Category Archives: NADA – New American Dark Ages

New American Dark Ages

Where’s the OUTRAGE over Gannon/Guckert?

Chicago Tribune | Check your media lap dogs, Mr. President by Clarence Page

If America’s mainstream media really were as liberal as conservatives claim we are, we would be ballyhooing the fiasco of James D. Guckert, a.k.a. Jeff Gannon, with Page 1 banner headlines and hourly bulletins.

Sure, Guckert-gate may seem like a tempest in a teapot, at first. But so did the Whitewater land-development deal. Yet conservative commentators and editorialists, aided by their allies in Congress, rode that Arkansas pony until it ended far afield from a land deal with the impeachment of a president for lying about sex.

Imagine, then, how the conservative choir would sing out at this point if a Democratic White House knocked long-tenured journalists off its press room access lists so that it could give access to a fellow like Guckert, 47, who dependably asks softball questions because he reports for a partisan Web site that supports the Bush administration.

Imagine how they would question the access given by the Secret Service and the White House press office for two years to a guy who used a driver’s license that said James Guckert to get into the White House, then switched to his alter ego of Jeff Gannon. The best explanation for this that Bush’s press secretary, Scott McClellan, could give to Editor & Publisher magazine was, “People use aliases all the time in life, from journalists to actors.”

Guckert wrote under the name Jeff Gannon for Talon News, a conservative online news outlet associated with GOPUSA, a conservative Web site based in Houston and dedicated to “spreading the conservative message throughout America.” …

Of course, every administration tries to manipulate the media. Team Bush has elevated it to a high art. Before Guckert, there was the disclosure that three conservative syndicated columnists had been paid handsomely to promote administration programs–payment they had failed to disclose to their readers.

And remember those pre-packaged, government-sponsored video news releases featuring fake reporters so local news outlets would be tempted to run them as legitimate news stories, as some did?

We have grown accustomed to those pre-screened rent-a-crowd “Ask President Bush” town-hall-style meetings during last year’s campaign and during this year’s effort by Bush to promote his proposed Social Security changes.

But I thought the last straw was the unprecedented herding of reporters covering this year’s inaugural balls into pens from which they could only venture to interview ball guests if they were escorted by “minders” in the fashion of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.

Tell me again: What was that war about? Oh, yeah: freedom and democracy. Great. I’d like to see a little more of that back here at home.

Unfortunately, this administration and its supportive chorus are getting away with less accountability, more secretiveness, partly by demonizing the media. If they succeed in intimidating us from watchdogs into lap dogs, they will have succeeded where previous administrations from both parties failed.

Poynter Online – Romenesko

“Gannongate”? A better name for it would be “Nothinggate” – The New Yorker

Nothing is what’s likely to come of the Jeff Gannon/James Guckert flap, says Hendrik Hertzberg. “What all the memorable scandals of the past thirty years — real and fake alike, from Watergate to the Clinton impeachment — have had in common is that the opposition party controlled at least one house of Congress, which gave it the power to hold hearings and issue subpoenas. If Bush ends up having an easier time of it in his second term than any of his two-term predecessors since F.D.R., it won’t be because the scandals aren’t there. It’ll be because the tools to excavate them are under lock and key.”

Press Impostor

How is it that an administration that screened thousands of people for attendance at Bush campaign rallies repeatedly let a fake reporter into the sanctorum of the White House pressroom under a false name? Who was running that background check? How could a president who declares that national security is his prime concern be so ill served for nearly two years by his own security detail?

What is the public to make of the fact that legitimate protesters are kept far away from President George W. Bush while an illegitimate “journalist” who’s really working for a Republican propaganda mill is repeatedly allowed into the White House pressroom and regularly called upon by the president and the president’s press secretary to ask questions? …

Is it possible that an administration that is so careful about scripting events and managing information approved of Guckert being planted in the pressroom to ask softball questions and even to keep an eye on the real reporters working there? Isn’t that fair to ask, considering this is the same administration that used its taxpayer-funded, $250-million public relations apparatus to pay columnists to say nice things about its programs?

Who is Jeff Gannon?

LOBBING softball questions at White House press conferences is hardly a new phenomenon, but having them thrown by a pseudo-journalist with a sleazy background who mysteriously cleared security checks is. Add in the fact that reporter Jeff Gannon used a false name and his employer was a Web site called Talon News staffed almost exclusively by Republican activists and you have the whiff of a scandal. …

The idea that the White House might try to infiltrate the press corps with a shill is a chilling thought in this democracy, but this is the administration that has been caught paying “journalists” and generating its own prefabricated “news reports” to distribute to TV stations too naïve to recognize the attempt at propaganda. …

It’s hard to say which is worse: That the White House had no idea who it was allowing to be within shouting distance of the president — or that it knew exactly who Jeff Gannon was and why he was there.

News & Features | No sex, please: We’re liberals!

[I]f, say, a Gore or Kerry administration had brought in a gay hooker to act as a ringer at news conferences, it would have quickly exploded into the biggest story in the country. Fox News would devote hours upon hours to it. So would Rush Limbaugh. So would the Pat Robertsons and the Jerry Falwells and the James Dobsons. Needless to say, so would the Republican Party. And here’s where the difference between liberal and conservative sex scandals, and how the mainstream media handle them, becomes clearly visible. When there’s a scandal on the left, there is a built-in machine, already in place, to spew shock and outrage on a 24-hour-a-day basis, and the mainstream media naturally cover that. But when there’s a sex scandal on the right, there’s really no one to speak out. Do liberals really care that men are having sex with each other? Or that Jeff Gannon supposedly has been paid as much as $1200 for one weekend for the pleasure of his companionship? To ask these questions is to answer them: no, and no. …

But it’s not that Gannon is or was a gay hooker — it’s that he somehow got into the White House, and past the Secret Service, despite that. What did the White House know, and when did it know it?

—–
Google Search: Jeff Gannon [782 stories at this time]

Bush Must Have Everything

The Nation | Blog | The Daily Outrage | Ari Berman

Just yesterday Bush renominated twenty failed judicial nominees, including seven of the ten that Democrats rejected in his first term. …

Amidst this aggressive disinformation campaign, you’d think Democrats were impeding Senate business the same way Republicans shut down the Congress in 1995. In fact, Democrats blocked only ten of the president’s 229 first-term judicial nominees. In contrast, Republicans stopped a full third of Bill Clinton’s appeals court nominees from 1995 and 2000 and derailed a total of sixty overall judicial appointments, six times the damage Democrats have done. Bush appointees now account for 23.2 percent of all federal judges and 20 percent of all Circuit Court judges across the country. The vacancy rate on the federal courts is at its lowest level in 16 years.

Bush VS America

White House Turns Tables on Former American POWs By David G. Savage, Times Staff Writer

The Bush administration is fighting the former prisoners of war in court, trying to prevent them from collecting nearly $1 billion from Iraq that a federal judge awarded them as compensation for their torture at the hands of Saddam Hussein’s regime. …

Many of the pilots were tortured in the same Iraqi prison, Abu Ghraib, where American soldiers abused Iraqis 15 months ago. Those Iraqi victims, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has said, deserve compensation from the United States.

But the American victims of Iraqi torturers are not entitled to similar payments from Iraq, the U.S. government says.

“It seems so strange to have our own country fighting us on this,” said retired Air Force Col. David W. Eberly, the senior officer among the former POWs. …

“Our government is on the wrong side of this issue,” said Jeffrey F. Addicott, a former Army lawyer and director of the Center for Terrorism Law at St. Mary’s University in San Antonio. “A lot of Americans would scratch their heads and ask why is our government taking the side of Iraq against our POWs.”

assaulting our freedoms

No Defense By ANDREW P. NAPOLITANO

THE conviction of Lynne F. Stewart for providing material aid to terrorism and for lying to the government is another perverse victory in the Justice Department’s assault on the Constitution. …

Just after 9/11, Attorney General John Ashcroft gave himself the power to bypass the lawyer-client privilege, which every court in the United States has upheld, and eavesdrop on conversations between prisoners and their lawyers if he had reason to believe they were being used to “further facilitate acts of violence or terrorism.” The regulation became effective immediately.

In the good old days, only Congress could write federal criminal laws. After 9/11, however, the attorney general was allowed to do so. Where in the Constitution does it allow that?

Mr. Ashcroft’s rules, with their criminal penalties, violate the Sixth Amendment, which grants all persons the right to consult with a lawyer in confidence. Ms. Stewart can’t effectively represent her clients – no lawyer can – if the government listens to and records privileged conversations between lawyers and their clients. The threat of a government prosecution would loom over their meetings.

These rules also violate the First Amendment’s right to free speech. Especially in a controversial case, a defense lawyer is right to advocate for her client in the press, just as the government uses the press to put forward its case. Unless there is a court order that bars both sides from speaking to reporters, it should be up to the lawyer to decide whether to help her client through the news media. …

In truth, the federal government prosecuted Lynne Stewart because it wants to intimidate defense lawyers into either refusing to represent accused terrorists or into providing less than zealous representation. After she was convicted, Ms. Stewart said, “You can’t lock up the lawyers, you can’t tell the lawyers how to do their jobs.”

No doubt the outcome of this case will have a chilling effect on lawyers who might represent unpopular clients. Since 9/11 the federal government’s message has been clear: if you defend someone we say is a terrorist, we may declare you to be one of them, and you will lose everything.

The Stewart conviction is a travesty. She faces up to 30 years in prison for speaking gibberish to her client and the truth to the press. It is devastating for lawyers and for any American who may ever need a lawyer. Shouldn’t the Justice Department be defending our constitutional freedoms rather than assaulting them?
—–
Andrew P. Napolitano is a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey

More Liberal Than Your Parents? 42% Say Yes

Economist.com | Social attitudes
Not quite right
From The Economist print edition

Americans seem to believe that they and their politics have got more conservative; but perhaps they haven’t.

HAS American politics moved to the right? [There is] a new survey of 2,116 Americans by YouGov, a British-based internet pollster. They seem to reveal a somewhat schizophrenic tension in the body politic. Many Americans think that they and their politicians have become more conservative; yet, when it comes to some fundamental questions, they have actually shifted to the left.

In terms of self-analysis, the direction is fairly clear. A plurality of Americans (41%) think they have not changed much; but, out of those who have changed, 30% have moved to the right, and only 19% to the left. The main swing rightwards has been among males, the old and, perhaps inevitably, Republicans. …

By a huge 42-19% margin, Americans think they are more liberal than their parents. …

For some conservatives, these numbers may cause a fear which coincidentally provides their movement with much of its impetus: that, though they are winning elections, they are losing at least some of the culture wars.

[link above has charts of survey results]

Pack the Court!

Taking the Stand: Pack the Supreme Court By Bruce Fein

President Bush would betray his popular mandate of last November if he neglects to nominate strong philosophical conservatives to the Supreme Court….

The Founding Fathers would not frown on President Bush’s philosophical packing of the Supreme Court in hopes of advancing a policy agenda. …

President Bush would mock the people’s verdict on Supreme Court justices in last November’s balloting if he neglects to appoint justices in the mold of Scalia, Thomas, and Bork. Bush unequivocally promised the same in his presidential campaign. In contrast, his defeated opponent, Senator John Kerry, pledged to appoint justices precommitted to celebrating the outlandish invention of a constitutional right to an abortion in Roe; and a homonymic interpretation of the Constitution epitomized by the same-sex marriage ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in 2003….

The American people thus confronted a stark choice, not an echo, regarding Supreme Court justices in decisively preferring Bush to Kerry. And Bush’s popular mandate to appoint Scalia–Thomas–Bork duplicates was reinforced by parallel voting for the U.S. Senate and 11 state referenda embracing the traditional understanding of marriage. …

President Bush would thus be guilty of bait-and-switch trickery if he reneged on his campaign promise to appoint philosophically conservative Supreme Court justices. …

President Bush’s detractors maintain that “moderates” in the mold of Associate Justices Sandra Day O’Connor, Anthony Kennedy, and Stephen Breyer can be trusted to eschew airbrush artistry or homonymic interpretations of the Constitution. But the detractors are wrong. …

[T]he so-called moderates acclaimed by Bush’s critics are in reality engines of new constitutional rights and powers operating with 10 as opposed to the 20 cylinders employed by Associate Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. They do not subscribe to the Constitution and its 27 amendments in accord with the original meaning and purpose of the authors.

59 Million voted against Bush. Another 79 million did not vote at all. Bush has NO mandate. mjh