Forbes.com has its list of the “The 25 Most Influential Liberals In The U.S. Media“. Here’s some of the people on the list: Maureen Dowd, Tom Friedman, Chris Hitchens, Andrew Sullivan, Fareed Zakaria, Fred Hiatt.
I don’t want to live anymore.
DougJ has been a Balloon Juice writer since 2009.
by DougJ| 112 Comments
This post is in: Assholes
Forbes.com has its list of the “The 25 Most Influential Liberals In The U.S. Media“. Here’s some of the people on the list: Maureen Dowd, Tom Friedman, Chris Hitchens, Andrew Sullivan, Fareed Zakaria, Fred Hiatt.
I don’t want to live anymore.
by DougJ| 68 Comments
This post is in: Politics, Blogospheric Navel-Gazing
My homies over at The Albany Project have done a great job covering the Caroline Kennedy mess today. Here’s a very interesting tidbit:
Apparently, the Governor had chosen his pick to replace Hillary Clinton on Sunday and decided to hold onto that information until after the inauguration in hopes of not taking any attention away from that event.
I have no idea if that might have affected her decision to drop out. Apparently, there was also a potential Nannygate scandal. Paterson will make his choice tomorrow at noon.
Another interesting tidbit I discovered from listening to Andrea Mitchell of all people: the reason Andrew Cuomo isn’t in the mix is that if he goes, then Paterson’s arch-enemy Shelly Silver gets to pick the new Attorney General (actually, this is obvious but I hadn’t thought of it).
Update: Ben Smith, who knows his NYS politics as well as anyone says:
The leaks that she had, allegedly, tax and nanny problems, reportedly came from Paterson’s camp.
And because people are all talking about this (if my inbox is any indication), the rumor is that it will be upstate NYS Congresswoman Kirsten Gillibrand.
Update update: It’s probably Gillibrand.
Update update update: It’s Gillibrand. Got this from a good reporter.
by DougJ| 56 Comments
This post is in: Assholes
The Times has a piece about the fine whines the loyal Bushies are now enjoying as they leave Washington:
Mark McKinnon, the political consultant who helped elect Mr. Bush twice and was on the plane Tuesday, described the mood as one more of equanimity than resentment. In an essay on The Daily Beast, the new web magazine started by Tina Brown, Mr. McKinnon said there were good wishes for the new president and “an absence of malice one normally sees among the constituencies of the vanquished.” But he also said there were “some critical reviews of the speech, complaints about taking unnecessary shots and grousing about borrowed ideas.”
Mr. Obama never directly mentioned Mr. Bush’s name after the ritual thank you at the beginning of his Inaugural Address but the context of some of his remarks was lost on no one. He criticized “our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age.” He promised to “restore science to its rightful place.” He rejected “as false the choice between our safety and our ideals.” He assured the rest of the world “that we are ready to lead once more.”
Some writers, including David E. Sanger of The New York Times , concluded that it was the first time since Franklin D. Roosevelt took over from Herbert Hoover in 1933, that an incoming president used his Inaugural Address to so evidently repudiate his predecessor as he headed for the door.
If the shoe fits…
I got a kick out of this too:
The passengers were shown a 22-minute film produced by Scott Sforza and edited by Laura Crawford celebrating the Bush presidency.
Twenty-two minutes? Even his supporters could only squeeze 22 minutes of celebratory material out of an 8 year presidency.
by DougJ| 108 Comments
This post is in: Assholes
Another day, another online chat with a Washington Post reporter who opposes investigations of the Bush administration:
New York, N.Y.: Hi, Lois. I’m hoping you’ll take this question, even though it’s a bit stinging. I’m trying to get my head around the fact that the D.C. establishment (and certain of your colleagues’) conventional wisdom is that it would be a bad idea to prosecute members of the Bush administration for authorizing torture. But I’ve also read that under the terms of international agreements that we are signatories to, that the Obama administration has an obligation to investigate the Bush/Cheney alleged crimes? So how does the law jibe with D.C.-establishment’s commonly held viewpoint that investigations would be counter-productive?
Lois Romano: I’m sure they are looking into the law and reviewing options and responsibilities– and there may be a time to focus on the issue you raise. But I think right now, President Obama wants to follow the concerns of most americans–which are the economy and health care. Starting a partisan fight- even if it is legal- would be a major distraction for him and likely not sit well with millions of americans who are out of work and losing their homes.
And here was conventional wisdom about the multi-year, multi-million-dollar Starr investigation of the blowing of the president:
Similarly, independent counsel Ken Starr is not seen by many Washington insiders as an out-of-control prudish crusader. Starr is a Washington insider, too. He has lived and worked here for years. He had a reputation as a fair and honest judge.
[….]
Many say the impeachment inquiry should go forth in some fashion, if only to clarify and explain the offenses and to let the system work. The system is important here.
[….]
“He shouldn’t get by with it,” says Baker. “The question is, what can the Senate do short of removal?”
It’s good that they have their priorities in order.
Millions for blowjobs but not one cent for torturePost + Comments (108)
by DougJ| 19 Comments
This post is in: Assholes
I don’t know if this means he’s essentially conceding, but now he’s working for the same outfit that put together an infamous push poll message-testing poll last fall.
Washington, D.C. (January 22, 2009) — Republican Jewish Coalition Executive Director Matt Brooks announced today that Senator Norm Colelman (MN) has agreed to join the RJC as a consultant and strategic advisor. In this capacity, Coleman will help the RJC as it plans for the future and looks at ways to continue its historic record of growth and success. Coleman will also provide strategic guidance on important policy matters affecting the organization and the Jewish community. In addition, Coleman, a tremendously popular speaker, will travel around the country on behalf of the RJC, speaking in Jewish communities across the country on the state of current affairs. Finally, Coleman will also help the RJC recruit and expand its national leadership base. Coleman will not engage in any lobbying on behalf of the organization.
RJC Executive Director Matt Brooks said, “We are thrilled and honored to have Norm Coleman join us at the RJC at this critical time. We look forward to having the benefit of his experience and wise counsel to help the RJC plot its future course. We are confident that in a few months Senator Coleman will return to his seat in the Senate, but until that time, we are eager for him to travel across the country on our behalf and to be an important voice within the organization.”
No link yet, this is a press release.
Update: Ben Smith has more.
by DougJ| 20 Comments
This post is in: Politics
Lots of wacky high-jinks with Caroline Kennedy last night. I think it’s fair to say that her withdrawl from the race was badly bungled by her and her team:
The Paterson administration scrambled to respond to the news, providing contradictory answers to reporters’ questions. Just before 7 p.m. Wednesday, Errol Cockfield, Mr. Paterson’s press secretary, said the governor had dismissed reports that Ms. Kennedy was withdrawing as “just the rumor of the day.”
More than an hour later, Mr. Cockfield asked that that statement not be published, and suggested that more information would be provided by the governor’s office. But neither he nor the governor’s communications director, Risa B. Heller, would respond to further questions about Ms. Kennedy.
And this AP News alert sums up the confusion quite well:
Source: Caroline Kennedy remains in contest to fill Hillary Clinton’s NY Senate seat. (Corrects APNewsAlert with source saying Kennedy had withdrawn.)
It goes without saying that this is why it doesn’t make sense to have a completely untested candidate take over a Senate Seat. When rookie candidates make asses out of themselves on a smaller stage — say a House or State Assembly race — it ain’t no thang. But screwing with this much fanfare isn’t good news for anyone….except Rudy Giuliani, of course.
Update: Just to clarify, she is out now, per the first article I linked to. As demi notes:
This is, of course, great news for the Republican leadership in the New York State Senate, since Democratic women who are so scorned will never support to party again. (See, Clinton, Hillary.)
Given that New York is a center-right state and that Democrats will have a trouble capturing the Jewish vote now that they’ve put an Israel-hating Muslim in the White House, this pretty much guarantees a Rudy Guiliani cakewalk into the Senate.
by DougJ| 167 Comments
This post is in: Republican Crime Syndicate - aka the Bush Admin.
There’s a pretty remarkable chat with Ruth Marcus up on WaPo today. Marcus came out strongly against prosecuting Bush for torture so a reader asked about investigations:
pursuing criminal prosecutions: But many of us do not want criminal prosecutions which would be almost impossible to achieve since most of the evidence (e-mails, et al) has been “lost.” We simply want the facts about torture, illegal spying, habeas, etc. made public so the next time a President seeks to break the law, he will think twice.
Ruth Marcus: That’s a different question. I’m more agnostic on investigation in a non criminal sense. What I’d like to know is, What needs investigating that has not already been investigated? What information that could reasonably be made public has not already emerged? But do you really think the prospect of investigation would have deterred Bush? Didn’t seem so.
This is insane, in my opinion. Don’t investigate because it wouldn’t have deterred Bush anyway.
I liked this question too:
Re: investigations: You write “People can reasonably disagree about the importance of pursuing investigations without amping up the hyperbole this way.”
I agree completely. Why people would get so mad about something like torture is beyond me. I mean, it’s not like Bush had an affair with an intern or anything, right?
Ruth Marcus: I’m going to keep trying here. It’s possible to find torture abhorrent, as I do, without thinking that there is much to gain, and a signficant amount to lose, by pursuing criminal prosecutions.
Update: I may as well add that I have no idea how feasible it is to prosecute anyone for torture. But I just can’t see how anyone could think it shouldn’t at least be investigated. I may as well also add that I asked the second question up there and I am shamelessly pimping my own question here. Sorry.
Also, don’t forget the real reason Obama shouldn’t investigate: this is still a right-center country and right-center people love torture.