BITING THE HAND THAT FEEDS YOU

THE LAST TIME THE NYT WAS CONSIDERED A LEGITIMATE SOURCE OF NEWS BEFORE IT BECAME A WHORE FOR THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION.


So, I'm visiting DKos, right? And I stumble upon this ironic post:

I think the NY Times should be condemned
by Congress.

But not for what the republicans want to condemn them for. They ought to be condemned for lying and manipulating stories in order to sell the Iraq war for the administration. It shows you how loyal republicans are. They want to beat up the same institution that helped them sell the war to the American people. Shows you not to do them any favors, doesn't it?

by tazz on Wed Jun 28, 2006 at 06:22:11 AM PDT

How ironic that the paper that used Judy Miller to lie, cheat, and slut around to sell the American People this war - the U. S. Congress wants to waste the tax dollars you and I pay them to draft real legislation, and in essence, do their friggin' jobs - to go after the New York Times by drawing up resolutions to condemn them for leaking the truth that Bush is spying on "Amuricans" he dearly loves and fights the "terrarists" to protect us from.

The Times is a rag, and has been since the Jayson Blair incident. After slinging him under a journalistic bus, it seems they still don't get it, with regards to reporting the truth.

They can rail about the blogsphere all they want, but you know what? I'd rather get my news from Kos, Gilliard, Atrios and the Rude Pundit before I turn on CNN or Faux Network. With the exception of Olbermann, MSNBC has also become a joke as well as any news organization who allows their news anchors to spew political opinions rather than report the plain, unvarnished truth, like Cronkite and yeah, Dan Rather used to do back in the day.

Talk about biting the hand that fed you. I wonder if they NYT will cave in or stand up for protection of their industry and First Amendment rights? Or are they so beholden to the Bush juggernaut, and drunk on its kool-aid to the point they have been rendered immobile?

Anything for a Photo-Op

Does this picture disgust you? I'm disgusted by it, because a "Christian" President is seen jogging with a man who went to fight in his unnecessary war, lost his legs in combat, and GeeDubya decides to demonstrate his support for the troops by going on a jog with a guy who left his legs on the field in Baghdad.

This is the President that Junior Ford "loves" and considers "a nice guy".

I'm sorry, but anyone who can be responsible for such injuries, refuse to visit the wounded over at Walter Reed, yet highlights their injuries for "photo-ops"...I'm getting migraines by continuing to ask myself "What kind of man is the President of the United States?"

Any anyone running for a Senate seat who would condone this, I have one name for you:

MAX CLELAND.

Remember him? The same senator from your neighboring state of Georgia, a Vietnam-era vet who left three limbs in some rice patty and got swift-boated and slimed by the Bush-Rove machine for his trouble. He was replaced in the Senate by a maggot who didn't even go serve his country; some piss-ant named Saxby Chambliss.

Everytime I see pictures like the one I posted, I'm reminded of people who went and fought wars necessary and unnecessary. Their mental and physical conditions when they returned and tried to settle back to whatever is considered "normal". It's easy to vote for a war when you're not going to fight in it. It's easy to not vote to increase the minimum wage, while voting to give yourself a raise every year for the last nine years. It's easy to vote for legislation that you know is never going to impact you; vote judiciary and render all gains under civil rights and liberties dead, because you just don't give a damn about another human being, or the impact that your votes and representation will have on other human beings.

To care for other human beings require that you become human; vulnerable and caring, too. Traits which I try very hard to ascribe to your Democratic candidate for United States Senator, and I continue to fail at doing so because he makes it virtually impossible.

Anything for a photo-op. How long will it be before we see the current representative of the 9th District doing the same damned thing as his beloved President?

At Your Own Peril

A blogger at Kos' place (WBReeves) posted the following response to the CBC's stubbornness in wasting what little political capital they have in circling the wagons around William Jefferson (D-Cold Hard Cash). It is also a subtle reminder that Democrats outside of African-American circles shouldn't be quick to throw up comparisons to OJ Simpson in comparing the willingness of a few African-Americans to cover for a crook. Most of us will throw the book at one of our own, because we already feel his/her bad actions provides further negative representation of the race.

Let's Have Some Straight Talk (2+ / 0-)

What this thread is illustrating is the Achilles heel of the Democratic electoral coalition. The growing divide between White Democrats and Black Democrats. The Gulf isn't absolute. There are Democrats of all colors on both sides but in democratic politics what counts is which positions are most representive of constituent opinion. Who is willing to argue that the CBC's insistence on rigid formality is out of sync with their constituents?

This is real 800 lbs gorilla in the room. African-Americans generally view the Jefferson case from a starkly different perspective than those outside of their community. Superficially, this mirrors the difference's in perspective that one finds in any political interest groups, from farmers to women, to Gays and Lesbians.

This easy equation is misleading. It ignores the fundamental difference that distinguishes the African-American community from every other constituent interest. Blacks have been the perenial whipping boy and sacrificial offering of U.S. politics since the inception of the republic.

When it comes to the African-American community, the history of the U.S. is a series of murderous oppressions and betrayals in which no political faction has clean hands. Expecting Black elected officials to behave as though this were not so is rather like expecting Jewish people to rely on the enlightened good will of Europeans in dealing with anti-Semitism or that Armenians should swear eternal friendship with the Turks.

There will be snow in Hades before the CBC or any representative African-American organization will agree to deprive any Black elected official of any office by informal agreement. This is a survival instinct based on a solid appreciation of the fact that African-Americans were driven from politics by force and fraud in the past, while their erstwhile allies averted their eyes.

Now I'm sure that some folks reading the above will shrug their shoulders while muttering "That's all ancient history. They should get over it." I've a question for such people. If the increasingly desperate Liebermanites began to deploy acusations of anti-Semitism against Lamont supporters, are you going to say that Jewish folks should "get over it?"

No, of course not. No one will question concern over anti-Semitism as a well founded defensive reflex. To the contrary. All efforts will be bent to debunking the charge and convincing Jewish voters that they can trust Lamont. A perfectly reasonable response, considering history and the importance of Jewish Voters to the Democratic Party's prospects.

Contrast this to the incomprehension and, yes, anger that greets the CBC's defensive reaction. Someone above argued that the CBC's attitude is identical to the mindset that acquited O.J. Simpson. Whatever Jefferson's sins, I doubt they rise to being accused of butchering his ex-wife and a hapless witness. Excuse me but this is waving the bloody shirt with a vengence.

What's the purpose of raising such a false comparison? To insinuate that the CBC would defend murderers as long as they were black? To suggest that Jefferson is the moral equivilant of a slasher? Or perhaps the poster is under the false impression that the jury in the Simpson case was uniformly African-American as is the Congressional Black Caucus. Of course, since that wasn't the fact, the entire jury can't be accused of acting from racial bias or animus. Some, at least, simply didn't buy the prosecution's case.

I've spent time on this bit because I'm afraid it's all too representative of attitudes found in Democratic Circles outside the Black community. Whereas every other constituency is at least lent a respectful, sympathetic ear, African-America's Representatives are constantly hectored to pipe down and get with the program, when they're not being ignored altogether. Currently, the Black community is being treated in the same fashion that the GOP has, in times past, treated it's Religious Right base: as a constituency with no place else to go. There's a moral pertinent to this sort of political cynicism embedded in the GOP's present floundering. Don't imagine that African-Americans will put up with such contemptuous treatment indefinitely.

People need to consult electoral reality. The African-American electorate is a key component of the Democratic Party's electoral coalition. Without it, there is precious little chance of a national Democratic resurgence on anything more than an agenda of Republican Lite. The African-American Community is not going to play the part of the disgraceful relative who's shunted off to the attic whenever polite company comes to visit. You may find this both inexpedient and inconvenient but it is a political fact of life. You ignore it at your peril.

ONE SNEAKY S-O-B...

ONE SNEAKY S-O-B...ENGAGE AT YOUR OWN RISK

My father used to say that it was better dealing with a rattlesnake as opposed to a water moccasin. The rattler lets you know he's going to strike by rattling his tail. You have a choice to engage said rattler, or avoid getting bit.

On the other hand, the water moccasin would creep up on you, not making any sound, and the next thing you know, you're bitten and being hopefully rushed to the nearest hospital. The bottom line is that in both instances, you've engaged in dealing with poisonous snakes; the difference is in how you chose to deal with 'em.

It's appropriate to use snake anologies here when referring to the one member of the Congressional Black Caucus, card-carrying DLC member and AIPAC water boy, Rep. Artur Davis (D-Alabama). This guy's flying low as a snake, but is twice as deadly, and three times as cunning in his political ambition.

Davis came on the scene in 2002 when he defeated longtime representative Earl Hilliard, largely on the strength of AIPAC financing. This is also about the same time AIPAC engineered a similar take over in the 4th District of Georgia and deposed Rep. Cynthia McKinney with former Rep. Denise Majette. Poor, Ms. Majette; she should be forgiven for not realizing that if you dance with a snake, sooner or later the snake resorts to its nature of turning on you and biting you. In Majette's case, she didn't quite do what the AIPAC gang wanted and pissed them off by deciding to run for the Senate seat vacated by Zig Zag Zell Miller. At last instance, AIPAC demanded Majette refund their contributions they spent to oust McKinney by getting her elected.

Davis, for his part, has towed the AIPAC line, even though it's not always visible by his voting record (or maybe it is, since the CBC Monitor gave him a failing grade and labeled him as a "Derelict" of the Caucus). So now that you have the ever-growing mess of what to do about Rep. William "Dollar Bill" Jefferson, the fact that when the CBC had their confab about Jefferson, Davis was conspicously absent from the meeting. It was later reported in the Congressional newspaper, "The Hill", that Davis was absent because he's angling for Jefferson's seat on the coveted Ways and Means Committee, even if it means he leapfrogs over another CBC member (and fellow derelict) Rep. Sanford Bishop of Georgia, to get that position.

Mr. Davis is very likeable, far more than the hapless and hopeless Rep. Harold Ford, Jr.(D-TN), and very engaging. He's articulate and has a good command of law, regulations, historical perspective and factual evidence; after all, his previous profession was that of an attorney. He's a Harvard Law Grad, which really explains how he's able to present himself as a working congressman. What is a grave concern to me as a DLC watcher, is that this guy's flying under the national radar, while being positioned to do major damage to the Democratic Party that hasn't been completed by Nancy Pelosi and her ilk.

Of course, Ms. Nancy may have her hands full, fighting off that shiv that Steny Hoyer (D-Maryland) continues to attempt to stick in her back on an almost daily basis, not to mention pissing off the rest of the Congressional Black Caucus before the Jefferson fiasco, when she ordered Mel Watt (D-NC) to scrub 20 CBC members off the Voting Rights Amendment as co-sponsors. So, Davis flies under the radar, and while doing so, he's quietly amassing clout within the Democratic caucus as a Vichy Dem.

Rahm Emmanuel (D-IL) gave him the responsibility of recruiting Dems to campaign for Congressional seats, and direct campaign funds to their efforts. Usually, such responsibility would go to someone who's been in Congress at least five terms or more, but Davis is campaigning for a third term this year. You have to ask: "What does he know, or what did he promise in exchange for such a responsible position within the Democratic caucus that's not being entrusted to members with longer tenure?" He's short of being the actual bag man for the DLC. What gives here?

A seat on the Ways and Means Committee means a seat for AIPAC to govern over all things Congressional in the House of Representatives. The Democrats are in enough trouble trying to be Democrats, while having to deal with this internal fracture among their leadership. The DLC has done nothing except infect the party with corporate cash, and facilitating 30% or more of them in becoming slaves to their Corporate masters, while weakening the entire caucus with their continuous "caving in" to ReThugs in order to maintain civility and decorum.

That might work at a tea party, but not when your fighting for the life of democracy and a government "of the people, for the people, and by the people".

Artur Davis is one DLC who's flying under the radar. Which makes him one very sneaky S-O-B.

ABOUT "DOLLAR BILL"...

CONGRESSIONAL BLACK CAUCUS' NEW CAUSE...COVERING UP FOR A CROOK


Honestly, William Jefferson isn't really worth the ink this is written on, but I feel like I should say something about this issue.

1. He needs to resign from the Ways and Means committee until his issue is resolved or he's indicted. There's no need to for a legal defense fund, unless there's other CBC members who are going to get dragged down with him. Can you say "Covering one's own ass"?

2. Steve Gilliard was right. We have enough on our plates to get Black people elected to public office; we didn't make the sacrifices so they can squawk when they are being held to a higher standard than their white peers. While it's unfair, it's also the deck we've been dealt. Deal with it, or get out of public office and go do something where your treachery will be rewarded.

3. KATRINA. Jefferson's commandeering of vehicles to go and get his stuff while those vehicles rolled past people who were suffering, if not dying by drowning, for his own self-preservation, is enough to get him unelected in 2006. In fact, I said in a post last October that he shouldn't be re-elected because Katrina tore the covers off his lack of effective representation of his district.

4. Nancy Pelosi's wishes should never come at the expense of the CBC's agenda. Period. No discussion. Quit giving away the store and then wondering where are your bargaining chips, when you gave them away with the store and failed to make Ms. Pelosi deliver on her promises before delivering on yours to her.

5. The CBC should have set the tone for zero tolerance on ethics, starting with their own members. Jefferson would have been a good example to demonstrate you're the caucus that's not going to cry foul on the Rethugs and allow our own to skate. Isn't that what we've been complainaning about for the last five years: IOKYAR? If you're going to promote yourself at the "conscience of the congress" your walk should match your talk, and anyone not willing to get with the program and sense of the Caucus, should be isolated and their isolation be highlighted to the point their districts weigh in on their isolation. Mel Watt has been derelict in calling out wayward CBC members, and that probably explains why Barbara Lee wants to replace him as Chair of the CBC in September.

You have to ask why 25% of the CBC votes ReThug and the Chair isn't calling them out, but he prefers to beat up on Black women, calling me a "damned blogger" or a "Loud-mouthed operative" to my face when I've asked about their mouthing mush on things that matter, like their legislative votes. On the real, Watt's probably taking payola from other CBC members feeding at the corporate trough, while appearing like a progressive, but providing them cover to do their dirt in the dark.

But you didn't hear that from me. LOL.

If they don't bite the bullet here, Bill Jefferson becomes the albatross around the Democrats' neck in the Fall, and we all know how good the Rethugs can spin something to where it becomes fact while it's still a lie. And he didn't have the sense given to go for big cheese. At least Duke Cunningham aimed high and got paid before he got caught! Since "Dollar Bill" doesn't know when to exit stage left, we need to boot him off stage and any other CBC member that wants to cast their lot with him in offering him protection and a Legal Defense Fund. Sorry, Charlie (and I don't mean Charlie Tuna, but Charlie Rangel), but for you, Kendrick Meek and Elijah Cummings, I'm talking to YOU! Until you can rationalize your treatment of Cynthia McKinney's harassment by a racist member of the Capitol Hill police versus raising money for a LDF for an obvious crook, can anyone here identify a dog named "SEXISM" or "HYPOCRACY"?

And the DLC continues to eat their own. Look at how sneaky Artur Davis is being. He's salivating over replacing Jefferson on Ways and Means, and probably agrees with what I've said here, but I'm pointing out that Jefferson's a card-carrying member of the DLC, so is Davis; yet Davis is angling to replace Jefferson and probably wants Pelosi to give him the boot off Ways and Means. If the CBC stands as a caucus, Davis wouldn't dream of doing this, but since the Caucus is fractured, Davis' ambition gets ahead of his loyalty to a fellow DLC and CBC member. WARNING: if Davis gets that position, look for AIPAC to start chest pounding and it's nothing for them to be proud of, either.