Activism Works: Hagan to Support HELP Committee
Bill

It still appears to be a very flawed bill that is inferior to the House bill. I'm sure everyone will still be working hard to make it better, and that means keeping the pressure on Hagan.[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://campaignsilo.firedoglake.com/2009/07/02/hagan-to-support-help-committee-bi
ll-activism-works/

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!

Washington Post Marketing Ploy Implodes

I’ve been watching this unravel since it was announced, waiting for the cancellation of this horrific idea, because otherwise I was going to quit my subscription and never rely on the WP again. Howard Kurtz has Washington Post Publisher Katharine[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://www.taylormarsh.com/2009/07/02/washington-post-marketing-ploy-implodes/

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!

Michael Scheuer: Obama Doesn’t Care
‘About Protecting This Country’

Earlier this week, former CIA operative and torture apologist Michael Scheuer appeared on Fox News, where he told Glenn Beck (who nodded in agreement), “The only chance we have” to repair our national security apparatus “is for Osama bin Laden to deploy and detonate a major weapon in the United States.” Yesterday, on Alan Colmes’ radio show, Scheuer made similar comments about the national security stance of the U.S., saying that he doesn’t believe that President Obama wants to protect the country “if it costs him votes”:

COLMES: You don’t think the President of the United States, Barack Obama, cares about protecting this country.

SCHEUER: No, I don’t. Because I don’t think he realizes what the world is like outside the United States. [...]

COLMES: You don’t think he wants to protect the country?

SCHEUER: I don’t think he can, sir. [...]

COLMES: He doesn’t want to protect the country?

SCHEUER: Not if it costs votes.

Listen here:

video details and more

A number of progressive bloggers castigated Scheuer for his remarks on Beck’s show. The Washington Independent’s Spencer Ackerman, however, expressed disappointment in Scheuer’s comments and hoped that he was “being taken out of context,” citing his respect for Scheuer’s previous national security work. Unfortunately, it appears that Scheuer meant what he said.

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!

Michael Scheuer: Obama Doesn’t Care
‘About Protecting Our Country’

Earlier this week, former CIA operative and torture apologist Michael Scheuer appeared on Fox News, where he told Glenn Beck (who nodded in agreement), “The only chance we have” to repair our national security apparatus “is for Osama bin Laden to deploy and detonate a major weapon in the United States.” Yesterday, on Alan Colmes’ radio show, Scheuer made similar comments about the national security stance of the U.S., saying that he doesn’t believe that President Obama wants to protect the country “if it costs him votes”:

COLMES: You don’t think the President of the United States, Barack Obama, cares about protecting this country.

SCHEUER: No, I don’t. Because I don’t think he realizes what the world is like outside the United States. [...]

COLMES: You don’t think he wants to protect the country?

SCHEUER: I don’t think he can, sir. [...]

COLMES: He doesn’t want to protect the country?

SCHEUER: Not if it costs votes.

Listen here:

video details and more

A number of progressive bloggers castigated Scheuer for his remarks on Beck’s show. The Washington Independent’s Spencer Ackerman, however, expressed disappointment in Scheuer’s comments and hoped that he was “being taken out of context,” citing his respect for Scheuer’s previous national security work. Unfortunately, it appears that Scheuer meant what he said.

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!

Feds Seize Madoff Apt, Serve Ruth With Notice to
Vacate

The U.S. Marshal's today "seized" Bernie and Ruth Madoff's Park Ave. apartment, which they agreed to forfeit to the Government. The Marshal's served Ruth with a "Notice to Vacate."

This was by agreement (pdf) which provided that Ruth would vacate by Bernie's sentencing date or such other time as the parties agreed to in writing. Only once she's vacated the apartment, does she get her $2.5 million cash from the Government.

So, she's not being tossed unexpectedly onto the street.

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!

Jamison Foser: Howard Kurtz's wasted
opportunity

Howard Kurtz is almost certainly the nation's best-known andmost influential media critic. With a regular Washington Post column, virtuallyunlimited space on the paper's web site, and his own television show on CNN,all dedicated to covering the media, Kurtz has an unrivaled platform from whichhe can opine about the Fourth Estate. Unfortunately -- though perhapsnot coincidentally -- that opportunity is wasted onKurtz.

Much has been written about Kurtz's (frequently undisclosed)conflicts of interest, his fondnessfor right-wingers like Michelle Malkin, and his tendencyto give their critique of the media more credence than more substantive andfactual critiques from progressives. I think it's clear that, whether ornot Kurtz personally leans a bit tothe right, his mediacriticism certainly does.

But that isn't why many of his readers and viewers find himso frustrating. What is really bothersome about Kurtz is that he so often givesthe impression that he simply lacks the competence to critique the media. Hefrequently seems to overlook the obvious -- and when it is pointed out to him,it sails right over his head.

Kurtz's output this weekis a perfect illustration. From Sunday through Wednesday, Kurtz hosted Reliable Sources on CNN, wrote one column for the print edition of the Post and three for the paper's website, and tookreader questions for his "Media Backtalk" online discussion. (Kurtz alsorecorded an "Online Media Notes" video for the Post's website, which focused onthe question of whether there has been too much coverage of Michael Jackson.His conclusion, as far as I can tell, was "Maybe.")

Let's start with Reliable Sources, where Kurtzhosted his WashingtonPost colleague Dana Milbank, Huffington Post reporter Nico Pitney, and conservativewriter Amanda Carpenter.

Milbank had used his Post column to attack Pitney and the ObamaWhite House for alleged coordination relating to a question Pitney asked the president during last week's press conference. Milbank, along with some otherestablishment media figures and a bunch of conservatives, were -- or pretended tobe -- outraged that Obama apparently knew that Pitney wasgoing to ask a question about Iran.

That is a strange complaint, given that reporters agree uponinterview topics with subjects all thetime. When reporters like Milbank or TV hosts like Kurtz want to interviewan elected official, they discuss the topics they want to cover with theofficial's staff. Indeed, Kurtz had "coordinated" with his guest Dana Milbankwhen Milbank was booked to discuss Pitney's question on Reliable Sources.Somehow, though, it never occurred to Kurtz -- during adiscussion about whether it is appropriate for a reporter and a subject to"coordinate" on the topic of a question -- to point out thathe and the three people he was interviewing had "coordinated" on the topics hewould ask about.

Or, to put it more simply: Kurtz knew that Milbank had justparticipated in precisely the same kind of "coordination" that he wasdenouncing -- because Milbankhad "coordinated" with Kurtz! Yet Kurtz somehow missed this rather glaringhypocrisy.

Even when it was spelled out for him, Kurtz showed no signof grasping the absurdity of reporters attacking Pitney and Obama for thingsthose same reporters do every day. Kurtz eventuallyacknowledged, via Twitter, that he agrees on topics in advance with guests-- "it's only fair," he says -- but still hasn'tmanaged to make the connection to the complaints about Pitney and Obama. (Forthe record, while Obama had strong reason to believe Pitney would ask about Iran-- Pitney had drawn widespread praise for his coverageof that country's disputed election -- there is noindication that Pitney committed in advance to asking about that topic. And aspretty much everyone agrees, Pitney's question was a good and difficult onethat Obama did not directly answer.)

On Monday Kurtz had a column in the print edition of the Post, an expandedversion of which appeared on the Post's website, inwhich he wrote: "MSNBC is down to just five daytime hours of straight news,which once formed a counterpoint to its liberal evening programming." Kurtz didn'tmention former Republican congressman JoeScarborough, who hosts a daily three-hour program on MSNBC, thus giving thefalse impression that MSNBC's "liberal evening programming" has no conservative"counterpoint."

This fits neatly into a pattern with Kurtz. He is convincedthat MSNBC leans to the left. It's certainly his prerogative to thinkthat -- and he is certainly not alone in thatview. But Kurtz frequently places a thumb on the scale in order to make hiscase for MSNBC's liberalism. Sometimes, he fails tomention Scarborough's existence, as onMonday. Other times he acknowledges Scarborough, but goes to greatlengths to suggest Scarborough's showisn't all that conservative, while omitting any such qualifiers for the"liberal" hosts he identifies.

And Kurtz points to Chris Matthews as evidence of MSNBC'sliberalism, describing Matthews as "a former Democratic strategist who recentlypondered running for the Senate from Pennsylvania as a Democrat" without notingthat Matthews voted for George W. Bush, spent years gushing over Bush andridiculing Democrats and liberals, waged war on both Clintons and Al Gore, andreportedly decided not to run for the Senate because he realized there wasn'tanything he wanted to do as a senator -- not exactly signsof a reliably progressive person.

Surely, any halfway-competent media critic could recognizethe problems with a news report that stacks and slants its case thategregiously. But Kurtz not only routinely does it, he appears to have no ideawhy it draws criticism.

A few hours after that column appeared on Monday, Kurtzhosted his weekly online discussion, where the first question pointedout his omission of Scarborough:

Scarborough Country: You wrote today: "MSNBC is downto just five daytime hours of straight news, which once formed a counterpointto its liberal evening programming."

Why do you keep pretending Joe Scarborough's three hours aday don't exist? It undermines your crediblity when you do this. Your case forMSNBC's liberalism must be pretty weak if you have to resort to buryingcounter-evidence.

Howard Kurtz: My pretense hasn't been very consistent, since I've writtenlengthy pieces on both Joe and Mika. Morning Joe figured into my calculation,in that it's an opinionated show (with Scarboroughbalanced a little bit by Brzezinski) that no one would confuse with straightnews. They get three hours; Matthews, Schultz Olbermann and Maddow are on from5 to 11. But my point is the shrinking of garden-variety newscasts on MS duringthe day. 

The question was obviously about Kurtz ignoring Scarborough's three hours in writing that MSNBC's"liberal evening programming" lacks sufficient "counterpoint." The problem inomitting any mention of Scarborough should beself-evident. But Kurtz's responseindicates a complete failure to grasp this point. He responds that at some other time he has writtenabout Scarborough. Well, fine -- but that doesn'tmake it OK to omit any mention of Scarboroughfrom Monday's article. Not when Scarborough'sthree hours directly undermine the point Kurtz made in that article.

Can it really be possible that Kurtz doesn't understand theproblem with failing to mention Scarborough inan article in which he writes "MSNBC is down to just five daytime hours ofstraight news, which once formed a counterpoint to its liberal evening programming"?Or is he just pretending?

Kurtz addressed the topic further Monday night, again viaTwitter. Here he is at 10:09p.m.: "Since I've written about Joe &Mika and watch it regularly, I'm as familiar with conservative-hosted MorningJoe as with MS's lib iineup [sic]."

OK, so why did he omit any mention ofit, leaving the impression that MSNBC's "lib lineup" lacked a "counterpoint"?

A few minutes later, Kurtz Tweeted again:"I don't get the criticism, @markosm, since I included Joe in my math: 3conservative hrs, 6 liberal hrs, and now 5 for 'regular' news at MS."

Kurtz may have included Scarborough in his "math," but heincluded neither Scarborough nor that "math"in his article. Somehow, Kurtz still can't grasp that concept -- or he pretendsnot to.

(For the record, Kurtz ignored responsespointing out that, in fact, he omitted Scarborough from his article. Also for the record: Idon't agree with Kurtz's assessment that MSNBC features "6 liberal hours," butI won't address it now, as my primary point here is not that his assessments ofsuch things are incorrect, but rather that Kurtz does not seem to understandbasic concepts that should be second nature to someone in his position.)

A little later in his online discussion, a reader took issuewith Kurtz's contention that Scarboroughis "balanced a little bit" by co-host Mika Brzezinski:

Balanced by Mika?: Ilove Morning Joe and don't watch the evening chatter on any cable. I do notknow what Mika's politics are, but I often find her marked by deference to hermen (reminds me of a "powerful" woman in '40's screwball company).Today's show featured Mika interviewing noted philanderer Rudy Giulianiregarding Sanford and political affairs. Instead ofhaving Rudy talk about his own broad and deep experience on the subject,including the use of public funds on mistresses, she allowed it to become adiscourse on Bill Clinton. Oy.

Howard Kurtz: Look, it's Joe's show, he's a former Republican congressmanand an unabashed conservative (albeit one who hasn't hesitated to criticize hisparty). Mika is a lifelong journalist, not a liberal advocate, with views thatare certainly to the left of Scarborough's.All I said is that she added a little balance. It's not set up like Crossfirewhere their views have equal weight.

Once again, a reader's point appears to have flown overKurtz's head. Does he really not see the problem with Mika Brzezinski hostingRudy Giuliani and allowing him to criticize Bill Clinton's affair without everonce mentioning Giuliani's? How could he miss it? Isn't that the kind of thingthat the nation's most famous media critic should notice. And, you know ... criticize?

The very next question made the same point:

"balanced byMika": Hey Howie, here's an example of how Mika brings that liberalbalance to the Scarborough show, whileinterviewing Rudy Giuliani about adulterous politicians:

"Giuliani "Let's look at Bill Clinton."

Brzezinski: "Yeah.""

I'm assuming the irony of that premise is obvious. Am Ioverestimating you?

Howard Kurtz: I brought up Bill Clinton (and Spitzer and McGreevey andEdwards) on my program yesterday after running through the list of recentRepublican miscreants (Sanford, Ensign, Vitter). How can any discussion ofphilandering politicians not mention the impeachment of a president? Of course,I'm sure Rudy would rather talk about that than how he started dating hiscurrent wife while living with his then-wife in Gracie Mansion.

The questioner was clearly pointing out -- as the previousone did -- that Brzezinski allowed Giuliani to bringup Bill Clinton's infidelity without challenging him on his own. But Kurtzstill couldn't wrap his mind around this simple concept. Instead, Kurtzresponds as though the question was about the propriety of Bill Clinton beingmentioned at all.

It's as if someone had pointed out that two plus two equalsfour, and Kurtz responded "Duluth."

The rest of the discussion went on like that. A readerpointed out that neither John McCain nor Newt Gingrich, both of whom famouslyhad affairs, were mentioned in media coverage of Mark Sanford's affair. Kurtzmissed the point entirely. A reader asked about the Pitney controversy; Kurtzmisstated facts about it in his response. Another reader asked about Pitney'sstatement that Milbank had quietly called him a name during the Reliable Sources taping, a chargeKurtz had been aware of for a day, and had addressedon Twitter. Kurtz responded that the video isinconclusive -- but gave no indication that he took thebasic step of asking Milbank about it, despite the fact that they share a newsroom.

On Wednesday, Kurtz included a lengthy excerpt of a defenseof Milbank in his online column. Despite widespread criticism ofMilbank's ReliableSources appearance, the only criticism of Kurtz's fellow Postie that made itinto any of his columns was a pox-on-both-their-houses excerpt on Monday.

On Monday, Kurtz touched briefly on the Post's decision to getrid of Dan Froomkin:

Liberal bloggers have beenlambasting The Post for dropping Dan Froomkin and his White House Watch column.Washington City Paper Editor Erik Wemple reports that the main issue was Froomkin's$100,000 contract and his declining traffic:"

Kurtz thenquoted a few paragraphs of Wemple's work. And that's all he's written aboutFroomkin. Note that Kurtz didn't actually quote any of the "liberal bloggers"(or others) who have been critical of the decision to drop Froomkin, or evenindicate what their points were.

And Kurtz's description of Wemple's piece isjust wrong. Wemple didn't "report" that the main issue was Froomkin's contract and traffic; he assertedthat to be the main issue. That may seem like a subtle distinction, but it isan important one -- and itshould be an obvious one to the nation's most famous media critic.

Just tospell things out: the best-case scenario for Howard Kurtz's employer is forpeople to think that Froomkin was let go for financial and traffic reasons. AndHoward Kurtz overstated the extent to which Wemple established that Froomkinwas let go for financial and traffic reasons. Given his access to the peopleinvolved, you would think Kurtz might do some original reporting rather thansimply hyping Wemple's Post-friendly take on the story. But he hasn't.

So two of the biggest media stories of the past few weekshave involved Kurtz's Washington Post colleagues. Andin both cases, he has not only managed to avoid criticizing those Post colleagues in hiscolumn, he has also neglected to quote anything more than token criticism fromothers, while using his Post column to misleadingly promote defensesof the Post.

Finally,Kurtz got scooped by Politico on an explosive story about his own newspaperbecoming "a facilitator for private lobbyist-official encounters" and sellinglobbyists access to its reporters:

For $25,000 to $250,000, The Washington Post is offeringlobbyists and association executives off-the-record, nonconfrontational accessto "those powerful few" -- Obama administration officials, members of Congress, andthe paper's own reporters and editors.

The astonishing offer is detailed in a flier circulatedWednesday to a health care lobbyist, who provided it to a reporter because thelobbyist said he feels it's a conflict for the paper to charge for access to,as the flier says, its "health care reporting and editorial staff."

The offer --which essentially turns a news organization into a facilitator for privatelobbyist-official encounters -- isa new sign of the lengths to which news organizations will go to find revenueat a time when most newspapers are struggling for survival.

So The WashingtonPost is selling access to its "own reporters" to corporate lobbyists -- and we learn about it not from WashingtonPost reporter Howard Kurtz, the nation's highest-profile media critic, butfrom Politico. (Kurtz, meanwhile, was relegated to playingdamage control with a follow-up article featuring Post executive editor MarcusBrauchli denying that the newsroom will play any role in the lobbyist sessions.Kurtzneglected to mention any of the flurry of criticism the Post received over the proposedsessions.)

WhilePolitico's Mike Allen was drinking Kurtz's milkshake, Kurtz was busy writinga piece about whether "racial and genderidentification" on the part of African-American women who cover Michelle Obama"produces a gauzier, more favorable portrayal of Obama." I don't recall Kurtzdevoting a column to the possibility of white male reporters producing"gauzier" portrayals of their white male subjects than a more diverse newscorps might.

And remember: All of this was in just four days.

Unfortunately, it is typical of Kurtz's work. Media Matters' Eric Boehlert describes it as Kurtz"playing dumb." And, indeed, it's hard to imagine thatKurtz really doesn'tunderstand, for example, what's wrong with omitting any mention of JoeScarbrough while claiming that MSNBC's liberal hosts lack "counterpoint." It'shard to imagine that he really doesn't get what's wrong with MikaBrzezinski allowing Rudy Giuliani to criticize Bill Clinton's affair withoutever once pointing out Giuliani's own high-profile affair. Sixth-gradersunderstand concepts like these.

But, to a certain extent, it just doesn't matter whetherKurtz is "playing dumb" or whether he is simply a bumbling and cluelessreporter. Either way, he's squandering two extraordinary platforms.

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!

Berserk

We have an update on this incident over the weekend in SD which was in equal parts bizarre, horrific and comic. A Sheriff's deputy got called to the home of two Democratic activists who were holding a fundraiser for congressional candidate Francine[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Talking-Points-Memo/~3/hbA9ElqNU74/berserk.php

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!

They Have One of Ours Now

cross-posted at DkosThey have one of ours now:Insurgents have captured an American soldier in eastern Afghanistan, the U.S. military said Thursday.Spokeswoman Capt. Elizabeth Mathias said the soldier went missing on Tuesday. Will we demand that the[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Docudharma/~3/ZLLrKT1OkRA/they-have-one-of-ours-no
w

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!

Propublica: Stimulus Magic -- How the States Met
Their Spending Deadline

A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION
by Christopher Flavelle, David Epstein and Michael Grabell of ProPublica

Just how fast stimulus money is getting out the door to states has been a running partisan squabble of late. Democrats see a raging river. Republicans see a pool of molasses.

But the Obama administration seemed to get one up last week with the announcement that it had reached a closely watched milestone: All states and territories had obligated at least half the highway money they got in the stimulus bill -- and they did it before the deadline.

The announcement could have used an asterisk.

Although states technically met the June 29 deadline laid out in the law [1], 13 still hadn't obligated 50 percent of their total highway funds at the time of the announcement, according to our analysis [2] of Department of Transportation data. Nevada, for one, had committed only 35 percent.

read more

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!

The absurdities of current immigration policy

So fucking crazy.

There is no greater case in recent memory that so accurately demonstrates the absurdity and injustice of our broken immigration system than the case of Walter Lara, a youth who's family traveled to the United States when he was just three years old. Walter earned a 4.7 GPA in high school and later graduated from Miami-Dade Honors College in 2007, where he went on to pursue a career in computer technology.

But there's a problem.

Walter, by no fault of his own, is an undocumented immigrant.

And now, Walter is set to be deported right after 4th of July weekend.

Florida Sen. Bill Nelson has asked Janet Napolitano to halt his deportation, but time is running out. Comprehensive immigration reform would solve Lara's problem (and that of so many others in his position), but the timetable for that to happen is late this year or early next, too late to help him.

Update: Just got word that Lara's deportation was delayed for one year by Napolitano. Great work for everyone who fought hard for this kid. Fantastic news for him, but there are many more like him in similar position. I look forward to legislation within the next 12 months creating a rational national immigration policy.

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!