Around the Blogs

• Um, Katharine? I wrote that post a year ago. The 2007 should've given that way.
• The AP's Ron Fournier really is a problem.
• BooMan tallies the candidates and elected officials who were present at Netroots Nation. There's a crapload of them. So I guess Democrats really aren't afraid of us. And the good ones really do have little to fear.

  There were a lot of politicians from red and purple states and districts who had the common sense to understand that the (New) New Left may be anti-war but they have little else in common with the 60's counterculture (except insofar as the Netroots welcomes the veterans of those wars with open arms). The Netroots is unapologetically pro-Constitution, anti-torture, and pro-Small Business. Our consensus positions on the war, on reproductive rights, on gay rights, and the environment are now majority American opinions. They aren't fringe. We have the (Old) New Left to thank for a lot of that, but the Netroots' culture is decidedly different, as are our primary goals. The (Old) New Left was tackling the Establishment on desegregation and women's liberation in an attempt to tear down centuries-old injustices. The (New) New Left is not attempting anything so bold or transformative. We're trying to get universal health care, Fair Trade, a green energy plan, and a restoration of the consensus American governmental and legal values of the post-war period...including internationalism and human rights.

• Cool pictures of a leopard ambushing and killing a croc, apparently for no reason at all (crocodiles don't have enough meat to justify the risk and danger). (Via John Cole's place.)
• The McCain campaign lied to Bob Novak, telling him they'd be choosing a veep on Tuesday to try and steal some of the thunder from Obama's overseas trip. Now Novak is pissed. So pissed, apparently, that he ran over a pedestrian. He drives a black corvette.
• Jindal is reportedly taking himself out of the veep-stakes. Too bad. The GOP has just lost its only "not ancient and white" option.
• I write in The Hill that the left has inherent advantages online.

  This disparity isn’t surprising. While conservative bloggers can rightfully claim a couple of minor successes, they’ve been generally relegated to the fringes of their movement. There’s been little need for them. Conservatives eager for conservative voices have long had a smorgasbord of options from which to choose, from Fox News Channel to an AM radio buffet dominated by Rush Limbaugh and clones, to hordes of movement conservatives clogging up newspaper op-ed pages, to well-established online message boards. Despite "liberal media" cries, there has never been any medium truly dominated by movement progressives. So-called "liberal" voices, like Joe Klein and Richard Cohen, have been more concerned with getting approbation from their friends in the D.C. cocktail party circuit than truly fighting for progressive causes.

  Furthermore, the right-wing media machine operates in a top-bottom fashion, relying heavily on its firebrand personalities — Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly. Progressives instinctively chafe at this hierarchical approach. Yet the Republican ability to march in lockstep has paid huge political dividends, yielding GOP victories on the strength of simplistic, well-crafted, oft-repeated (and even more often, bogus) messages, like the fabricated quote that Al Gore claimed to have "invented" the Internet.

  But the horizontal, collaborative structure of successful online communities clearly poses a problem for right-wing bloggers, precisely because their movement excels in following orders instead of participating in bottom-up discussion and organizing. Americans get enough one-way communication on TV, radio and print; those who follow politics online do so because it allows them to engage in something larger, not because they want to hear yet another bloviator blather.

• CO-04: The wide consensus is that this is Marilyn Musgrave's swang song, increasingly out of touch with a blue-ing district and done in by her single-minded obsession with gay bashing. Colorado Independent takes a look at the numbers of one of the district's key counties:

  The number of Weld County Republicans has remained relatively flat since 2004, rising 2 percent to 50,110 as of last month, according to Secretary of State data.

  Although the number of registered Weld Democrats during the same time is up 5 percent to 31,289, it’s the 12 percent increase in unaffiliated voters that has Democrats smiling.

• Way back in the day, Obama was a rare vote against eliminating rent control in Illinois.
• Yup. This is certainly pretty darn stupid.

Ben Smith thinks he knows why, He hasn't explained what he meant by juggling the timeline on the surge and Awakening (though his staff did the best salvage job possible); whether he meant that Obama was deliberately selling out the country; whether he shares his campaign's grievance with the press; or what he thinks of his staff's genocide-themed attack. More simply put: McCain needed to stop the bleeding.

Memo to Republican candidates: There is actually an outer limit to fake outrage stories. Let's allow NJ-03 Republican candidate Chris Myers to demonstrate, shall we?

Release Date: Jul 22 2008

Myers Demands Adler Apologize to Troops, Veterans, Military Families for Web Video Comments

Adler referred to radical liberal bloggers as "the new citizen soldiers"

         Mount Holly, July 22, 2008-Decorated combat veteran and congressional candidate Chris Myers (NJ-3) today demanded that his opponent, career Trenton politician John Adler, apologize to United States active duty troops, veterans and military families for comments he made in a YouTube video posted on his web site.

         In the video, entitled "John Adler: a progressive," Adler admiringly refers to radical liberal bloggers from the Daily Kos and other liberal blog sites as "the new citizen soldiers".  The video can be found at Adler's campaign web site (www.adlerforcongress.com/video), or on YouTube at the following link: http://youtube.com/...

         "On behalf of our active duty military personnel and their families, and the tens of thousands of veterans living in the 3rd Congressional District, I am calling on John Adler to remove this video and apologize for his outrageous comments," said Myers, himself a former Navy Lieutenant and decorated combat veteran of the Persian Gulf War.  "These radical liberal bloggers are in no way, shape or form ‘soldiers,' and referring to them in that way is an affront to the brave men and women in uniform fighting to defend our freedoms around the globe, the veterans who have done so in generations past, and their proud families."

Without even bothering to get into the fact that the progressive netroots do in fact encompass many actual soldiers (which should come as no surprise, since all you need to have is a computer and a modem -- there are lots of dentists, too, but Republicans don't get outraged about dentists, even "radical liberal dentists"), I think we can safely say that Myers' ridiculous tirade is about as stupid a thing as anyone could ever imagine a candidate attaching his name to.

Thank God for geniuses like Myers, who can finally save confused New Jerseyans from metaphors, analogies and all sorts of linguo-fascism! They hate us for our figurative language, you know!

Does anyone think Myers would ever be able to find us the critical mass of soldiers who demand this apology? Who need it more than, say, some body armor and a lift home for their buddies?

The "falling off a log" response to this idiocy (note to Myers: I'm not actually on a log) would be to name some of the prominent members of our community who've served. But that understates the mendacity of his comments and legitimizes them. Better for residents of New Jersey's third district to take a closer look at Myers' own rhetoric and remember that everything he says must be taken literally. Anyone care to scour his web site and see who's owed an apology next?

With the need for constant vigilance against comparisons of mass destruction, one wonders when Myers will find time to campaign. By which I mean campaign for office, not conduct a military campaign! My apologies to everyone who ever has conducted such a campaign, or watched one on the History Channel!

What a friggin' dork.

Movement for Obama in the Sunshine State: Barack Obama has caught up to John McCain in Florida. The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in the state finds Obama with a statistically insignificant one-point advantage over his rival, 46% to 45%. When “leaners” are included, the Democrat leads 49% to 47%.

Over the past six months, McCain has maintained leads ranging from seven to sixteen percentage points. Last month, McCain led 48% to 41% in the Sunshine State.

A big push for Obama this month in Florida comes from unaffiliated voters. Last month, he had just a three-point lead in this demographic. This month, he leads by twenty-three. That's quite a jump.

Keep in mind, Democratic registration has been surging in the Sunshine State. Just two weeks ago, the South Florida Sun-Sentinel reported on a "huge swing" to Democrats in voter registration:An escalating number of voters registering as Democrats is providing evidence that the 2008 election could produce a wave of support for Barack Obama — and trigger a decades-long shift of party allegiance that could affect elections for a generation.

The numbers are ominous for Republicans: Through May, Democratic voter registration in Broward County was up 6.7 percent. Republican registrations grew just 3 percent while independents rose 2.8 percent.

Democrats have posted even greater gains statewide, up 106,508 voters from January through May, compared with 16,686 for the Republicans.There are also a slew of competitive House races in Florida this year, which should also help bolster Democratic turnout. For years, there was an unwritten rule among the Florida delegation that the opposing party wouldn't challenge incumbents. Those days are over. By my count, there are eight GOP held seat that are very interesting in Florida. We'll spend more time on these races over the next couple weeks, but keep an eye on:

Florida 8: August 26 primary winner v. incumbent Republic Ric Keller;

Florida 9: Democrat John Dicks v. incumbent Republican Gus Bilirakis;

Florida 12: Democrat Doug Tudor v. incumbent Republican Adam Putnam; (Because Putnam chairs the GOP conference, he is the third ranking Republican in the House.)

Florida 13: Rematch between Democrat Christine Jennings and incumbent Republican Vern Buchanan;

Florida 18: Democrat Annette Taddeo v. incumbent Republican Ileana Ros-Lehtinen; (Everyone who reads AMERICAblog knows we love Annette.)

Florida 21: Democrat Raul Martinez v. incumbent Republican Lincoln Diaz-Balart;

Florida 24: Democrat Susan Kosmas v. incumbent Republican Tom Feeney;

Florida 25: Democrat Joe Garcia v. incumbent Republican Mario Diaz-Balart;

Following yesterday's monumental screw-up by John McCain, proving once again that he either doesn't understand or has forgotten key elements about this war, McCain's campaign has responded to questions about his claim that the surge made the "Anbar Awakening" possible:

Democrats can debate whether the awakening would have survived without the surge ... but that is nothing more than a transparent effort to minimize the role of our commanders and our troops in defeating the enemy, because to credit them would be to disparage the judgment of Barack Obama and praise the leadership of John McCain.

Wrong. That is not the debate. That's a cheap strawman by the McCain campaign, has no basis in reality, and has nothing to do with what John McCain said yesterday.  

Because of the surge we were able to go out and protect that sheik and others. And it began the Anbar awakening. I mean, that's just a matter of history.

Portraying questions about that statement as a cricicism of McCain and the troops is nearly as contemptible as McCain's recent claims that Obama "would rather lose a war than lose a campaign." The debate, the question, is, was John McCain unaware that the "Anbar Awakening" began in 2006, did he forget, or was he lying for political gain?

McCain's campaign has been complaining endlessly about the lack of media coverage they're receiving. Well, here's a chance for the media to give McCain what he's been asking for...and a chance for them to do their job.  

 

Via Politico, Columnist Bob Novak hit a pedestrian while driving to work today in his Corvette. He says he didn't know he hit anyone, didn't see anyone and drove away. A bicyclist saw it, followed him and stopped him. [More...]

The bicyclist was David Bono, a partner at Harkins Cunningham, who was on his usual bike commute to work at 1700 K St. N.W. when he witnessed the accident.

As he traveled east on K Street, crossing 18th, Bono said a "black Corvette convertible with top closed plowed into the guy. The guy is sort of splayed onto the windshield.”

Bono said that the pedestrian, who was crossing the street on a "Walk" signal and was in the crosswalk, rolled off the windshield and that Novak then made a right into the service lane of K Street. “The car is speeding away. What’s going through my mind is, you just can’t hit a pedestrian and drive away,” Bono said.

He said he chased Novak half a block down K Street., finally caught up with him and then put his bike in front of the car to block it and called 911. Traffic immediately backed up, horns blared and commuters finally went into reverse to allow Novak to pull over.

Six years ago today, Matthew Rycroft, private secretary to British Prime Minister Tony Blair, wrote a secret memorandum to the U.K.’s ambassador to the U.S., David Manning. The memo contained the minutes of a meeting held that same morning between Blair and a few senior foreign policy advisers. It was exposed by the Sunday Times nearly three years later. Two paragraphs stood out.

Rycroft spoke about a trip that Sir Richard Dearlove had recently taken to Washington. Dearlove, the head of the British Secret Intelligence Service or MI6, is referred to officially as "C":

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

And there was this:

The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.

Many people who were attentive to the White House’s public statements saw hints that a decision already had been made to invade Iraq well before that secret memo was sent to its select group of addressees. There was the 2002 State of Union in late January and the West Point graduation speech in June.

But concerns raised by these speeches were tempered somewhat by the idea that Congress wouldn’t go along, that public support was soft, that the media would yank on the reins, and that the British weren’t on board. This all spurred most observers to believe that an invasion might encounter too many obstacles to go forward. Unless, that is, some definitive evidence could be delivered showing that Saddam Hussein had massive quantities of weapons of mass destruction and was close to building nuclear bombs.

Providing such evidence was exactly what the neoconservative war hounds had been intent on doing, as we now know, ever since September 11 – using the terrible events of that day to achieve what former Secretary of the Treasury Paul O’Neill had told us in Ron Suskind’s The Price of Loyalty and former counter-terrorism advisor Richard Clarke had written in Against All Enemies. That is, they proposed from their very first National Security Council meeting in February 2001 to invade Iraq, eight months before al Qaeda’s attacks. Even after September 11, however, getting the public and Congress to go along, as the Downing Street memo stated  in the summer of 2002, required that the facts be "fixed around the policy." Fixed, as in exaggerated and concocted.

On May 1, 2005, Michael Smith at the Sunday Times revealed Rycroft’s memorandum. It was still April 30 in the U.S. when the news appeared, and a Diarist named smintheus picked up on it at Daily Kos, where he garnered comments from five Kossacks. The follow-up Diary the next morning drew more than 300 comments. By May 5, John Conyers, then the ranking Democratic Congressman on the Republican-controlled House Judiciary Committee, who had first read of the Downing Street memo at Daily Kos, sent a letter to the White House signed by 89 of his colleagues asking for answers.  

Soon, frustrated by the thin gruel of traditional media coverage, there was a blogswarm to Awaken the Media, formation of various Web sites, including After Downing Street, and the The Downing Street Memos, and a blogger grouping called the Big Brass Alliance.

For me and others who had for various reasons resisted calls for impeachment prior to 2005, the Downing Street Memo was a turning point. Here was the kind of evidence that we had hoped would someday come to light, evidence that - together with what Clarke and O’Neill had already provided, plus the Valerie Plame affair and the lack of WMDs in Iraq - directly called into question the administration’s claims that the decision to go to war was not made until February 2003. Here was strong evidence that the President had lied to Americans, broken his oath of office and violated national and international law. Not incontestable proof, but certainly grounds for inquiry.  

On June 16, 2005, spurred by the revelations in the secret memo, John Conyers held an unofficial hearing with 35 other Democrats, hearing testimony from, among others, former Ambassador Joe Wilson and former CIA analyst Ray McGovern. It was there that the prospect of a Resolution of Inquiry into impeachment was first raised.

That, of course, was 37 months ago. Much vitriolic talk about impeachment has gone down since then. But very little of it has taken place in the halls of Congress despite considerable new information. Additional memos, like the one David Manning wrote on January 31, 2003, have come to light. Plus, it was learned that a classified version of a National Intelligence Estimate stated that Saddam Hussein was not an imminent threat. Just before the congressional vote on the authorization to use force in Iraq in October 2002, the Bush Administration released a declassified version for public consumption which conveniently deleted NIE's no-imminent-threat assessment.

This Friday, thanks to a long-term grassroots effort as well as the unwillingness to yield by a handful of Congressional Democrats, most notably Dennis Kucinich, impeachment will be on the table at a hearing before the House Judiciary Committee. This could and should have started in 2007. Only time will tell whether "better late than never" applies.

You'd think these people would learn. Apparently not. Opvortex reports that this time they show a guy, who looks awfully gay - they even show a close-up of his ass wiggling back and forth - speed-walking (i.e., walking fast instead of jogging). Mr. T shows up with some kind of submachine gun and shoots the guy, with Snickers bars or something, yelling at him to act like a man and "get some nuts." Yeah, nothing gay implied about the guy looking like a big fag in short-short jogging shorts, wiggling his ass, and then yelling at him to "be a man" while shooting him.

So sick of these people.

Even Ad Age says the thing is anti-gay. You may remember two years ago when Snickers ran the horribly homophobic, and violent, ads during the Super Bowl. Apparently Snickers liked the publicity, or they wouldn't be doing this again. Really disgusting.

Remember when the mighty Republican party was accusing Democrats of being obstructionists for using the filibuster and other tools to block the Republican agenda, particularly the confirmation of extremist judges? It's entertaining to see Harry Reid using Republican rhetoric against the opposition party.

"But instead of allowing the will of the Congress and the American people to be heard, Republicans have obstructed one bill after another," Reid said in a statement.

"Senate Democrats are not willing to allow this obstruction ... any longer," he said. "Republicans will have a choice: Will they join the side of the American people, or continue to stand beside one or two colleagues intent on blocking progress?"

Reid has found a way to overcome objections of the chief Senate obstructionist, Tom Coburn, who has blocked scores of popular bills that deserve to be passed. [more ...]

Senate procedure allows individual senators to place "holds" on bills. The majority leader -- Reid -- does not have to recognize holds, but by custom they are usually honored. Sixty votes are needed to pass a bill over a senator's objection.

Coburn, a conservative from Muskogee who was an obstetrician, usually has 70 to 80 holds in place at any one time, aide Don Tatro said.

Reid has repackaged 35 bills into a single bill, saving the Senate the trouble of engaging in 35 separate debates and votes.

The bills submitted Tuesday included the Christopher and Dana Reeve Paralysis Act, which would award grants for paralysis research; the Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Registry Act, which would establish a national database for victims of Lou Gehrig's Disease; and the Vision Care for Kids Act, which would authorize $65 million over five years in grants for children's eye screening and treatment.

Also in the package are the Emmitt Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crimes Act, which would establish an unsolved crimes unit in the Justice Department's civil rights division; and the Drug Endangered Kids Act, which would extend a federal grant program for children exposed to drug abuse.

Other bills would pay for a War of 1812 Bicentennial Commission, authorize a study abroad program, provide state grants to promote the deployment of affordable broadband, and prohibit the commercial sale of monkeys and apes.

While some Republicans grumble about "destroying the traditions of the Senate," you have to wonder where they were when the Republican party was threatening to do away with the filibuster for judicial nominees. Anyway, there's no tradition against combining bills that were once separate. To the extent that the tactic results in less debate over each individual item in the omnibus package, that harm is offset by the opportunity to enact worthy legislation that would easily pass if not for Coburn's holds.

The alternative -- trying to reason with Coburn -- isn't realistic.

"For those of you who may not know this, you cannot negotiate with Coburn," Reid told reporters earlier this month. "It's something that you learn over the years, that it's a waste of time."

The Senate has wasted enough time over the years. By getting something done over the objections of a lone obstructionist, Reid is doing the right thing.

After months of trying to shame Obama into visiting Iraq, Obama is now on perhaps the most successful campaign week the entire campaign, and his trip was the hot media ticket. By contrast, the McCain press corps apparently numbers in the 20s.

Barack Obama has a newly chartered jumbo jet, loaded to the gills with reporters and network anchors accompanying him to the Middle East and Europe, while McCain's traveling press corps numbers only about 25, including camera crews. While CBS News anchor Katie Couric and ABC News anchor Charles Gibson are traveling with Obama, neither CBS News nor ABC News sent even a correspondent to cover McCain. (NBC News is covering both). And this is hardly unique to this week. Only the Times, The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal among big newspapers are consistently covering McCain. NEWSWEEK almost always has a reporter on the plane, but Time and U.S. News do not.

Hmmm, who is missing from that list? It couldn't be Fox News, since we're told that Obama has been "reaching out" to them to appeal to "the middle" people pretend watch the RNC's official propaganda mouthpiece. Not that they didn't try to get a ticket on the hottest political act of the summer. Crooks and Liars has the admission via Stephen Colbert. (Really.)

video of FOX & Friends]
DOOCY: Why are you not on Barack Obama’s airplane heading to the Middle East right now?
WALLACE: Well, I called the Obama campaign several weeks ago and said that I’d like to go and my invitation has apparently been lost in the mail.
[end video]

Well played, Obama campaign.

Meanwhile, McCain left another rambling message about how none of his family will visit. No wonder Wallace is steering clear.

Yesterday, John McCain wanted more Media attention. Today, Matt Yglesias notes Ben Smith's piece on John McCain cancelling his press availability:

[McCain] hasn't explained what he meant by juggling the timeline on the surge and Awakening . . . ; whether he meant that Obama was deliberately selling out the country; whether he shares his campaign's grievance with the press; or what he thinks of his staff's genocide-themed attack. And now he's canceled the avail.

I guess McCain did not want more Media attention after all.

By Big Tent Democrat

Watch this:



Jed does it again. Bravo.

Jed posted this video last night. So far, it's had over 25,000 views, which is very impressive for a nine-minute video. Jed also reports that the McCainiacs have been trying to bury it on Digg. So, he's trying again. Digg it.

In this video (in Spanish) O2B candidate Joe Garcia essentially accuses the right-wing Cuban-American Frank Calzon of the Center for Free Cuba of essentially pilfering tax-payer funds. Later in the show, Calzon throws a hissy fit and storms out (and you don't need to know Spanish to be entertained by this clip):

A subsequent federal audit found $500,000 missing from Calzon's operation, lost into the pocket of the corrupt South Florida Cuban-American mafia. Just like Garcia had charged. Now, after finding more such discrepancies, Congress has frozen all funding for these corrupt groups.

Congress has put the U.S. Agency for International Development's $45 million Cuba program's 2008 funding on hold, following a series of troubling audits and cases of massive fraud, The Miami Herald has learned.

In a quest to get the funding hold lifted, U.S. AID on Friday ordered a bottoms-up review of all its Cuba democracy programs and suspended a Miami anti-Castro exile group that spent at least $11,000 of federal grant money on personal items.

Rep. Howard Berman, D-Calif., ordered a hold on the U.S. AID Cuba program funding last month, in part in response to a $500,000 embezzlement at the Center for a Free Cuba in Washington disclosed earlier this year, federal officials said.

In a memo sent Friday to various members of Congress, Stephen Driesler, AID's deputy assistant administrator for legislative and public affairs, said the agency recently implemented stricter financial reviews. That new review turned up irregularities at the Grupo de Apoyo a la Democracia (Group in Support of Democracy), a Miami group criticized in the past for using federal funds to send Nintendo games to Cuba [...]

A report by the Cuban-American National Foundation released in May showed that less than 17 percent of $65 million in federal Cuba aid funds spent during the past 10 years went to ''direct, on-island assistance.'' The bulk of the money, the report said, went to academic studies and expenses of exile organizations, mostly in Miami and Washington.

The report echoed findings by The Miami Herald in 2006 and a congressional Government Accountability Office audit that found lax oversight of the programs and came as the Bush administration prepares to dole out a record $45.7 million in Cuba democracy grants.

This is essentially a big chunk of the payoff the corrupt Cuban exile community gets for having its three South Florida Cuban American representatives (and Democrat Debbie Wasserman-Schulz, too). $45.7 million doled out in patronage fashion to all the co-conspirators, and that's not even including the millions wasted on Radio Marti in similar fashion. Democracy in Cuba? Pshaw! There are fancy dinners to be bought! The high life to be lived.

As you can see in the videos above (even if you don't speak Spanish) is that Joe Garcia has been fighting for accountability for those who receive US tax dollars, and isn't one to let ideology override the interests of the taxpayers.

On the web:
Joe Garcia for Congress
Orange to Blue ActBlue Page

Fred Hiatt has been a silly person for a long time. But his latest contortions on Iraq are not interesting in its disingenuous but in what Hiatt will say in December 2008 or January 2009. Why do I say that? Because Hiatt writes:

[Obama] says his aim is to "succeed in leaving Iraq to a sovereign government that can take responsibility for its own future. "What if . . . Iraqi leaders are right that this goal is not consistent with a 16-month timetable? Will Iraq be written off because Mr. Obama does not consider it important enough -- or will the strategy be altered?

Leave aside Hiatt's contortions about what the Iraqi leaders said. What happens to Hiatt's rationale in January 2009, when there will be no Bush Administration (and hopefully, no McCain Administration) to force Maliki to halfheartedly soften his request that the United States leave Iraq? What then will happen to Hiatt's silly argument? One more Friedman Unit and Hiatt and his ilk will have to think up some other rationale for why the U. S. has to stay in Iraq.

By Big Tent Democrat, speak for me only

What exactly do you call it when a television news program asks a politician a question, and he gets the answer blatantly, egregiously, obviously wrong, but they cut the answer out and input another portion of the interview that makes the politician look better? Well, since they did it for John McCain, the idea that CBS is the "liberal media" must now be forever retired, as if it ever had any DrFrankLiveshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01045445948725325218noreply@blogger.com