An examination of government-produced news reports offers a look inside a world where the traditional lines between public relations and journalism have become tangled, where local anchors introduce pre-packaged segments with 'suggested' lead-ins written by public relations experts.

The practice, which also occurred in the Clinton administration, is continuing despite President George W. Bush's recent call for a clearer demarcation between journalism and government publicity efforts.

'There needs to be a nice independent relationship between the White House and the press,' Mr Bush told reporters in January, explaining why his administration would no longer pay pundits to support his policies.

In interviews, though, press officers for federal agencies said the President's prohibition did not apply to government-made TV news segments, also known as video news releases.

They described the segments as factual, politically neutral and useful to viewers.

They noted that the Clinton administration also distributed video news releases.

These officials also argued that it is the responsibility of television news directors to inform viewers that a segment about the government was in fact written by the government. -- NEW YORK TIMES

A republic, not a democracy

Once again, I'm amazed at how much I agree with Pat Buchanan these days.

From WorldNetDaily

As Herr Schroeder was babbling on in Mainz, during his joint press conference with President Bush, about a need for carrots to coax Tehran off its nuclear program, Bush interrupted the chancellor to issue yet another demand – that "the Iranian government listen to the hopes and aspirations of the Iranian people."

"We believe," said Bush, "that the voice of the people ought to be determining policy, because we believe in democracy ..."

Who, one wonders, is feeding the president his talking points?

Is he unaware that the Iranian people, even opponents of the regime, believe Iran has a right to nuclear power and should retain the capacity to build nuclear weapons? Tehran's decision to stop enriching uranium, to appease E.U. negotiators, was not at all popular.

While 70 percent of Iranians may have voted to dump the mullahs, just as Pakistanis were delirious with joy when they exploded their first nuclear device, we should expect Iranians to react the same way. What people have not celebrated when the nation has joined the exclusive nuclear club?

"We believe ... that the voice of the people ought to be determining policy," said Bush, "because we believe in democracy."

But does Bush really believe this? How does the president think the Arab peoples would vote on the following questions: 1) Should the United States get out of Iraq? 2) Is it fair to compare Israel's treatment of Palestinians to Nazi treatment of the Jews? 3) Do Arab nations have the same right to an atom bomb as Ariel Sharon? 4) Is Osama bin Laden a terrorist or hero?

If Bush believes he and we are popular in the Islamic world, why has he not scheduled a grand tour of Rabat, Cairo, Beirut, Amman, Riyadh and Islamabad to rally the masses to America's side, rather than preach democracy at them from the White House? If one-man, one-vote democracy came suddenly to the Arab world, every pro-American ruler in the region would be at risk of being swept away.

Yet, there is a larger issue here than misreading the Arab mind. Whence comes this democracy-worship, this belief by President Bush that "the voice of the people ought to be determining policy"?

Would Bush himself let a poll of Americans decide how long we keep troops in Iraq? Would he submit his immigration policy to popular vote?

"We often hear the claim that our nation is a democracy," writes columnist Dr. Walter Williams. But, "That wasn't the vision of the founders. They saw democracy as another form of tyranny ... The founders intended, and laid out the ground rules for, our nation to be a republic ... The word 'democracy' appears nowhere in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution."

Indeed, the Constitution guarantees "to every State in this Union a Republican form of government."

Asks Williams: "Does our pledge of allegiance to the flag say to 'the democracy for which it stands,' or does it say to 'the republic for which it stands'? Or do we sing 'The Battle Hymn of the Democracy' or 'The Battle Hymn of the Republic'?"

There is a critical difference between a republic and a democracy, Williams notes, citing our second president:

John Adams captured the essence of that difference when he said: "You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe." Nothing in our Constitution suggests that government is a grantor of rights. Instead, government is a protector of rights.

The founders deeply distrusted democracy. Williams cites Adams again: "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." Chief Justice John Marshall seconded Adams' motion: "Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos."

"When the Constitution was framed," wrote historian Charles Beard, "no respectable person called himself or herself a democrat."

Democracy-worship suggests a childlike belief in the wisdom and goodness of "the people." But the people supported the guillotine in the French Revolution and Napoleon. The people were wild with joy as the British, French and German boys marched off in August 1914 to the Great War that inflicted the mortal wound on Western Civilization. The people supported Hitler and the Nuremburg Laws.

Our fathers no more trusted in the people always to do the right thing than they trusted in kings. In the republic they created, the House of Representatives, the people's house, was severely restricted in its powers by a Bill of Rights and checked by a Senate whose members were to be chosen by the states, by a president with veto power and by a Supreme Court.

"What kind of government do we have?" the lady asked Benjamin Franklin, as he emerged from the Constitutional Convention.

Said Franklin, "A republic – if you can keep it."

Let us restore that republic and, as Jefferson said, "Hear no more of trust in men, but rather bind them down from mischief with the chains of the Constitution."

"Felon" voters

From Horse's Ass.org:

The Associated Press contacted three of those on the alleged felon list. Two said their voting rights had been restored and one said he was pulled over for drunken driving in 2003, but the charge was reduced. Two of those three said they voted for Rossi.

What have Americans ever done for us?

Folks are starting to think Bush may have been right. Even Jon Stewart of the Daily Show is starting to think this. If Lebanon goes democratic and Syria topples....ya never know.

Commentary from the London Times:


What have the Americans ever done for us? Liberated 50 million people...Gerard Baker

ONE OF MY favourite cinematic moments is the scene in Monty Python’s Life of Brian when Reg, aka John Cleese, the leader of the People’s Front of Judea, is trying to whip up anti-Roman sentiment among his team of slightly hesitant commandos.

“What have the Romans ever done for us?” he asks.

“Well, there’s the aqueduct,” somebody says, thoughtfully. “The sanitation,” says another. “Public order,” offers a third. Reg reluctantly acknowledges that there may have been a couple of benefits. But then steadily, and with increasing enthusiasm, his men reel off a litany of the good things the Romans have wrought with their occupation of the Holy Land.

By the time they’re finished they’re not so sure about the whole insurgency idea after all and an exasperated Reg tries to rally them: “All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?”

I can’t help but think of that scene as I watch the contortions of the anti-American hordes in Britain, Europe and even in the US itself in response to the remarkable events that are unfolding in the real Middle East today.

Little more than three years after US forces, backed by their faithful British allies, set foot in Afghanistan, the entire historical dynamic of this blighted region has already shifted.

Ignoring, fortunately, the assault from clever world opinion on America’s motives, its credibility and its ambitions, the Bush Administration set out not only to eliminate immediate threats but also to remake the Middle East. In the last month, the pace of progress has accelerated, and from Beirut to Kabul.

Confronted with this awkward turn of events, Reg’s angry successors are asking their cohorts: “What have the Americans ever done for us?” “Well, they did get rid of the Taleban in Afghanistan. ’Orrible bunch, they were.”

“All right, the Taleban, I grant you.”

“Then there was Iraq. Knocked off one of the nastiest dictators who ever lived and gave the whole nation a chance to pick its own rulers.”

“Yeah, all right. Fair enough. I didn’t like Saddam.”

“Libya gave up its nuclear weapons.”

“And then there’s Syria. Thousands of people on the streets of Lebanon. Syrians look like they’re pulling out.”

“I just heard Egypt’s going to hold free presidential elections for the first time. And Saudi Arabia just held elections too.”

“The Palestinians and the Israelis are talking again and they say there’s a real chance of peace this time.”

“All right, all right. But apart from liberating 50 million people in Iraq and Afghanistan, undermining dictatorships throughout the Arab world, spreading freedom and self-determination in the broader Middle East and moving the Palestinians and the Israelis towards a real chance of ending their centuries-long war, what have the Americans ever done for us?”

It’s too early, in fairness, to claim complete victory in the American-led struggle to bring peace through democratic transformation of the region. Despite the temptation to crow, we must remember that this is not Berlin 1989. There will surely be challenging times ahead in Iraq, Iran, in the West Bank and elsewhere. The enemies of democratic revolution — all the terrorists and Baathists, the sheikhs, the mullahs and the monarchs — are not going to give up without a fight.

But something very important is happening now, something that will be very hard to stop. And, although not all of it can be directly attributed to the US strategy in the region, can anyone seriously argue that it would have happened without it? Neither is it true, as some have tried to argue, that all of this is merely some unintended consequence of an immoral and misconceived war in Iraq.

It was always the express goal of the Bush Administration to change the regime in Baghdad, precisely because of the opportunities for democracy it would open up in the rest of the Arab world. George Bush understands the simple but historically demonstrable thesis that freedom is not only the most basic of human rights, but also the best way to ensure that nations do not go to war with each other.

In a speech one month before the start of the Iraq war in 2003, Mr Bush laid out the strategy: “The world has a clear interest in the spread of democratic values, because stable and free nations do not breed the ideologies of murder. They encourage the peaceful pursuit of a better life.”

I doubt that anybody, even the most prescient in the Bush Administration or at 10 Downing Street, thought the progress we are now seeing would come as quickly as it has.

But what was clear to the bold foreign policy strategists in Washington was that the status quo that existed before September 11 could no longer be tolerated. Much of the Muslim world represented decay and stagnation, and bred anger and resentment. That was the root cause of the terrorism that had attacked America with increasing ferocity between 1969 and 2001.
America’s critics craved stability in the Middle East. Don’t rock the boat, they said. But to the US this stability was that of the mass grave; the calm was the eerie quiet that precedes the detonation of the suicide bomb. The boat was holed and listing viciously.

As a foreign policy thinker close to the Administration put it to me, in the weeks before the Iraq war two years ago: “Shake it and see. That’s what we are going to do.” The US couldn’t be certain of the outcome, but it could be sure that whatever happened would be better than the status quo.

And so America, the revolutionary power, plunged in and shook the region to its foundations. And it is already liking what it sees.

MoveOn's Impact

Good Rolling Stone article here.

An attempt at a Bushie Judicial Legacy

Here's a brief summary of just the first three of the 20 partisan judges re-nominated by President Bush.

William Myers III has never been a judge and spent most of his career as a lobbyist for the cattle and mining industry.[1] He has written that all habitat conservation laws are unconstitutional because they interfere with potential profit.[2] In 2001, Bush appointed him as the chief lawyer for the Department of the Interior. In that role he continued as a champion of corporate interests, setting his agenda in meetings with former employers he promised not to speak with, and even illegally giving away sacred Native American land to be strip mined.[3]

Terrence Boyle was a legal aide to Jesse Helms. As a judge, his signature decisions have attempted to circumvent federal laws barring employment discrimination by race, gender, and disability.[4] His rulings have been overturned a staggering 120 times by the conservative 4th District Court of Appeals, either due to gross errors in judgment or simple incompetence.[5]

William Pryor Jr. served as Attorney General of Alabama, where he took money from Phillip Morris, fought against the anti-tobacco lawsuit until it was almost over, and cost the people of Alabama billions in settlement money for their healthcare system as a result.[6] He called Roe v. Wade "the worst abomination of constitutional law in our history," and has consistently argued against the federal protections for the civil rights of minorities, lesbian and gay couples, women, and the disabled.[7]

[1] "Unfit to Judge," Community Rights Council, 4/2/04.

[2] "Myers Troubling Legal Philosophy," People for the American Way.

[3] "Environmental Group Calls on Senate to Block Myers Nomination: Ethical Problems and Anti-Environmental Activism Make Him Unfit for Judgeship," Friends of the Earth, 2/5/05.

[4] "Federal Judge Terrence Boyle Unfit for Promotion to Appeals Court," People for the American Way, 2/23/05.

[5] "Eastern District of North Carolina Terrence Boyle Nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit," Alliance for Justice.

[6] Eric Fleischauer, "Pryor Called a Tobacco Sellout," Decatur Daily News, 10/30/02.

[7] Ann Woolner, "Bush Judicial Candidate Shows How Things Change," Bloomberg News, 5/16/03.

Quotes too good to pass up

...like this one. :-)

I must be tired. So I'll go back to lurking, and only echo Patrick's "eeuw," and state that nothing makes my night like a woman-hating creep spewing idiocy and worshiping at the altar of Ann Coulter.

NYT Imitates Scrappleface

From OpinionJournal.com and Scrappleface.com

"In another setback for the Bush administration, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak told a national TV audience Saturday that he would impose democratic presidential elections on this tranquil Arab dictatorship. . . . Democrats in the U.S. Congress wasted no time pointing out that White House foreign policy had failed again. 'How is President Bush going to carry out his promise to invade dictatorships and impose freedom if they keep announcing changes like this?' said an unnamed Democrat Senator. 'I wouldn't be surprised if we saw a domino effect, with one Arab nation after another falling into the democracy camp, thereby making the Bush foreign policy an obsolete embarrassment.' "--ScrappleFace.com, Feb. 26

"Less than six weeks after President Bush's Inaugural Address appealing for democratic reforms in the Middle East, the United States is coping with an unaccustomed problem: a region churning with fresh demands for democracy, fresh opportunities and fresh potential for instability."--New York Times, March 1