coerced silence

As a Californian, I feel that it is essential that, from time to time, I address issues that revolve around state politics.

A few weeks ago, news came to light that Gov. Schwartzenegger (who, coincidentally, I did NOT vote for) was being paid "an estimated $8 million over five years to 'further the business objectives' of a national publisher of health and bodybuilding magazines."

During this time, the governor vetoed legislation that would have been detrimental to the financial well-being of the publishers he had contracted with. Regardless of Schwarzenegger's personal wealth or historic relationship with the company, this was a clear conflict of interest.

Like the skilled politician that the governator sometimes shows himself to be, shortly after the issue was raised, he severed financial ties with the company.

At the time, I was impressed with his political astuteness. Unlike the current president, here was a man who new when to cut his losses.

However, it looks like this story continues to have legs. According to an article in today's L.A. Times:

SACRAMENTO — Days after Arnold Schwarzenegger jumped into the race for governor and girded for questions about his past, a tabloid publisher wooing him for a business deal promised to pay a woman $20,000 to sign a confidentiality agreement about an alleged affair with the candidate.

Of course, said "tabloid publisher" is American Media Inc., the same company that Schwartzenegger had his multi-million dollar contract with. I don't know about you, but, to me, this seems especially fishy.

I rarely make predictions, but, right now, I predict that Schwartzenegger will never be elected to public office again.

a true american hero

You are probably already aware of Cindy Sheehan, the grief-stricken mother who's camped out in front of Bush's Crawford ranch. If not, here's a catch-up article from CNN.

Of course, the right-wing attack dogs have already struck, spreading mud and misinformation about her, but luckily, trustworthy David Brock at Media Matters has catalogued both the impotent smear campaign and the dishonest attempt to deny it.

Wingnut Michelle Malkin actually had the gall to suggest that she "can't imagine Army Spc. Casey Sheehan would stand for his mother's crazy accusations." Yeah, she probably understands what a man she has never met would stand for better than his mother would. Talk about dishonestly using someone's grief to score cheap political points.

Regardless, the good thing about Sheehan is that although her critics can criticize her intentions or the intentions of those who support her, it's her words of honesty and wisdom that cut to the heart of the issue.

It’s ironic, given the attacks leveled at me recently, how some in the media are so quick to scrutinize -- and distort -- the words and actions of a grieving mother but not the words and actions of the president of the United States. . .

There is too much at stake to worry about our own egos. When my son was killed, I had to face the fact that I was somehow also responsible for what happened. Every American that allows this to continue has, to some extent, blood on their hands. Some of us have a little bit, and some of us are soaked in it.

People have asked what it is I want to say to President Bush. Well, my message is a simple one. He’s said that my son -- and the other children we’ve lost -- died for a noble cause. I want to find out what that noble cause is. And I want to ask him: “If it’s such a noble cause, have you asked your daughters to enlist? Have you encouraged them to go take the place of soldiers who are on their third tour of duty?” I also want him to stop using my son’s name to justify the war. The idea that we have to “complete the mission” in Iraq to honor Casey’s sacrifice is, to me, a sacrilege to my son’s name. Besides, does the president any longer even know what “the mission” really is over there?

When I read about her, I was impressed with her courage and her willingness to speak out. When I saw her on "Countdown with Keith Olbermann" last night, I was blown away by the calm, logical, and factual manner in which she presented her case.

Honestly, I can't imagine the anti-war movement getting a better spokesperson.

cheney in '08?

From Bob Woodward's lips to God's ears. Please let it be so. Frankly, I think that this is a candidate that even John Kerry could beat.

sweet neo-con

So, the Stones have written a song commenting on their displeasure with regard to recent American policy decisions. According to Mick Jagger:

It’s not aimed, personally aimed, at President Bush. It wouldn’t be called ’Sweet Neo Con’ if it was.

Very clever statement indeed. I wonder what he means by that.

In the song, Jagger sings some timely and pointed lines like:

It’s liberty for all, democracy’s our style,

Unless you are against us, then it’s prison without trial.

Although this is clearly a p.r. marketing move being made by a band who has had a good deal of trouble getting people to buy or even pay attention to their new material, it is also pretty incredible that the political atmosphere has changed so much since the Dixie Chicks were castigated for speaking out against the administration.

The bad news is that early reports are that, although the song was written for "A Bigger Bang," the new album due out on Sept. 6, it has not been included on advanced copies of the album. We'll see if they have the stones to release it.

reality bites

Generally speaking, I am not a huge fan of Maureen Dowd. Although we are probably ideologically pretty similar, it seems to me that her writing often reads like a gossip column. Nonetheless, she has spent a good deal of time investigating, researching, and reporting on the Bush family dynasty.

In this recent column, she gets to what I perceive to be the character flaw that is most apt to undermine this presidency.

It's hard to think of another president who lived in such meta-insulation. His rigidly controlled environment allows no chance encounters with anyone who disagrees. He never has to defend himself to anyone, and that is cognitively injurious. He's a populist who never meets people - an ordinary guy who clears brush, and brush is the only thing he talks to. . . .

It's getting harder for the president to hide from the human consequences of his actions and to control human sentiment about the war by pulling a curtain over the 1,835 troops killed in Iraq; the more than 13,000 wounded, many shorn of limbs; and the number of slain Iraqi civilians - perhaps 25,000, or perhaps double or triple that. More people with impeccable credentials are coming forward to serve as a countervailing moral authority to challenge Mr. Bush.

9/11 anniversary hoedown

Although it may seem like it, I promise that this press release did not come from a Daily Show sketch. From the New York Daily news:

WASHINGTON - The Pentagon will hold a massive march and country music concert to mark the fourth anniversary of 9/11, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said in an unusual announcement tucked into an Iraq war briefing yesterday.

"This year the Department of Defense will initiate an America Supports You Freedom Walk," Rumsfeld said, adding that the march would remind people of "the sacrifices of this generation and of each previous generation."

The march will start at the Pentagon, where nearly 200 people died on 9/11, and end at the National Mall with a show by country star Clint Black.

Call me a prude, but I think that this is purtty tasteless.

iran's quest for nukes

I wonder why Iran would be interested in resuming its nuclear program. Is it possible that they're concerned about the increasingly predictable chaos just over their border? I think that it would be difficult for anyone to argue that the Iraq war has been particularly helpful in this regard.

Regardless of the reasons though, this is a particularly depressing sign considering the work that Britain, France, and Germany have been putting towards improving relations and cooperation with the Iranian government.

In an AP story, Deb Reichman portrays Bush, in responding to the news, as appearing "to take a softer approach" with regard to Iran than he has in the past. Considering his total lack of cooperation with regards to the multilateral meetings in Europe, I would call that a major understatement. Furthermore, looking at the seeming overextension of so much of the current U.S. military, something tells me that the President won't be making the same bold proclamations that he may have made three years ago.

Anyway, from the article:

Over the weekend, Iran rejected a package of economic, political and technological incentives offered by Britain, France and Germany. The incentives were extended in return for assurances that Tehran would not pursue nuclear weapons. Iranian officials said the package was rejected mainly because it did not recognize Iran's right to enrich uranium, which can be used for producing both nuclear energy and nuclear weapons.

fare thee well

R.I.P

Jerry Garcia

Aug. 9, 1995

libby's leak

According to Murray Waas at the American Prospect, Judith Miller met with I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, the chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, six days before Novak's original column exposing Valerie Plame as a CIA operative went to print. This lends credence to the notion that he was at least one of the sources in the leak case, something that was initially vehemently denied by White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan. Of course, McClellan is the same man who claimed that any rumor that Karl Rove was involved in the leak was "ridiculous" (I guess "ridiculous" does not necessarily mean "untrue.")

The new disclosure that Miller and Libby met on July 8, 2003, raises questions regarding claims by President Bush that he and everyone in his administration have done everything possible to assist Fitzgerald's grand-jury probe. Sources close to the investigation, and private attorneys representing clients embroiled in the federal probe, said that Libby's failure to produce a personal waiver may have played a significant role in Miller’s decision not to testify about her conversations with Libby, including the one on July 8, 2003.

While many may ask what in the world Miller is doing protecting Libby, I wonder how Libby, in good conscience, can continue to allow this reporter to remain in prison.

Other reporters have testified to the grand jury about meetings with Libby, but Miller has refused, insisting that the generalized waiver signed by all employees of the White House was coercive. Even at this point, presumably, if Libby produced a personalized waiver, Miller could testify and, thus, leave prison.

I guess the greater question is: Where is President Bush in all of this? How come he can't call in some of his closest and most trusted staff members, ask them what the deal is, and clear this whole situation up? If the administration really wanted to get to the bottom of this, the whole situation would have been taken care of two years ago.

Of course, the 2004 election probably would have been a whole lot different if the closest advisors of the President and Vice President were sitting in prison.

carville speaks

Over at TPM cafe, Josh Micah Marshall interviewed James Carville to try to get the inside scoop on the Novak breakdown. Turns out, Carville is as much in the dark about what happened and why as anyone is.

In general, Carville seemed to have the same reaction when I talked to him -- a mix of genuinely not knowing what to make of the whole thing, mixed with bemusement and maybe some latent hints of laughter -- that he does on the tape as Henry gamely tries to continue the interview as though nothing had happened.