Bullshit and Shame

In a front page story, the New York Daily News does Karl Rove's work and lies about Senator John Edwards. I don't have the time to do a full Somerby, but the point is that Gwen Ifill raised the fact, not Edwards, and Cheney himself "invaded the privacy" of his own family months before the V.P. debate.

The Republicans see it differently. After all, John Edwards raised it unilaterally in the vice presidential debate, much to the irritation of the veep, who thanked Edwards for his remarks but was, in fact, ripped about them.

"People understand the invasion of privacy of a family," a top Bush campaign adviser said. "They are going to pay a price for this."

There's little argument that the gambit of making Mary Cheney's lifestyle a high-visibility issue is what the adviser calls "obviously highly calculated."

"Some cutesy person over there like [Kerry senior strategist Robert] Shrum must have got the stupid idea that they can undercut our base because Cheney has a gay daughter," the adviser said.

The theory is that homophobes in Bush's base may recoil after learning the veep they adore has a homosexual daughter.

There's little argument? There's zero evidence!

And if the chinless top Bush adviser is pointing the finger at a specific individual, Robert Shrum, the paper shouldn't give him or her anonymity.

Thomas Defrank, Celeste Katz, Kenneth Bazinet and Maggie Haberman: You're all whores.

Who's Looking To Destroy You?

While it's fun to make fun of O'Reilly's purported use of sex toys (if he sues to keep Mackris from disposing of the tapes, can she subpoena the vibe?) and lame "seduction" rap, it should be remembered that the allegations against him describe a mysogynistic thug:

Mackris alleged in the suit that when she told O'Reilly in April that he had engaged in similar conduct with other staffers and should be careful, he replied: "If any woman ever breathed a word I'll make her pay so dearly that she'll wish she'd never been born. . . . It'd be her word against mine and who are they going to believe? Me or some unstable woman making outrageous accusations. They'd see her as some psycho, someone unstable."

That doesn't mean he shouldn't be subjected to ridicule, just that he should be subject to both ridicule and condemnation and legal sanctions if the threat allegations prove true.

As they say: Let's go to the tape.

Mackris, an associate producer on Fox News Channel's top-rated "The O'Reilly Factor," said he advised her to use a vibrator, told her about sexual fantasies involving her and engaged in unwanted phone sex.

During an appearance to promote his children's book on "Live with Regis and Kelly," O'Reilly said he'd been repeatedly threatened with lawsuits and bodily harm over the past few years. He said he knew that by filing his lawsuit, he could perhaps ruin his career.

"If I have to go down, I'm willing to do it," he said.

Gee, Bill, you're more progressive than I thought.

The name of the book? My Pet Pussy.

(link)

Anti-Social Engineering

A hairless hack writes:

I support the idea of experimenting with gay marriage, but surely it's possible to be a non-bigot and be reluctant to immediately tinker with such a venerable social institution (even if modern monogamous marriage is itself a tinkering with the much longer-standing human tradition of polygyny). Once you admit this possibility of non-bigoted reluctance, then Kerry's move looks less like hypocrisy-puncturing and more like a straight appeal to homophobia. As such, it does no credit to Kerry.

A gay marriage experiment? That's mighty white of you, Mick.

How exactly would this experiment work? Let gay men and lesbians marry, but reserve the right to repeal the law in five years if things don't work out to Kaus's satisfaction? Attach recievers to the spouses' ears and have Heritage Foundation-trained behavorial psychologists monitor their behavior? Separate but equal wedding registries at Crate & Barrel, to be integrated with all deliberate speed?

In trying to make Senator Kerry look bad, Kaus reveals his own intolerance.

"Cheap And Tawdry Political Trick"

Was Lynne Cheney describing her own comments last night, or what she sees when she looks on the mirror?

You decide.

By the way, here's a cheap and tawdry political trick by Alan Simpson (R-WY):

CALLER: During the debate, Ms. Ifill posed a question about gay marriage to Vice President Cheney. He gave a standard campaign response, and then afterward, Mr. Edwards gave a good response about how the constitutional amendment against gay marriage isn't needed. But then when offered a rebuttal, Vice President Cheney just basically said, "Thank you for saying nice things about my family."

KING: Right.

CALLER: Isn't that basically saying that the Kerry-Edwards position is the right position?

KING: Well, David, that's an area where the vice president disagrees with the president, isn't it?
...

KING: Alan?

SIMPSON: I thought that was the most authentic thing on both of them. Because Kerry [sic] looked down and Mary was there, with Heather, her companion, a wonderful woman, Heather Poe. I know her. I've known Mary since she was eight. He looked down when he said that. He was very real. And Dick Cheney's response was very real. That was a very powerful moment on an issue which is so sensitive that none will ever know unless we have loved ones who are gay or lesbian in our family.

Alan Simpson is not a good man.

Cheney's priorities are clear: Bush first, family: not a priority.

Good News

They finally got the straightjacket on Cal Thomas.

Breaking News: New York Times Hires Matt Drudge

From today's op-ed page:

A name that keeps coming up in my poking around is Marc Rich, the American billionaire who was for many years a fugitive, until blessed with one of Bill Clinton's midnight pardons. Rich's company Trafigura, spun off from the Swiss-based Glencore, and its possible dealings with outfits like Jean-Paul Cayre's Ibex have excited the interest of many of the sleuths I've spoken to.

Possible dealings? Excited dicks? Did'ja get that over the transom, Safliar?

What are the odds those private dicks are lower on the ethics food chain than David Bossie, Chris Ruddy and Rex Armistead?

Threepeat!

Pre-Debate Poll

For the fourth time in three weeks, I won't be liveblogging the debate.

Although I considered it, I had to ask myself, "when such connsumate pros as Katherine Q. Seelye, Bob Novak and VH1's Jessi Klein have blogged the debates, how much can I really add to their collective wisdom." That, and I won't be near a computer.

Instead, here's a pre-debate poll for readers:

In the weeks between now and the November 2 election, who will create the biggest problems for the Republican Party and its presidential candidate? (Originally, the question was "cause embarassment," but who am I kidding?)

A. Nathan Sproul

B. The Sinclair Broadcasting Group

C. Prime Minister Ayad Allawi

D. Spunk Bill Sponge Mitts O'Reilly

Write-in votes are allowed, including, just to select a name entirely at random, William Safire. You can't vote for George Bush, he has to keep his losing streak intact.

Results of this poll are highly scientific, and beyond criticism.

Recyclables

In an effort to increase what is generously called "content" at this site, I am recycling a comment I made at Eschaton concerning the statement by Sinclair Broadcasting spokeswhore Mark Hyman, who said that networks which did not conduct and air interviews of anti-Kerry former P.O.W.s "are acting like Holocaust deniers and pretending these people don't exist." My retort profound?

So has Sinclair (as opposed to the network(s) affiliated with its stations) ever broadcast a documentary featuring interviews with Holocaust survivors?

Has it ever ordered all of its stations to preempt regular programming to broadcast a documentary with interviews of Holocaust survivors?

If not, according to their own standards, Sinclair and Hyman are Holocaust deniers.

And can we call [Sinclair President and CEO] David Smith a low-cost ho survivor?

Coming soon: The Best of Roger's College Term Papers.

Kauspiles

Midget Mickey Kaus wakes up at 3:00 a.m. to see a man about a horse, and drops this steaming insight:

A surprising number of Democrats I meet don't like John Edwards. ... 3:07 A.M.

Scintillating.

Given that the Democrats Kaus meets are the Susan Estrich/Zell Miller faux variety, this revelation is even more meaningless than it would be if Kaus talked to real Dems.

An unsurprising number of Democrats I meet think Kaus is a Republican hack.

Reeve's Tale

Here's a link to an edited version of a recent BBC World Service interview with Christopher Reeve that I heard broadcast about a month ago. Reeve talks about his recent setbacks, stem cell research and how Bush set back progress on that research "by years, if not decades" (at approx 5:00).

Sherwood Be Nice To Have Some Credibility

In addition to penning a love letter to the Father of Lies, Reverend Moon (a tome put out by the disreputable Regnery) Carleton Sherwood has other possible skeltons in his career closet. In the Washington Post,
Frank Aherns and Howie Kurtz (of all people) recall Sherwood's dicey career:

Sherwood, the filmmaker, is also no stranger to controversy. He once worked for Washington's Channel 9, which in 1984 apologized for his four-part series questioning the finances of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund and donated $50,000 to the fund. Sherwood has said he felt vilified by Kerry's antiwar comments and believes the candidate branded all Vietnam veterans as "war criminals."

Now why would a television station apologize and donate money to the target of a Sherwood investigation? Fifty K in 1980 dollars isn't Brent "Smackdown" Bozell money ($3.5 M to the WWE), but it's not chump change either. I hope the misdeeds didn't include placing veterans in a false light.

Chronologically, from local television to Moonie rag to Regnery sounds like a downward career spiral.

(Moon link courtesy mw.)

Roger's Trivia Challenge

Who is George de Paris, and why won't you read about him in the so-called liberal media?

(No Googling.)

Featured article at The New Republic Online:

WHY JIMMY FALLON ISN'T FUNNY

They might as well bring Easterbrook back.

Luntz Plays Howie

And then there's this. Howie writes:

[Frank Luntz] said last week he had forgotten that he worked for California gubernatorial candidate Bill Simon in 2002 and for the effort to recall Democratic Gov. Gray Davis last year.

Asked how this squared with his MSNBC role, Luntz said he was working only for the network during the 2000 and 2004 campaigns.

This is misleading at best. Luntz had his own program, America's Voices, on MSGOP, which began airing weeks before the October 7, 2003 California recall election. Luntz was working for MSGOP during a 2003 campaign -- the recall election campaign.

Even more significantly, NBC and MSNBC had Luntz commenting on and performing work regarding the recall election both before the election and on the night of the recall. Here's a September 2, 2003 "Hardball Briefing" which appears to be a legit copy of the MSNBC program's e-mail newsletter:

And Later...Luntz is gonna do a live focus group of Burbank voters and he and Chris will ask them what the think of The Recall, Arnold and the rest of the field...We'll also throw in comedian Ben Stein to get his take...Last time he was on he was totally slamming Arnold...

(See also here, here and here.)

I can't tell whether the network or Luntz disclosed his employment by the G.O.P. recall effort during any these programs. If anyone can find transcripts, let me know.

But Luntz's statement to Howie clearly avoids the fact that MSGOP was using Luntz to report on the G.O.P.-backed California recall effort that he supported and worked for.

Fool Howie twice, shame on the Washington Post...

Howie the Putz is in full G.O.P. apologist/damage control mode today. First, he bends over forward to excuse the bias of Fox News and Carl Cameron:

Angry Fox executives made no attempt to defend their chief political correspondent, with a spokesman saying he has been reprimanded for his "stupid mistake." The New York Daily News says Cameron should be put in the "hoaxer hall of shame."

No one is defending Cameron's poor judgment, but his satire wasn't intended for public consumption. He had sent it to a producer, and someone at FoxNews.com mistakenly posted it as a story. If every journalist who privately ridiculed a candidate had those remarks broadcast, there would be plenty of red faces in America's newsrooms.

Where's the proof of executive anger, Putzie? Where's the reprimand? Cameron is still working on the election. He hasn't suffered any penalty. Of course Fox will say it was a mistake for Cameron to inadvertently disclose his bias, plausible deniability is their motto.

You, Putz, are defending Cameron's judgment ("everybody does it") -- AND Fox's bias.

Even more grovelling is the Putz's treatment of Frank Luntz. Luntz lies to Howie's face, and Howie thanks him. (Assuming Howie didn't know it was a lie, that is.)

Luntz, who once helped Newt Gingrich sell the "Contract With America," initially told The Washington Post he had taken on no Republican clients since 2001. He said last week he had forgotten that he worked for California gubernatorial candidate Bill Simon in 2002 and for the effort to recall Democratic Gov. Gray Davis last year.

That's mighty fine reporting you do there, Howie. Luntz forgot his G.O.P. work last year like you forgot to investigate his lie, and ran it in the Post like it was the truth. Why didn't you ask Luntz how much those gigs paid -- and how likely it was he'd forget those amounts of money?

And, given your own family ties to the California recall, Howie, how likely is it you didn't know about Luntz's GOP work in 2003?

I guess you were too busy lining up your wingnut pals for spots on Reliable Sources to do the work of a real reporter.

Atrios lays some much needed wood on Okrent Wimpy, the readers' representative who never met a reader he liked.

Someone who appears to be the real Steve Schwenk responds to Okrent here, with intelligence and courage:

When I wrote that e-mail to Mr. Nagourney, I was complaining about his sloppy reporting. And I was pointing out that it was because of such sloppy reporting (as the NYT has admitted in its mea culpa in May) that 1000 US tropps died in a war that likely never should have happened.

Now I know it is impossible to tell that from Okrent's piece. He has portrayed me falsely. He clipped the most inflammatory statement in the exchange, and falsely portrayed me in the worst light possible.

And not only that, Mr. Okrent called me a "coward." He printed that, not in an e-mail he sent just to me, but in the New York Times. And he refused to allow me even one word in my own defense. My private e-mail went to one person. The Nagourney-Okrent smear of my name went out to millions of people.

I admit that my choice of words was wrong; it was a mistake, I was angry, but my point was not malicious. I was angry at 1000+ dead in a war that never should have happened, and likely never would have happened, had the Times and other media done their job.

But I caused Mr. Nagourney no harm in sending him that e-mail, or the several others we exchanged, and I never intended to cause him harm. It was a private e-mail. But by falsely portraying me the way they have, and by calling me a coward, in the New York Times no less, Nagourney and Okrent have most definitely caused me harm. And the real crime is that that was clearly their intention.Steve Schwenk

So that's why they call Jokrent a public editor, he edits the public's e-mails beyond recognition.