alibi . february 3 – 9, 2005

Thin Line
By Tim McGivern

Au contraire, indeed. If you caught President Bush’s live press conference on KOB-770 AM last week like I did, you heard this question from Jeff Gannon, Washington bureau chief and White House correspondent for some outfit called Talon News. After the president selected “Jeff,” this question followed: “Senate Democratic leaders have painted a very bleak picture of the U.S. economy. Harry Reid [D-NV] was talking about soup lines. And Hillary Clinton [D-NY] was talking about the economy being on the verge of collapse. Yet in the same breath they say that Social Security is rock solid and there’s no crisis there. How are you going to work—you’ve said you are going to reach out to these people—how are you going to work with people who seem to have divorced themselves from reality?”

Nevermind Bush’s fatuous response, according to mediamatters.org, “Talon News’ editor in chief, Bobby Eberle, is a Republican activist who served as a delegate to the 1996, 1998 and 2000 Texas Republican Conventions and to the 2000 national Republican Convention. In 1999, Eberle was recognized with a ’unanimously approved resolution of commendation by the Republican Party of Texas for service and dedication to the Republican cause.’ His biography on Talon’s website notes: ’Bobby has devoted considerable time and energy to the Republican effort’ and ’Bobby is a member of Texas Christian Coalition and Texas Right to Life.’ Eberle is also the president and CEO of GOPUSA.com, a ’conservative news, information, and design company dedicated to promoting conservative ideals’ that carries articles and commentary by Gannon and Talon News. GOPUSA is also affiliated with MillionsofAmericans.com, a conservative advocacy organization run by Bruce Eberle, a relative of Bobby Eberle and a conservative fundraising consultant.”

Judging by the content of Gannon’s question (no wonder Bush blissfully selected him), Talon’s purpose is no surprise. But, to make matters more disgraceful, it turns out Harry Reid never said anything about “soup lines.” Gannon got the line from America’s favorite drug addict himself, Rush Limbaugh.

Only hours later, Limbaugh told his audience: “I said earlier today in the program, shortly after we began, that somebody in the White House press corps listens to this program. It is Jeff Gannon from Talon News. Here is his question, which is a repeat, a rehash, of a precise point I made on this program yesterday. … I’m not upset by this, folks. I’m honored. I’m thrilled. Don’t misunderstand. I’m not accusing anybody of anything. I just think it’s fabulous here. Now, you may think that my ego is out of control. Au contraire, my friends. I have no ego. Not of the kind you’re talking about, anyway, or thinking about. No, what makes me think that the reporter was listening to the program is that Harry Reid never actually said ’soup lines.’ That is my characterization of their portrayal of America. He never actually said it.”

Of course, if the White House had any integrity, partisan hacks (What the hell is Talon news, anyway?) would not be selected to pose questions at a rare presidential press conference. But instead, this clown Gannon gets himself a seat in the front row. That’s just pitiful.
— [update] —
alibi . february 10 – 16, 2005 [follow this link for more links]

Total Freaking Loser!
Tim McGivern

In last week’s “Thin Line” I mentioned Jeff Gannon’s presumed reporting work at a Jan. 26 White House press conference where he borrowed a line from Rush Limbaugh and asked Dubya how he is going to deal with Democrats who divorce themselves from reality. It turns out Gannon is actually James “J.D.” Guckert and he’s such a freaking loser that he had to resign his job from Talon News — a GOP house organ pretending to be a real news agency — when the truth of his real identity was revealed. Guckert, while denying Gannon was a pseudonym, was barred from receiving a congressional press pass when he couldn’t convince authorities he represented a real news agency, which should have barred him from attending White House press conferences as well. But the Bush administration gave him a front row seat anyway, and now it’s alleged, according to the blog MediaCitizen, that other websites such as hotmilitarystud.com, militaryescorts.com, and militaryescortsm4m.com, were registered to the same owner as Gannon’s home Web site.

An article posted in Editor&Publisher has all the latest.

“Congresswoman Asks for Probe After ‘Gannon’ Quits WH Reporting Post”
By Joe Strupp

Meanwhile here’s an excerpt of a letter from Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) sent to the White House yesterday calling for an investigation into Gannon-Guckert’s credentials.

A Shrub Grows in Midland BY KAREN OLSSON, 6/25/1999 – The Texas Observer

According to Gary Ott, who was then a reporter for the Plainview Daily Herald, Bush … warned that Social Security would go bust in ten years unless people were given a chance to invest the money themselves [in 1978!]

[mjh: some will see this as a positive sign of Bush’s constancy; others as his inability to change/adapt and an old use of ‘crisis’.]

Editorial: Keeping Out of the Otero Mesa

This is part of a familiar scene in the West. The Bush administration has set its sights on dozens of ecologically valuable areas that could easily be declared off limits without imperiling the country’s supplies of oil and natural gas. As it is, 85 percent of the petroleum resources on public lands in the Western states are already leased or available for leasing. Any oil or gas found in the Otero grasslands is likely to make only a minuscule addition to America’s domestic energy supply, but could desecrate irreplaceable natural wealth.

A Democratic Blueprint for America’s Future by US Senator Ted Kennedy

I categorically reject the deceptive and dangerous claim that the outcome last November was somehow a sweeping, or a modest, or even a miniature mandate for reactionary measures like privatizing Social Security, redistributing the tax burden in the wrong direction, or packing the federal courts with reactionary judges. Those proposals were barely mentioned – or voted on – in an election dominated by memories of 9/11, fear of terrorism, the quagmire in Iraq, and relentlessly negative attacks on our Presidential candidate.

In an election so close, defeat has a thousand causes – and it is too easy to blame it on particular issues or tactics, or on the larger debate about values. In truth, we do not shrink from that debate. …

Unlike the Republican Party, we believe our values unite us as Americans, instead of dividing us. If the White House’s idea of bipartisanship is that we have to buy whatever partisan ideas they send us, we’re not interested.

In fact, our values are still our greatest strength. Despite resistance, setbacks, and periods of backlash over the years, our values have moved us closer to the ideal with which America began – that all people are created equal. And when Democrats say “all,” we mean “all.”

We have an Administration that falsely hypes almost every issue as a crisis. They did it on Iraq, and they are doing it now on Social Security. They exploit the politics of fear and division, while ours is a politics of hope and unity.

In the face of their tactics, we cannot move our party or our nation forward under pale colors and timid voices. We cannot become Republican clones. If we do, we will lose again, and deserve to lose. As I have said on other occasions, the last thing this country needs is two Republican parties.

Today, I propose a progressive vision for America, a vision that Democrats must fight for in the months and years ahead – a vision rooted in our basic values of opportunity, fairness, tolerance, and respect for each other.

These founding beliefs are still the essence of the American dream today. …
—–
An Address by Senator Edward M. Kennedy at the National Press Club
January 12, 2005

FactCheck.org Bush’s State of the Union: Social Security “Bankruptcy?”

That term could give the wrong idea. Bush also makes private accounts sound like a sure thing, which they are not.

In his State of the Union Address, President Bush said again that the Social Security system is headed for “bankruptcy,” a term that could give the wrong idea. Actually, even if it goes “bankrupt” a few decades from now, the system would still be able to pay about three-quarters of the benefits now promised.

Bush also made his proposed private Social Security accounts sound like a sure thing, which they are not. He said they “will” grow fast enough to provide a better return than the present system. History suggests that will be so, but nobody can predict what stock and bond markets will do in the future.

Bush left out any mention of what workers would have to give up to get those private acounts — a proportional reduction or offset in guaranteed Social Security retirement benefits. He also glossed over the fact that money in private accounts would be “owned” by workers only in a very limited sense — under strict conditions which the President referred to as “guidelines.” Many retirees, and possibly the vast majority, wouldn’t be able to touch their Social Security nest egg directly, even after retirement, because the government would take some or all of it back and convert it to a stream of payments guaranteed for life.

Analysis….

Legal Affairs Debate Club – Filibusted? by Erwin Chemerinsky, Alston & Bird Professor of Law at Duke University School of Law

Republicans contend that the filibuster for judicial nominations is illegitimate obstructionism. But this ignores that Republicans, too, have used the filibuster for judicial nominations when they were the minority party. In October 1968, Republican Senator Strom Thurmond led a successful filibuster preventing the confirmation of Abe Fortas as Chief Justice and Homer Thornberry as Associate Justice on the grounds that a lame duck President should not fill Supreme Court vacancies. At the beginning of the Clinton presidency, Republicans successfully filibustered Henry Foster to prevent his serving as Surgeon General.

The Republican claim that the Democrats have used the filibuster in an obstructionist manner is disingenuous. In President Bush’s first term, the Senate confirmed 219 of his judicial nominations, and Democrats blocked 10 judicial nominees by filibustering. While Republicans are unhappy with this, it is among the highest success rates for a president’s judicial nominations — more than 90% — in American history. Republicans want to go further by giving President Bush the unique legacy of 100% success in appointing lower court judges and Supreme Court justices.

In an exercise of raw power, Senate Republicans are attempting to eliminate the filibuster for judicial nominations but without following the rules for changing the Senate’s rules.

[Thanks, SM]

Criticism from conservatives signals troubles for Bush’s agenda BY DICK POLMAN, Knight Ridder Newspapers

The pro-war conservatives, however, denounce the dissenters as out to lunch and on the fringes of power; by contrast, conservative hawks crafted Bush’s war policy and dominate much of the conservative opinion empire – the National Review and Weekly Standard magazines, the Rush Limbaugh radio show, the top Washington think tanks. …

Some pro-war conservatives who admire the president are nevertheless worried about his political standing. Peter Robinson, a speechwriter in the Reagan White House, says Bush “will have a real problem holding everyone together, because, believe me, all those conservative congressmen are increasingly going to hear about the heightened level of anxiety when they show up in their districts.” …

And other conservatives are openly deriding Bush’s aspirations for global democratization; commentator Peggy Noonan, the Reagan special assistant, writes that Bush may be suffering “mission inebriation,” and that he risks exposing himself abroad to accusations of “conceit, immaturity or impetuousness.” …

Marshall Wittmann, former lobbyist for the Christian Coalition and a close observer of conservative politics, says: “This debate had been suppressed within the ranks, because of support for a Republican president. Now, with no weapons of mass destruction found, and with the war more difficult than anticipated, all the tensions are coming to the fore.”

But even pro-war conservatives are faulting Bush for a failure to communicate; amid the grim war news, they say, it’s not enough for him to simply keep insisting that “we’re making progress” and that “freedom is on the march.” …

But Christopher Preble, a Navy veteran of the 1991 Gulf War who directs foreign policy at the conservative Cato Institute, cites the ongoing downside – an average of two slain soldiers a day, and $2 billion a week – and offers this warning to the president:

“Conservatives were sold on the assumption that it wouldn’t be long and costly. Now we’re paying for it in taxpayer dollars and paying with our lives. … He can talk about doing other things – (curbing) abortion, reforming Social Security – but the war is where the rubber meets the road. If he truly feels he has a mandate for this, he’s in for a rude awakening.”

I would say the Conservatives kept quiet last year because they wanted Duhbya re-elected more than anything and at any cost. Now that they have what they want, they can try to reclaim their party — good luck.

BTW, if you read this article in the Albuquerque Journal, you have no way of knowing that it was cut by more than 50%, with almost all of the evidence of conservatives against Bush conveniently dropped. Gotta make room for those ads, you know. mjh