Month: April 2009

Happy Hour Discurso

Dana Hunter1 Comment

Today’s opining on the public discourse.

The motto of the GOP seems to be, “If what you’re doing is an utter failure, try again. And again. Repeat endlessly.” Here’s the latest example of stubbon-stupid Con jackassery:

For a few months now, conservative cries about the White House and “socialism” have been as common as they are ridiculous. The absurd rhetoric hasn’t had much of an effect, unless you count the surprising and new-found popularity socialism seems to enjoy.

But for Republican Party leaders, the answer isn’t to come up with a new approach. To undermine the president, they want to see the GOP double down on an attack that doesn’t work.

Republican state party leaders are rebelling against new Republican National Committee Chairman Michael S. Steele for failing to dub President Obama and the Democrats as “socialists.” And the rebels insist that the label matters.

Even though Mr. Steele has called his Democratic adversaries “collectivists,” at least 16 state leaders say the term lacks the pejorative punch needed to sway public opinion and want all 168 members of the Republican National Committee to debate and vote on it. […]

“Just as President Reagan’s identification of the Soviet Union as the ‘evil empire’ galvanized opposition to communism, we hope that the accurate depiction of the Democrats as a Socialist Party will galvanize opposition to their march to socialism,” [Indiana RNC member James Bopp Jr. wrote Wednesday in an e-mail to the full RNC membership].

Putting aside the obvious fact that the president is not a socialist, and overlooking the evidence that these attacks haven’t worked at all, what’s striking is that these state Republican leaders seem to think the RNC hasn’t been irresponsible enough in its rhetoric.

Well, that rather seems to be the ongoing theme lately. They seem to have a pathological aversion to sanity.

All this has given Michael Steele a chance to show his chops as a negotiator:

The ever crafty Steele has figured out a middle ground. An RNC spokesperson just confirmed to me that Steele does generally agree with party members who say Obama and Dems are socialists. But he doesn’t want the RNC to designate Dems socialists as a matter of official policy.

“He agrees with the notion that Obama and Democrats are taking us down the road to socialism,” the spokesperson told me. “But his opinion is that having specific resolutions to change the way we talk about Democrats is not the right message to be sending.”


What a brilliant compromise! “I agree with your insane rhetoric. I just don’t think we should make it official.”

One can hardly blame him for the latter. Think Progress has the wording of the resolution. Make sure all beverages are swallowed before reading:

RESOLVED, that we the members of the Republican National Committee call on the Democratic Party to be truthful and honest with the American people by acknowledging that they have evolved from a party of tax and spend to a party of tax and nationalize and, therefore, should agree to rename themselves the Democrat Socialist Party.


That’s right. They’re trying to get the Democratic party to officially change its name. As a political tactic, I think even the phrase “This is the dumbest fucking thing I’ve ever heard” comes close to describing it.

They’re probably inordinately proud of themselves for coming up with that little gem. After all, they’re the kind of people who are proud of infantile tricks like this:

Yesterday, at a hearing of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Rep. Joe Barton (R-Exxon), the committee’s ranking member and former chairman, asked Energy Secretary Steven Chu how Alaska got oil and gas. Presumably, he meant geologically. Chu paused briefly, laughed, and tried to explain the science to the confused lawmaker.

Shortly thereafter, Barton tweeted, “I seem to have baffled the Energy Sec with basic question – Where does oil come from?” Indeed, when Barton’s office posted the clip to YouTube, they included a message at the start of the video: “Where does oil come from? Question leaves Energy Secretary puzzled.”

This is what I meant by “misplaced arrogance.” Barton seems awfully pleased with himself for having asked a foolish question and not understanding the answer. Chu paused before answering the question, not because the Nobel Prize winning scientist was “baffled” and “puzzled” by the Republican’s inquiry, but because Chu quickly realized he was responding to a lawmaker with the sophistication of a junior high-school student.


Barton obviously can’t tell the difference between genuine bafflement and amazement at his own stupidity. That’s generally the case when stupid people try to stump very smart, sophisticated people.

Speaking of stupid, hysterical fuckwits who don’t realize how idiotic they are, check out Rep. Shimkus:

Yesterday, Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL) described President Obama’s energy plan as “the largest assault on democracy and freedom in this country that I’ve ever experienced.” Speaking at a hearing on the Waxman-Markey Clean Energy and Security Act — which caps global warming pollution to build a clean energy economy — Shimkus said that he feared this legislation more than the Clinton impeachment trials, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001:

I think this is the largest assault on democracy and freedom in this country that I’ve ever experienced. I’ve lived through some tough times in Congress — impeachment, two wars, terrorist attacks. I fear this more than all of the above activities that have happened.

You know, sensible people would see that as a bit of an overreaction to simple cap-and-trade legislation. I don’t quite see how clean energy initiatives equate to the deaths of thousands of people. I guess I’m just not nuts enough.

Can someone tell me when, exactly, clinical insanity became a requirement
for bein
g a Con?

Happy Hour Discurso
{advertisement}

Poem o' the Day

Dana Hunter

The problem with being young is that you haven’t enough experience or knowledge to appreciate things. They also don’t tell you the really juicy stuff that heightens your appreciation.

So I never liked Percy Bysshe Shelley’s poem “Ozymandias.” Some dead bugger with a silly name using fancy language to talk about some old broken statue. Big ol’ yawn.

But since then, I’ve learned a lot about the Romantics. I found out that Shelley was a really interesting guy who even wrote a tract called “The Necessity of Atheism,” and to hell with the consequences. I’ve learned a lot about lost civilizations, developed a passion for the ancient world, and perhaps most importantly, come to appreciate the fact that all things must die.

I read the poem again after learning all that. And now I can see its power.

OZYMANDIAS


I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them on the sand,
Half sunk, a shatter’d visage lies, whose frown
And wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamp’d on these lifeless things,
The hand that mock’d them and the heart that fed.
And on the pedestal these words appear:
“My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!”
Nothing beside remains: round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
The lone and level sands stretch far away.

Poem o' the Day

It Wasn't About Saving Lives

Dana Hunter

It was about getting the answers they wanted:

Most of the defenses for torture involve some variation on a Jack Bauer fantasy — to stop the proverbial ticking time-bomb, U.S. officials have to be able to do literally anything to acquire intelligence to save lives.

There are all kinds of problems with this, of course, most notably the fact that “24” is a fictional television program. But as new evidence comes to light about the Bush administration’s policies, it’s also worth noting that life-saving wasn’t always the goal of torture.

The Bush administration put relentless pressure on interrogators to use harsh methods on detainees in part to find evidence of cooperation between al Qaida and the late Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein’s regime, according to a former senior U.S. intelligence official and a former Army psychiatrist.

Such information would’ve provided a foundation for one of former President George W. Bush’s main arguments for invading Iraq in 2003. No evidence has ever been found of operational ties between Osama bin Laden’s terrorist network and Saddam’s regime.

The use of abusive interrogation — widely considered torture — as part of Bush’s quest for a rationale to invade Iraq came to light as the Senate issued a major report tracing the origin of the abuses and President Barack Obama opened the door to prosecuting former U.S. officials for approving them.

A former senior U.S. intelligence official with direct knowledge of the interrogation issue told McClatchy, “There were two reasons why these interrogations were so persistent, and why extreme methods were used. The main one is that everyone was worried about some kind of follow-up attack (after 9/11). But for most of 2002 and into 2003, Cheney and Rumsfeld, especially, were also demanding proof of the links between al Qaida and Iraq that (former Iraqi exile leader Ahmed) Chalabi and others had told them were there.”

For that, they turned us into a nation of torturers. Not so heroic, now, is it?

And if you’re still tempted to argue that torture helped us foil the terrorists’ dastardly plots, consider that the Bush regime’s shining example of a plot foiled by torture would’ve required a time machine:

The terrorist plot against the Library Tower is the loyal Bushies’ favorite. Indeed, Thiessen has used it in more than one Washington Post op-ed, and it’s been repeated by Bush administration officials many, many times over the years. Both George W. Bush and Dick Cheney have even told the story on several occasions, citing it as proof that their abusive tactics were a success (the former president would often call the Library Tower the “Liberty Tower”).

The entire claim has been exposed as dubious over the years, but as long as torture apologists are going to keep bringing it up, it’s probably worth taking a moment to periodically set the record straight. Tim Noah had this piece late yesterday:

[snip]

What clinches the falsity of Thiessen’s claim, however (and that of the memo he cites, and that of an unnamed Central Intelligence Agency spokesman who today seconded Thessen’s argument) is chronology. In a White House press briefing, Bush’s counterterrorism chief, Frances Fragos Townsend, told reporters that the cell leader was arrested in February 2002, and “at that point, the other members of the cell” (later arrested) “believed that the West Coast plot has been canceled, was not going forward” [italics mine]. A subsequent fact sheet released by the Bush White House states, “In 2002, we broke up [italics mine] a plot by KSM to hijack an airplane and fly it into the tallest building on the West Coast.” These two statements make clear that however far the plot to attack the Library Tower ever got — an unnamed senior FBI official would later tell the Los Angeles Times that Bush’s characterization of it as a “disrupted plot” was “ludicrous” — that plot was foiled in 2002. But Sheikh Mohammed wasn’t captured until March 2003.

How could Sheikh Mohammed’s water-boarded confession have prevented the Library Tower attack if the Bush administration “broke up” that attack during the previous year?

They lied. They needed torture to justify their decision to invade Iraq, and they needed it so they could feel like proper little television badasses. But it was never about keeping us safe. It didn’t do a motherfucking thing to keep us safe.

Tell the Obama administration: time to prosecute.

It Wasn't About Saving Lives

Is There a Fake Doctor in the House?

Dana Hunter

Most of you have probably already seen PZ’s post ripping “Dr.” Don Patterson’s testimony before the Texas State Board of Education. You probably laughed merrily at the man’s utter ignorance about evolution. Just another liar for Jesus, right?

Well, yes, but some people get inordinately impressed by a doctor’s testimony. I’m sure there’s plenty of regular ol’ folks who might take what a doctor says pretty seriously, even if what he’s saying is seriously fucking stupid. This is where it may be useful to note that Don Patterson isn’t actually a doctor. Tristero does the detective work:

So…just in case you don’t believe Patton would lie about everything, go here:

Since early 1989, Don Patton, a close associate of Carl Baugh and leader of Metroplex Institute of Origins Science (MIOS) near Dallas, has claimed a Ph.D. (or “Ph.D. candidacy”) in geology from Queensland Christian University in Australia.[33] However, QCU is another unaccredited school linked to Clifford Wilson. [34] When questioned about this at a recent MIOS meeting, Patton indicated that he was aware of some problems relating to QCU, and was withdrawing his Ph.D. candidacy.[35]
However, the printed abstracts of the 1989 Bible-Science conference in Dayton, Tennessee (where Patton gave two talks) stated that he was a Ph.D. candidacy in geology, and implied that he has at least four degrees from three separate schools.[36] When I asked Patton for clarification on this during the conference, he stated that he had no degrees, but was about to receive a Ph.D. degree in geology, pending accreditation of QCU, which he assured me was “three days away.”[37] Many days have since passed, and Patton still has no valid degree in geology. Nor is the accreditation of QCU imminent. Australian researcher Ian Plimer reported, “PCI, QPU, PCT, and PCGS have no formal curriculum, no classes, no research facilities, no calendar, no campus, and no academic staff….Any Ph.D. or Ph.D. candidacy at QPU by Patton is fraudulent.”

And in case you think that web page is outdated, go here and check out Patton’s academic credentials:

Four years, Florida College, Temple Terrace, FL (Bible)
Two years, Austin Peay State University, Clarksville, TN (Geology)
Two years, Indiana Univ./Purdue Univ., Indianapolis, IN (Geology)
Two years, Pacific School of Graduate Studies, Melbourne, Australia (Education)
Ph.D. in Education granted 12/10/1993

That’s right, folks. He claims he’s a geologist but he didn’t finish a degree in geology in either school he attended for that science. He spent two years studying education at a bogus school in Melbourne and was awarded a “PhD in Education.”

Actually, that, too, is a lie. Go here and read, really read the document Patton claims proves he graduated with a “PhD In Education” because it doesn’t and he didn’t. If he got a doctorate at all from this school, he is a “Doctor of Christian Education.”

Let’s not mince words here. Don Patton is the real thing. Oh, he’s not a geologist. But he is, without a doubt, a genuine, 100% authentic liar and con man who doesn’t know a damn thing about science and has no business being taken seriously by anyone truly concerned with a child’s education.

Aren’t IDiots wonderful? Their doctors are as fake as their science.

Is There a Fake Doctor in the House?

Let Them Eat Fish

Dana Hunter1 Comment

Public service: ur doin it rong:

Next weekend they’re going to host a walleye fishing festival in the Tittabawassee and Saginaw rivers. Because it’s walleye breeding season and the fish are running. In fact, they run right through a zone that is in the process of being listed as a Superfund site, a site where the EPA recorded the highest levels of dioxin ever measured in this country.

That’s dumb enough, right? It gets worse.

The fishing festival is sponsored by Dow Chemical, the company that put the pollution there in the first place.

Yes, that’s even more ridiculous. But it actually gets worse.

They’re donating the fish from the festival to a local food bank to give to the poor.

I know that corporations like to do charity work in order to prove what good citizens they are. Call me a cynic, but I don’t think this is quite going to accomplish that goal.

Marie Antoinette would’ve been so proud…

Let Them Eat Fish

Happy Hour Discurso

Dana Hunter

Today’s opining on the public discourse.

Oh, dear. Sarah Palin’s gone so far off the deep end that even her loyalest cheerleaders are putting down the pom-poms:

Reihan Salam, a prominent conservative blogger and Republican strategist, has defended Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) quite a bit over the last several months. He’s promoted her, made excuses for her shortcomings, and tried to convince any who’d listen that she’s really not as awful as she might seem. Up until recently, Salam has argued valiantly that Palin is a credible national figure and a plausible presidential aspirant.

Now, however, Salam has reluctantly given up.

Palin’s campaign antics can be forgiven. What can’t be forgiven is the ham-handed way she’s tried to build her national profile since she returned to Alaska. She’s abandoned the bold right-left populism that won over Alaska voters — and me — in the first place in favor of an increasingly defensive and harsh partisanship. After making her name as a determined enemy of Alaska’s corrupt Republican establishment, she recently called for Democratic Sen. Mark Begich to step down so the hilariously crooked Ted Stevens could get another crack at the seat. She loudly promised to leave federal stimulus money on the table before clawing that promise back with a whimper. One can’t help but get the impression that Palin is a clownish, vindictive amateur.

Now, for example, Palin is raising hackles for naming colorful crackpot Wayne Anthony Ross to be Alaska’s attorney general. It turns out that Palin may have consulted with Ross over a state senate appointment, a move that would have been against state law. As a general matter, state law is something you might want your AG to be on top of.

What I’m wondering is: Has Sarah Palin undergone some kind of secret lobotomy?

Notwithstanding the possibility of secret brain surgery on the governor, Salam is arguably understating the case. As we talked about last week, Palin’s on-the-job performance since last year’s presidential election has been a train-wreck. (It’s apparently getting worse, too, with a new ethics complaint having been filed against her this week.)

Deary, deary me. Looks like the bloom’s wearing off that rose. It’s sad, really: 2012 would’ve been so much more amusing with her in the running.

At least Sen. Ensign’s trying to fill some of the entertainment void:

Today, Sen. John Ensign (R-NV) went on MSNBC to attack the Senate Armed Services Committee report on the Bush administration’s treatment of detainees. When host Chris Matthews asked Ensign whether he was shocked that our interrogation practices were based on those used by Chinese Communists to elicit false information from U.S. troops, the senator criticized him for being “inflammatory.”

When Matthews insisted that he wasn’t being inflammatory because he was reading directly from the report, Ensign tried to discredit the entire document by saying it was a “Democrat partisan” report:

ENSIGN: Chris, the reason I said it is because you didn’t preface that with saying that was a Democrat report. That was a Democrat partisan report. And you have to understand where the people who were doing that report — where their ideology comes from.

[snip]

Ensign is right that there are often committee reports produced and released by only the minority or the majority. This report, however, was not one of them. The first page of the detainee report makes it clear that it is a document from the “Committee on Armed Services, United States Senate.” ThinkProgress spoke with a committee spokesman who confirmed that the full, unanimous committee released the report. When talking with Levin today, MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell noted that Republican Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham also endorsed the report.

Yup. Them two are pure-D Democrats, all right:

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., has gotten the old gang back together, this time to oppose the idea of prosecuting Bush administration officials who drew up legal justifications for torture. Joined by two friends, Sens. Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham, McCain sent a letter to President Obama on Wednesday urging him not to take that course of action. And they used the president’s own messaging about looking forward rather than backward to do so.

Damned dirty libruls.

And here’s a beautiful thing for ye. A double-dose of awesome, in fact:

The Atlantic’s Marc Ambinder notes some polling data today suggesting the Republican Party is now less popular among Americans than countries like Venezuela and China. He concluded:

My Republican friends keep asking me when I’ll take the GOP seriously again and why I’ve stopped writing about ticky-tak political gamesmanship and GOP consultant tricks. When they’re a serious party with serious ideas, then we can talk.

Ouch.

Firstly, I love the fact the Cons have fallen below dictatorships in Americans’ opinion. Secondly, it’s nice to see someone deliver such a good, sharp smack to Con bottoms.

So now that the teabagging’s over, what are hysterical right-wingers to do? Attempt an armed march on Washington, no less:

Calling Glenn Beck! Here’s another “frustrated Americans” event for you to champion!

David Weigel at the Windy happened to catch the latest idea from the militiamen who are starting to see their paranoid ranks rising:

A peaceful demonstration of at least a million — hey, if we can 10 million, even better — but at least one million armed militia men marching on Washington. A peaceful demonstration. No shooting, no one gets hur
t. Just a demonstration. The only difference from any typical demonstration is we will all be armed.

As Weigel says, lotsa luck getting a permit for that.

I somehow don’t think armed militias marching on the Capitol is going to go over so well. Way to go. They’ve now become so divorced from reality it’s like they were never even married.

Of course, it was never anything more than a one-night stand to begin with.

Happy Hour Discurso

Poem o' the Day

Dana Hunter1 Comment

I sincerely hope my heart sister NP won’t mind me filching her latest, because it made me LOL, and it deserves to be my Poem o’ the Day.

to do

I have a list of
things to do today

of tasks needing completion
errands needing run
chores needing accomplished

but as the morning
drags
on

I find myself
straying
from what needs to be done
in order to

update my list of
things to do today

so I am organized
and know exactly what it is
I’m not doing

instead of writing articles
I list the articles I need to write
and make notes about research to be done

instead of running errands
I rearrange the order of errands
for the most efficient gas use

instead of completing chores
I take an inventory of cleaning products
in case I need to run to the store first

at the end of the day,
my list will be complete


and it will be
a damn good-looking list

Be sure to drop by her place and let her know what you’re carrying for Poem in Your Pocket day. As soon as I’ve figured it out, I’ll let you know.
Poem o' the Day

The Will to Prosecute

Dana Hunter3 Comments

Looks like torture prosecutions may not be off the table after all:

During a press availability Jordan’s King Abdullah, President Obama fielded a couple of questions about possible sanctions against Bush administration officials who wrote torture memos. The president went a little further than Rahm Emanuel and Robert Gibbs were prepared to go.

President Obama suggested today that it remained a possibility that the Justice Department might bring charges against officials of the Bush administration who devised harsh interrogation policies that some see as torture.

He also suggested that if there is any sort of investigation into these past policies and practices, he would be more inclined to support an independent commission outside the typical congressional hearing process. […]

Calling the Bush-era memos providing legal justifications for enhanced interrogation methods “reflected us losing our moral bearings,” the president said that he did not think it was “appropriate” to prosecute those CIA officers who “carried out some of these operations within the four corners of the legal opinions or guidance that had been provided by the White House.”

But in clear change from language he and members of his administration have used in the past, the president said that “with respect to those who formulated those legal decisions, I would say that is going to be more of a decision for the Attorney General within the parameters of various laws and I don’t want to prejudge that.”

[snip]

Think Progress, which has video of the president’s remarks this morning, added that Obama’s comments seem to effectively put “the ball in Holder’s court.” And if the A.G. follows the vision he outlined during his confirmation hearings, Holder may conclude he has no choice but to pursue this matter.

Good.

Apparently, our current president’s hearing is functional. Of course, the chorus of people calling for torture prosecutions and Jay “1984” Bybee’s impeachment is thunderous and growing louder.

Firedoglake’s petition.

ACLU’s petition.

Democrats.com petition.

Think Progress petition.

Sen. Patrick Leahy demanding Bybee’s resignation.

Sen. Russ Feingold, ditto.

Rep. Jerry Nadler carries the motion.

Rep. Jane Schakowsky does likewise.

And Senator Diane Feinstein tells the Obama administration not to take torture prosecutions off the table.

I’m sure I’m missing several folks. Didn’t have much time to spelunk the intertoobz today. But they’re enough to show the pattern here.

Over to you, A.G. Holder. Hang ’em high.

The Will to Prosecute

The Ballad of Jane

Dana Hunter

What a shame, what’s happened to Jane:

On Sunday, CQ reported that the NSA had wiretapped Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA), listening in on a call in which she apparently offered a quid pro quo to a lobbyist group. Harman has vigorously denied the reports. Today, she appeared on MSNBC to express her shock and outrage that her phone calls were listened to, saying she was “disappointed” that the U.S. could have allowed such “a gross abuse of power”:

HARMAN: I’m just very disappointed that my country — I’m an American citizen just like you are — could have permitted what I think is a gross abuse of power in recent years. I’m one member of Congress who may be caught up in it, but I have a bully pulpit and I can fight back. I’m thinking about others who have no bully pulpit and may not be aware, as I was not, that right now somewhere, someone’s listening in on their conversations, and they’re innocent Americans.

[snip]

Harman’s anger seems a bit disingenuous, considering that she was one of the earliest supporters of Bush’s warrantless wiretapping program.

Yes, but, but…

It’s understandable that ordinary Americans like Harman and other members of Congress would be horrified and want an immediate investigation, which is actually what happened when the ACLU and the EFF filed suit and demonstrated that millions of innocent Americans had been the victims of illegal surveillance. But Jane Harman thought that their right to know was trumped by the demands of national security, and voted to give retroactive immunity to the telecoms.

I may be late to the party here, but I. . . I think she may have been right. I’m worried that such a program might be essential to national security, and that its disclosure might damage critical intelligence capabilities. After all, the program under which Harman was spied upon was legal and necessary, as opposed to the people in the ACLU and EFF cases, who were the victims of illegal surveillance. I’m — well, I’m afraid that if we start looking too closely at these things, gosh darn it, the terrorists are gonna know what we’re up to, and then they win.

I know because a wise woman once said so herself:

“You should not be talking about that here,” she scolded me in a whisper. “They don’t even know about that,” she said, gesturing to her aides, who were now looking on at the conversation with obvious befuddlement. “The Times did the right thing by not publishing that story,” she continued. I wanted to understand her position. What intelligence capabilities would be lost by informing the public about something the terrorists already knew — namely, that the government was listening to them? I asked her. Harman wouldn’t bite. “This is a valuable program, and it would be compromised,’ she said. I tried to get into some of the details of the program and get a better understanding of why the administration asserted that it couldn’t be operated within the confines of the courts. Harman wouldn’t go there either. “This is a valuable program,” she repeated.

In fact, she found it soooo valuable that she pressured the Times not to publish that expose of Bush’s warrentless wiretapping:

As I noted here yesterday, one key revelation in that big CQ Politics scoop is that Harman may have privately tried to kill the story in 2004. Yesterday Times executive editor Bill Keller said that Harman hadn’t spoken to him or influenced his decision.

But now Times spokesperson Catherine Mathis sends over a more detailed statement from Keller explaining what really happened:

Congresswoman Harman spoke to Washington Bureau Chief Phil Taubman in late October or early November, 2004, apparently at the request of General Hayden. She urged that The Times not publish the story. She did not speak to me, and I don’t remember her being a significant factor in my decision. In 2005, when we were getting ready to publish, Phil met with a group of congressional leaders familiar with the eavesdropping program, including Ms. Harman. They all argued that The Times should not publish. The Times published the story a few days later.

[snip]

Wow. So Dem Rep Harman appears to have worked behind the scenes to dissuade publication of a blockbuster expose about Bush that could have put her own party’s nominee in the White House and changed the history of the last four years. And, according to Keller, she apparently did this at the request of Michael Hayden, Bush’s National Security Agency chief.

Y’know, with Dems like this, who needs Cons?

The Ballad of Jane

Who Wants to Hear From Those Damned Constituents, Anyway?

Dana Hunter1 Comment

Not Sen. Specter’s staff, that’s for sure:

Is it common practice for Congressional staff to throw away letters from constituents hoping to have their voices heard? That’s what some of Sen. Arlen Specter’s staff threatened to do to thousands of Pennsylvanians who support the freedom to form unions and bargain.

Specter, you’ll recall, withdrew his support from the Employee Free Choice Act, choosing instead to parrot right-wing talking points. So constituents have organized and sent him letters, postcards, and demonstrated outside various and sundry of his offices. None of this is unusual. It’s what constituents do so that their voices are heard.

However, his staff, who are paid to interact with such folks, don’t wanna listen:

Specter’s staff grew increasingly aggressive at every event, Pennsylvania union members report. At Specter’s Wilkes-Barre office, where union members and allies delivered thousands of letters and petitions, USW member Tim Waters reports that they were told by a staffer, “as soon as you leave your letters will go straight in the trash.”

Hello? These are Pennsylvania residents whom the senator represents. This is the way you treat your constituents?

Heh. Only until the next election…

Who Wants to Hear From Those Damned Constituents, Anyway?