Candor, Please

Speaking of LIES...(Courtesy of Think Progress).

=========================
Someone needs to tell the White House - just repeating the same talking point doesn’t make it true.

Scott McClellan this morning, spinning on Air Force One:

"What has happened in this Senate is unprecedented. There has not been a situation like this, where members of one party have blocked nominees from even receiving an up or down vote on the floor."

The truth, courtesy of People for the American Way:

[M]ore than 50 Clinton nominees were not even granted a hearing by the GOP-led Judiciary Committee. Six more who had hearings were not given the courtesy of a committee vote. In fact, 35 percent of Clinton’s appeals court nominees were blocked without a vote while the GOP controlled the Senate from 1995 to 2000.
=================

Say it with me: Scott McClellan is LYING.
Not misleading, not misinforming...
LYING.

That's ok--continue to say Bush deliberatley misled the public. Everyone knows what it means. Then extend this to everything else Bush has deliberately misled us about.

One mistake I think Kerry made was to not stress the fact that Bush's whole campaign was based upon lying about his positions and record during the campaign, and then extend that to Bush lying about policy matters. There were just too many lies to try to fight each individually--it was necessary to get out the message that the entire campaign was based upon lies.

I suspect that Kerry was too much a gentleman to say this. Maybe having euphamisms such as deliberately misled in common use will make it easier for Democrats to speak up every time we are deliberately misled by Republicans.

http://www,guardian.co.uk

See lead story - British election is next week - find out how Tony Blair "misled" Parliament

Here we have the "Pants on Fire' mobile, that has travelled the country trying to help folks see ..

Ron Chusid

Kerry said it when he thought his mike was off ..

lying, crooked .. scary

That nails it.

Oncall:

I understand your point, but everyone also knows what "lying" means too. Further, I would be happy to tie it to his phoney baloney religiousity when they break the "thou shalt not lie" commandment with every other word that comes out of their lying mouths.

And I understand that saying "deliberately misled"may be easier for democrats to get through their teeth, but I think that is a misleading phrase and doesn't get to the heart of the matter, which isn't necessarily that they LIE, but that THEY BELIEVE THAT ARE RIGHT TO AND HAVE A RIGHT TO LIE TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC, which may be infinitly more serious than the lies.

To continue using the phrase "deliberatly misled" just keeps us another step away from getting to this truth.

Just IMHO.

Posted by: victoriaellen at April 28, 2005 09:25 AM

Think Progress beat me to the punch on that one. I was ready to post that as a thread yesterday but was busy LIVE BLOGGING the Gore speech, which I am still re-reading and thinking over today. There was much there to think about, and I am glad to see he has carved out an interesting and compelling political niche for himself.

I think both LIE and DELIBERATELY MISLED have their place in the verbal lexicon...

Personally, I tend to think something is either the truth or not the truth.

I'm hard pressed to think of the circumstances that would create an accidental lie.

So for me, it kind of breaks down to the truth, or a lie.

Scott McClellan knows perfectly well how many of Clinton's judicial nominees were blocked by the then Republican congress.

To say that there never has been any, is a bald-faced, flat-out, deliberate LIE.

Again, he's counting on the ignorance and laziness of the American people. He figures, who's going to know?

I think that part disgusts me most of all.

Again, he's counting on the ignorance and laziness of the American people. He figures, who's going to know?

Posted by: VictoriaEllen at April 28, 2005 09:56 AM

21st Century Politics for the 19th Century Electorate

The GDP was just reported to be at 3.1% this quarter, the slowest growth in 2 years and expected to come in at 3.3% down from a projected 3.7% for the second quarter.
Reminds me of the STAGFLATION, losing econmic growth and the higher inflation and energy costs we had in the 1980s. Perhaps we should start using Carterest phrases like lethargy to describe this administration. And that doesn't even consider the slump in the DOW Average down 7% and the drop in the NASDQ by 11% since January. The slumping stock market and Stagflation should be our rejoinder when Bush pushes his plans to put SS into the stock market. Bush is trying to make wealthy investors in the stock market even wealthier, and he can't even get that right.

Bush is trying to make wealthy investors in the stock market even wealthier, and he can't even get that right.

Posted by: Ira at April 28, 2005 10:21 AM

Gee, go figure... on both counts.

Benson on Bush and the Arab oil cartel.

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/benson/

Casey:

Franken has been playing on Air America the clip of Walter Chronkite reporting on the CBS evening news in the 1960s, the Republicans blocking the nomination of Abe Fortas via Filibuster,his nomination to the US Supreme Court. He keeps running that sound bite over and over. Can we get that clip as a topic of discussion, its very effective.

from Elizabeth in Seattle:

http://www.freepress.net/hallofshame/index.php?
See short video, vote for Media Hall of Shame award

Also got 2 articles in French, both saying that Bush's "mandate" in the United States is in trouble and his ratings are heading south. He may put a spin on it temporarily in the domestic market but will still be a laughing stock when the world doesn't fall for it. & it matters.

This is why Putin has the nerve to propose a Middle East summit in his country & to visit Israel (an unusual move), just as Condi has just got done saying he had better shape up & get on the democracy wagon.

Yup,

We aims to please. How about for this afternoon?

Posted by: Ira at April 28, 2005 10:28 AM

Sure, I will go dig up the clip if it's not available on the AAR site.

Also, small point, but I believe it was for Fortas' nomination to be Chief Justice to the Supreme Court, and he was an associate Justice, no? Or did they filibuster both?

My comment above became the basis of a larger post at Light Up The Darkness at:

http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/default.asp?view=plink&id=795

It was also posted on Democratic Underground and made it on to the Greatest list.

Posted by: spinnaker at April 28, 2005 09:45 AM

Spinnaker,

I think your point is excellent, but I didn't write anything about this topic--yet. I think you have me confused with somebody else (I am starting to develop a persecution complex as this has happened several times to me).

Speaking of lies:
McClellan claims this is Bush's 27th live news conference? I just heard on CBS news radio that tonight is a "rare" event. According to them, this is only his fourth live news conference in prime time.

I wonder where the number 27 came from?

Posted by: Ira at April 28, 2005 10:21 AM

Ira,

I posted this on the previous thread, but I think it relates well to your post.

Well, there goes his base:

Rich folks feel less secure

Survey: Most affluent believe there's a real estate bubble; sharp drop in those seeing stock gains.

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - A survey finds affluent Americans growing more concerned about the state of the economy.

There has been a sharp drop among those surveyed who expect further gains for the S&P 500, and a majority now believe there is a bubble in housing prices. A growing concern about the federal budget deficit now has a strong majority preferring deficit reduction to further tax cuts.

The quarterly survey also found the economy was cited as being on par with terrorism as a national concern for the first time in six quarters.

http://money.cnn.com/2005/04/25/news/economy/affluent_views/index.htm

Ira:

I got the clip and the story. It will go up early this afternoon.

Oncall:

Rewind, please. I mistook you for Ron Chusid. From a distance, the typing looks the same. (empathizing with Dan Rather right now...)

To Ron Chusid:

I understand your point, but everyone also knows what "lying" means too. Further, I would be happy to tie it to his phoney baloney religiousity when they break the "thou shalt not lie" commandment with every other word that comes out of their lying mouths.

And I understand that saying "deliberately misled"may be easier for democrats to get through their teeth, but I think that is a misleading phrase and doesn't get to the heart of the matter, which isn't necessarily that they LIE, but that THEY BELIEVE THAT ARE RIGHT TO AND HAVE A RIGHT TO LIE TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC, which may be infinitly more serious than the lies.

To continue using the phrase "deliberatly misled" just keeps us another step away from getting to this truth.

Just IMHO.

Oncall:

I can document each of Bush's new conferences right now from my research. Where/when did Scott say this? Can you give me any background on this?

If I can verify that he said it independently, I would be happy to do a thread on this, too. After all, if I have documentation of the news conferences, surely the White House and McClellan must. Hence, they are lying.

Is it possible that he said it was the 17th, not the 27th?

FRIST LIES ABOUT FILIBUSTER:

1964-Present

October 1, 1968
""Filibuster Derails Supreme Court Appointment"""

Justice Abe Fortas
In June 1968, Chief Justice Earl Warren informed President Lyndon Johnson that he planned to retire from the Supreme Court. Concern that Richard Nixon might win the presidency later that year and get to choose his successor dictated Warren's timing.

In the final months of his presidency, Johnson shared Warren's concerns about Nixon and welcomed the opportunity to add his third appointee to the Court. To replace Warren, he nominated Associate Justice Abe Fortas, his longtime confidant. Anticipating Senate concerns about the prospective chief justice's liberal opinions, Johnson simultaneously declared his intention to fill the vacancy created by Fortas' elevation with Appeals Court Judge Homer Thornberry. The president believed that Thornberry, a Texan, would mollify skeptical southern senators.

A seasoned Senate vote-counter, Johnson concluded that despite filibuster warnings he just barely had the support to confirm Fortas. The president took encouragement from indications that his former Senate mentor, Richard Russell, and Republican Minority Leader Everett Dirksen would support Fortas, whose legal brilliance both men respected.

The president soon lost Russell's support, however, because of administration delays in nominating the senator's candidate to a Georgia federal judgeship. Johnson urged Senate leaders to waste no time in convening Fortas' confirmation hearings. Responding to staff assurances of Dirksen's continued support, Johnson told an aide, "Just take my word for it. I know [Dirksen]. I know the Senate. If they get this thing drug out very long, we're going to get beat. Dirksen will leave us."

Fortas became the first sitting associate justice, nominated for chief justice, to testify at his own confirmation hearing. Those hearings reinforced what some senators already knew about the nominee. As a sitting justice, he regularly attended White House staff meetings; he briefed the president on secret Court deliberations; and, on behalf of the president, he pressured senators who opposed the war in Vietnam. When the Judiciary Committee revealed that Fortas received a privately funded stipend, equivalent to 40 percent of his Court salary, to teach an American University summer course, Dirksen and others withdrew their support. Although the committee recommended confirmation, floor consideration sparked the first filibuster in Senate history on a Supreme Court nomination.

On October 1, 1968, the Senate failed to invoke cloture. Johnson then withdrew the nomination, privately observing that if he had another term, "the Fortas appointment would have been different."

I would still like to see Chronkite's exact report of this story Casey posted here.

Good Post Casey.

President Bush is Alice, and the White House is Wonderland. I have even read of a Bush Boom, as if the Economy is actually improving. It becomes concerning when the President starts to believe the Rhetoric swirling around them.
On the other hand, we could play the game as well...;

Functionally Incomplete - It wont work

We need a closer look - I dont know

Depends on your perspective - nobody knows

Statistically sound - works only on Paper

Privatization - More for me and my freinds

War on Terror - best campaign theme since Tippacanoe and Tyler too

Ownership Society - I want to be the Bank

what ever will happen when people start calling them the way they see them.

Posted by: Casey Morris at April 27, 2005 10:58 PM

McClellan said the White House has asked U.S. television networks for time to broadcast the news conference. His last prime time news conference was last April. He has held 17 solo White House news conferences.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=8321491

That can't be right. NO WAY he has had 17 solo news conferences.

Feel free to run that to ground. That cannot be right. If someone runs it to ground, I will get it corrected and we can write about it on the blog.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

My mistake Casey,

The number is 17 not 27. No, I was not lying :-) I can honestly say that the number 27 came from me and my poor typing skills combined with my absolutely horrible proof reading.

~~calling a lie a lie...
that's why I like David Corn's (WashDC editor for The Nation) online website:
http://www.bushlies.com/

~just wanted to add, stuck here in a red state, I have been working towards & waiting for the "tipping point"...as in, when will middle America wake up and smell the coffee..uh, bs...
I think this week was a real turning point here, among middle income Republicans...they are feeling the pinch at the pump, $60+ to fill those suv's, and instead of bu$h "jaw-boning" the Prince from Saud, they were treated to MSM video of bu$h kissing & holding hands with his pal, the Prince of the house of Saud...I even had 1 republican neighbor tell me that before this week, she thought Farenheit 911 was pure propaganda, but after the CNN photos/video replays of bu$h ki$$ing the prince, she's not so sure anymore (!!!)
I am looking forward to discussing the "news conference" with her tomorrow.
Madame De, THNX for the pointers on the previous post:
Here's some very good info about social security and how to talk to conservatives about it. You can print this document out and take it with you everywhere you go...quite handy to pass out to people! It's full of good links to facts and actual statements by this regime.

And it will help you for tonight's press conference...

http://thinkprogress.org/index.php?p=206

How to Talk to a Conservative About Social Security (If You Must)
Posted by: madame defarge at April 28, 2005 08:50 AM

Posted by: Ira at April 28, 2005 11:31 AM

Ira, I have it and it's going up early this afternoon, complete with the video.

My mistake Casey,

The number is 17 not 27. No, I was not lying :-) I can honestly say that the number 27 came from me and my poor typing skills combined with my absolutely horrible proof reading.

Posted by: oncall at April 28, 2005 11:42 AM

Tee hee!! I have the documentation verifying that the number is seventeen, including tonights. Also, I will never grow rich from my typing and proofreading skill either. Thank goodness I am not a writer, um, okay, nevermind that lastpart...:)

My 2 cents on this...

When one says that someone does something "deliberately" they are saying they did it intentionally, that it was premeditated.

To say someone "mislead" is to say they decieved, deluded and misinformed.

Quite frankly it's not a made up phrase, it's a commonly used phrase, particularly in the courts and the legal system.

I don't have a problem with the term and I understand why it's being used, logically speaking. I think the general public does too.

Thanks Casey:

I didn't know we can run streaming videos here. just thought it would be a great story to push on this site and I really appreciate your listening to my suggestion. Do we need any legal permission to run a CBS video here?

I would still like to see Chronkite's exact report of this story Casey posted here.

Posted by: Ira at April 28, 2005 11:31 AM

And I am with you, Ira, a judicial nomination is a judicial nomination. And lying is still lying. There is an element of intent to deceive we are talking about here, and there is no doubt in my mind that Frist displays it at every turn.

Disgusted.

I swear if my child ever behaved like this...

Bill Frist's favorite judicial candidate turns out to be a big fan of Enron and Halliburton.
Go figure.

From the Progress Report

Meet Prescilla Owen

THE CORPORATE CONNECTION: There has been a good deal of coverage of Owen's anti-choice stance
(http://www.now.org/issues/legislat/nominees/owens.html) but her pro-business leanings may be as disturbing. In 2003, the Austin-American
Statesman declared that Owen could "usually be counted upon in any important case
(http://www.independentjudiciary.com/news/clip.cfm?NewsClipID=147) that pitted an individual or group of individuals against business interests
to side with business." Furthermore, she had a questionably ethical tendency to take "campaign contributions from law firms and corporations
(http://www.independentjudiciary.com/resources/docs/owenlr405.pdf) ... and then, without recusing herself, [rule] in their favor when their
cases came before her." Owen's rulings are considered so business-friendly and tainted that a member of the National Employment Lawyers
Association once quipped, "In my more cynical moments, I suggest that, just as sports stadiums are now named after corporations, judicial seats are soon to follow. In that vein, I believe that Justice Owen could well fill (http://www.independentjudiciary.com/resources/docs/owenlr405.pdf)
the Exxon/Mobil or Wal-Mart seat on the Fifth Circuit."

THE ENRON AND HALLIBURTON CASES: Two notable past corporate-friendly cases (http://www.independentjudiciary.com/resources/docs/owenlr405.pdf) ruled on by Owen involve very publicly known corporations --
Halliburton and Enron -- both of which had donated to Owen's judicial campaign. In the case of Sanchez v. Halliburton, a Halliburton field worker "won a $2.6 million verdict after the jury found that a company supervisor had
framed him to test positive for cocaine." After an appeals court ruling overturned the verdict, Sanchez tried to bring the case to the Texas
Supreme Court. In the months during which the case was before the Court, Halliburton made its only campaign donations to Texas Supreme Court
justices that year, giving thousands of dollars to three justices: Priscilla Owen, Nathan Hect, and Alberto Gonzales. Result: the court declined
to hear the case and the ruling overturning Sanchez's case stood. In Enron Corp. v. Spring Independent School District, Owen "authored the
opinion for a unanimous court [decision] that ... saved Enron $225,000 and resulted in lost revenue for the school district."

=====================================
Pretty much clarifies why President Bush likes her so much...

January 28, 1968 was the year of the Fortas filibuster which Orin Hatch now claims was not a filibuster.
Roger Mudd also did a news story in 1968 repeating the Fortas filibuster story Casey.

~courtesy of today's The Note::

discussing what could happen during the press conference tonight...I especially like #8, #13 & #14:

from #8:
Reporters' topics that the President's creative team will have prepared him for will include: Poll numbers (Bush will be dismissive, and answer such questions with off-topic information.); Iraq's slip back into violence following the election (Bush will use his standard "Democracy is hard," along with an historical allusion to how long it took the colonists in America to get up and running.); Bush's weird relationship with the Saudis (Bush will talk about good progress in the Middle East and ANWR.); the economy ("The economy is strong," he will say in channeling Don Evans and marshalling the best stats.)
Also: "Mr. President, if Mr. DeLay is so effective, why does your Social Security plan seem to be in a tailspin?"; and "Mr. President, you won the popular vote. You look at a county map of America and all you see is Red. Why are you having to devote months of your public time to trying to keep just one of your campaign promises?"

13. Watch for: whether Bush will be in the same nicknaming, jokey, giddy mood as in the immediate post-election - i.e. how soon and how much will he start insulting/mocking/man-flirting with the reporters when he calls on them.

14. Whether the reporters will be in the same respectful, solemn, we-are-talking-to-a-two-term-President-who-just-won-a-tough-reelection-campaign mood as they often have been since November, or whether they will be in a combative, what-is-up-with-this-imploding-second-term mode.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/TheNote/story?id=156238

Thanks, I have it.

Posted by: Ira at April 28, 2005 12:29 PM

This will be a true test as to whether Specter is truly pro choice. My guess is that he will be once again threatend by the neocons about keeping his Judiciary Chairmanship and will buckle to Frist, let's hope not.I also do not trust Collins to not flip and do the political thing and side with Frist. Why does it always seem to come down to one vote in the US Senate?

"Frist can lose only five Republicans, and three appear almost surely gone. Sens. Lincoln D. Chafee (R.I.), John McCain (Ariz.) and Olympia J. Snowe (Maine) have condemned the proposed rule change so sternly that party leaders assume they will side with Democrats. Many Republicans also expect to lose Sen. Susan Collins (Maine), although she remains publicly uncommitted. Collins "believes that the filibuster has been overused but would like to see the situation resolved through negotiation rather than a rule change," her office said yesterday.

If Collins, Chafee, McCain and Snowe oppose the change, then Frist could suffer only one more GOP defection. Speculation hangs most heavily on Sens. John W. Warner (Va.), Chuck Hagel (Neb.) and Arlen Specter (Pa.), all of whom say they are undecided.

Colin Powell v. Condi, George and Mr. Bolton:

This will stun you.

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/000534.html

Here we have the "Pants on Fire' mobile, that has travelled the country trying to help folks see ..

Posted by: DiAnne at April 28, 2005 09:41 AM

DiAnne, you come up with the best stuff! :)

~ ~ ~ ~

Only half? 50%? Unfreakin' unbelievable. A 19th century electorate, is right.

I talked to a neighbor's son who just returned from his second tour of Iraq recently. He said, "I would like to think that we went over there for SOMETHING, even if it was to make Bush and his cronies billions of dollars. But it really makes me irate now that we are up in Alaska drilling for more oil, as well. I hope people realize we had no choice in the matter, we were only doing our jobs." Remind anyone of anything??

And, all this hand-holding with the Saudi's, along with the drilling in Alaska, is a diversion from the huge oil pipeline that now exists in Iraq: "so the Iraqis' can pay us back for 'liberating' them." Uh huh.

High-powered Ohio Republican under investigation for illegal contributions to Bush Cheney '04.

http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050428/NEWS24/50428004

==================
I'm not sure how many years it's gonna take to get the smell from these guys off the Republican party...

Say it with me: HUBRIS.

On a lighter note...

Favorite bumper sticker seen recently:

"Defend the Sanctity of Reality TV Marriage."