Jeff Gannon / James Guckert

Since the unpleasantness in November, I haven’t been much for the news in general, political news in particular. But I make an exception for The Daily Show, for obvious reasons. I laughed the other day when Stewart made a joke about the reporter who asked Mr. Bush this loaded question at a 26 Jan press conference:

Thank you. Senate Democratic leaders have painted a very bleak picture of the U.S. economy. Harry Reid was talking about soup lines, and Hillary Clinton 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 said you’re going to reach out to these people — how are you going to work with people who seem to have divorced themselves from reality? [emphasis added; see transcript]

I didn’t think of it again until a few days ago, when I came across a Salon story that revealed the questioner, “Jeff Gannon”, had had plenty more to say. Turns out the guy isn’t really much of a reporter, works for an offshoot of a GOP group that isn’t an accredited news organization, and, oh yeah, isn’t even really using his own name.

If that’s not enough, reports also indicate the dude, real name James Guckert, has now quit his faux-reporter job. Some attribute that to the discovery that in addition to having registered domain names such as ConservativeGuy.com, ExposeJesseJackson.com, and DCBibleMarathon.org, Guckert owns HotMilitaryStud.com and MilitaryEscortsM4M.com. And then there’s his AOL page.

Oh, and did I mention this guy was apparently the first reporter to receive the confidential CIA memo naming Valeria Plame as a covert operative?

Who the hell is this creep, and who let him into the White House briefing room for two years?

Thank you. My point exactly.

Ronald Reagan fathered many misguided policies, but I gotta give him credit. He also produced a son I’m liking more and more every day:

During his campaign for the presidency, Mr. Bush pledged a more “humble” foreign policy. “I would take the use of force very seriously,” he said. “I would be guarded in my approach.” Other countries would resent us “if we’re an arrogant nation.” He sniffed at the notion of “nation building.” “Our military is meant to fight and win wars. . . . And when it gets overextended, morale drops.” International cooperation and consensus building would be the cornerstone of a Bush administration’s approach to the larger world. Given candidate Bush’s remarks, it was hard to imagine him, as president, flipping a stiff middle finger at the world and charging off adventuring in the Middle East.

But didn’t 9/11 reshuffle the deck, changing everything? Didn’t Mr. Bush, on September 12, 2001, awaken to the fresh realization that bad guys in charge of Islamic nations constitute an entirely new and grave threat to us and have to be ruthlessly confronted lest they threaten the American homeland again? Wasn’t Saddam Hussein rushed to the front of the line because he was complicit with the hijackers and in some measure responsible for the atrocities in Washington, D. C., and at the tip of Manhattan?

Well, no.

As Bush’s former Treasury secretary, Paul O’Neill, and his onetime “terror czar,” Richard A. Clarke, have made clear, the president, with the enthusiastic encouragement of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz, was contemplating action against Iraq from day one. “From the start, we were building the case against Hussein and looking at how we could take him out,” O’Neill said. All they needed was an excuse. Clarke got the same impression from within the White House. Afghanistan had to be dealt with first; that’s where the actual perpetrators were, after all. But the Taliban was a mere appetizer; Saddam was the entrée. (Or who knows? The soup course?) It was simply a matter of convincing the American public (and our representatives) that war was justified.

The real—but elusive—prime mover behind the 9/11 attacks, Osama bin Laden, was quickly relegated to a back burner (a staff member at Fox News—the cable-TV outlet of the Bush White House—told me a year ago that mere mention of bin Laden’s name was forbidden within the company, lest we be reminded that the actual bad guy remained at large) while Saddam’s Iraq became International Enemy Number One. Just like that, a country whose economy had been reduced to shambles by international sanctions, whose military was less than half the size it had been when the U. S. Army rolled over it during the first Gulf war, that had extensive no-flight zones imposed on it in the north and south as well as constant aerial and satellite surveillance, and whose lethal weapons and capacity to produce such weapons had been destroyed or seriously degraded by UN inspection teams became, in Mr. Bush’s words, “a threat of unique urgency” to the most powerful nation on earth.

More in his Esquire piece….

Ahh, the double standard. Many have it, few have taken it to the level that our good friends on the Republican side have achieved in the past few days.

I speak, of course, of their suddenly all-consuming concern that John Edwards is insufficiently experienced for the role of Vice-President. A mere six years on the national stage, they say (in sorrowful tones), is hardly enough to qualify a man to be “a heartbeat away” from the presidency.

There may be an argument there, but the Republicans should be the last ones to make it. Does no one recall that George W. Bush had just 6 years of public experience before his current position?

Yes, the same people who evidently think six years “leading” a state with a constitutionally weak governorship is just fine for the nation’s No. 1 job also like to pretend that six years as Senator is not enough for No. 2.

It would be hilarious, were it not so pathetic.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who launched his successful candidacy last summer on “The Tonight Show with Jay Leno,” headed back to the late-night platform Monday with Gray Davis, the man he ousted in California’s historic recall election.

The appearance by the Republican Schwarzenegger and Davis, a Democrat, was meant to promote Schwarzenegger’s $15 billion bond measure to reduce the state’s debt. — Arnold Schwarzenegger, Gray Davis appear together on Leno

First Arnold announced his candidacy on Leno, now he and his predecessor go back to the show for a major policy announcement. Does this strike anyone else as a bit odd? Why does the governor of California need to go on entertainment television? Perhaps for the same reason Bush did Oprah — high-profile, low-risk. (Though kudos to Dave Letterman for being one of the tougher Bush interviewers in ’00.)

Why do voters tolerate this?

Supposedly, this is Howard Dean’s house, seen via satellite (actually I think the pushpin is on his garage). I think you’ll agree that from what little we can ascertain, it looks better than Kerry’s or Bush’s.

(Caveat: I have never seen/used this site before, just discovered it today on a completely unrelated [Seinfeld] blog. So who knows what we might be looking at.)

After yesterday’s despair, today’s reality check — with a dose of humor.

It’s encouraging to see that Congress does not seem interested in taking up the amendment any time soon, and some zealots are even predicting failure. Example: John Feehery, House Speaker Dennis Hastert’s spokesperson (whom I last heard on NPR mouthing platitudes about why the 9/11 investigation should not be given more time) said “sometimes you win for losing.”

I also respect the restraint of those Republicans who, whatever their feelings on the issue, think that amending the Constitution is not appropriate — and should always be a last resort. It’s more common than I expected, coming even from former Georgia congressman Bob Barr, the thrice-married author of the Defense of Marriage Act. (Barr says: “The Constitution is no place for forcing social policy on states, especially in this case.”)

But the best lines probably come from ol’ Bill Maher, whose take on the issue concludes as follows:

Well, you know what: Sometimes “most Americans” are wrong. Where’s the Democrat who will stand up and go beyond the half measures of “civil union” and “hate the sin, love the sinner,” and say loud and clear: ‘There IS no sin, and homosexuality is NOT an abomination’ — although that Boy George musical Rosie O’Donnell put on comes close. The only thing abominable about being gay is the amount of time you have to put in at the gym.

But that aside, the law in this country should reflect that some people are just born 100 percent outrageously, fabulously, undeniably Fire Island gay, and that they don’t need re-programming. They need a man with a slow hand.

It was really tough for me today. I awoke and learned our President had called for an amendment to the Constitution to prevent people like me from getting married.

Logically, I’m unshaken in my belief that future generations will look back on this with the same kind of uncomprehending wonder that we now have for those who railed against “mixed” marriages, or women voters. But that doesn’t help me emotionally, when I feel physically ill-at-ease, roiled up at the notion of what this man is doing — and what’s more, of all the people who helped. Silly as it sounds, I found it difficult to believe that someone worked to tape and (badly) encode the speech for the webcast, someone (else?) prepared the Web site to announce it, the Press Secretary defended it… all in support of this hateful message.

I’m not so out of touch as to believe that there aren’t people who fear and loathe gay people, even to the point of violence. The thing that shocks me is they would be willing to do violence to the Constitution itself, a document so vibrant and precious that I believe it serves not only as the foundation upon which this great nation was built, but indeed as a manifestation of the best parts of human nature and our common desire to live free.

By acting as he did, the President signalled he thinks differently. I’m saddened to hear it.

I’ve never really been able to get my head around why anyone would ever want to be a conservative. Even if you forget the pessimism and retrenchment inherent with a philosophy that pines always for the past, there’s still no getting around the simple concept that this is a way of thinking that says “we wouldn’t dream of telling you where to put your money, but we will lecture you on where to put your dick.” (Or other organ(s), as the case may be.)

Case in point: beginning last month, Team Bush began making noise about a $1.5 billion plan to promote marriage. The Bushies consider the timing fortuitous because at the same time they’re “defending” marriage from people who love each other, they’re also reviving the tired “compassionate conservative” tripe as they teach those who (it seems) don’t know about marriage. Like, apparently, black people:

This year, administration officials said, Mr. Bush will probably visit programs trying to raise marriage rates in poor neighborhoods.

“The president loves to do that sort of thing in the inner city with black churches, and he’s very good at it,” a White House aide said.

I’m sure the impoverished among the nation’s African-Americans will be quite keen on having the President suddenly recognize they exist — so he can lecture them on how to live their lives.

Which is a real shame, because there are many other ways to invest the money that would result in real benefits for society, without dictating personal relationships. Just one example: $1.5 billion would more than double the amount Bush pledged in his 2003 State of the Union for research into alternative fuels. Yes, we’re to spend more on “suggested” marriage than on research to wean ourselves from a petroleum dependency that has broad-reaching economic, geopolitical, and enivronmental impact. Just ask the Pentagon.

Of course, trying to tell that to our failed Texas oilman is a lost cause. So I propose the scientists rename their project. Instead of saying that we’re trying to make America a leader in fuel cells, we should tell Bush we’re investigating ways to make cars run on Jesus.

Then at last we’ll see some real money.

Google News is fronting a story claiming Nader will jump into the race this weekend. I can only hope that particular outlet’s “journalism” will be proved wrong. (And that anyone crazy enough to even consider voting for him will watch this animation.)

In related news, a list of Bush’s achievements.

Let’s hope:

Bush’s 47 percent approval rating is the same as his father’s at this stage in his presidency 12 years ago before he lost to Bill Clinton.

Just under four in 10, 37 percent, said they would definitely vote to re-elect Bush as president, while 43 percent said they would definitely vote for someone else, according to the poll conducted for the AP by Ipsos-Public Affairs. Another 18 percent said they would consider voting for someone else. — AP Poll Notes Decline in Support for Bush

And I’m so going. Look for my report, coming soon.

(C’mon, you didn’t think this site was dead, didja?)

Attorney General John Ashcroft is compiling a new watch list, but this one doesn’t name terrorists. It’s for judges who don’t follow federal sentencing minimums.

An Ashcroft memo, as reported by the AP, directs prosecutors to report back to the mothership whenever a judge makes “a ‘downward departure’ from guidelines.”

At first blush, this seems to make some sense: shouldn’t federal crimes be sentenced consistently? As spokesman Mark Corallo puts it: “It is an effort to make sure that someone who is convicted of a crime in California is treated no differently than a person who is convicted of the exact same crime in Massachusetts.”

Why then is no less a legal luminary than Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist writing to the Senate Judiciary Committee that reporting actions “would seriously impair the ability of courts to impose just and reasonable sentences”?

The answer is that legislators are not judges. The judge hears the evidence, sees the circumstances, and makes a decision from far more information than just a Congress-created table listing crimes and punishments. (Even the creators of the “table,” the U.S. Sentencing Commission, opposed the legislation that Ashcroft is now implementing.)

Just another reason to vote ABBA*.

—
* Anyone But Bush Again.

I found this excerpt from a Harper’s article today, and I’m interested to read the whole argument:

“The New Censorship does not work by keeping things secret. Are our leaders liars and criminals? Is the government run by wealthy corporations and political elites? Are we all being slowly poisoned? The answer is yes to all of the above, and there’s hardly a soul on these shores who doesn’t know it. The reign of George II practically revels in this perverse transparency. Oil policy created in backrooms from Enron and ExxonMobil. Naked pandering to the electricity industry in rolling back clean-air mandates. Accounting firms such as Arthur Andersen buying even ‘watchdog’ liberal senators such as Christopher Dodd. Elections rigged with brother Jeb’s connivance in Florida. All of these details are utterly public, reported in newspapers, television newscasts, and books, yet it’s perfectly safe for this stuff to be known. The genius of the New Censorship is that it works through the obscenity of absolute openness.”
— Curtis White, “The Middle Mind: Why Americans Don’t Think for Themselves“

Speaking of “rigged elections,” I also came across this incendiary Flash presentation today.

In both cases, I wasn’t even looking for political information: one came from a media site, the other a personal finance site. Ahh, the Internet.