Even Windbags Have First Amendment Rights

While working out in the wee hours of the morning today, I heard this interesting story on MSNBC. Some South Florida Democrat with a lack of Constitutional knowledge wants to revoke a radio station's access to vital hurricane information because it airs Rush Limbaugh. The story can be found on The Miami Herald's website, but I could not find it on any of the big 3 cable networks' websites.

Apparently, Broward County (remember that from 2000?) Commissioner Stacy Ritter refused to designate Miami radio station WIOD 610 AM as the region's emergency hurricane information broadcaster solely because Rush Limbaugh is on it. She said,

We want to cancel this contract here because we don't want to have our hurricane information on the station that Rush Limbaugh is broadcast on, and Sean Hannity. (source)

Rush, ever the inappropriate comedian, called Ritter "a babe" after he saw her photo in the Herald. He also commented on their shenanigans, saying:

...[L]iberals in the face of utter disaster will not tune to the station to get information because my show is on it. So who is stupid here? This is politicizing a nonpartisan issue. Hurricane emergency information is nonpartisan. (same source as above)

I can't believe I'm saying this, but I agree with El Rushbo. Any type of emergency information supersedes political ideology, and any attempt to revoke that based on ideology by the government is suppression of free speech. WIOD has a large reach, and therefore can reach a lot of people, so it's the logical choice for emergency information.

I look at it this way: let's say the tables were turned, and a Republican county commissioner decided to decline giving emergency information to a progressive station, even though it had the furthest reach. I would be up in arms at this obvious subversion of the First Amendment. Therefore, I have to support Rush in this battle, similar to how the ACLU supported him during his OxyContin troubles.

I have a couple of gripes, though. First of all, why can't the Broward County commissioners give every station emergency hurricane information? It's called a broadcast for a reason, and limiting the information to one station, regardless of reach, means that it will not reach as many people as it could if it were given to multiple stations. I'm sure that every county, city, or state has similar deals in place, but that's not the way it should be.

Second, in spite of his obvious disagreement with Ritter's statement, he still doesn't like that his show can be pre-empted by these emergency warnings, or even preparedness warnings (which are as important, in my opinion). Reading another Herald story on-air, he said:

"On the air Wednesday, Limbaugh joked that under the deal, the county would have the power to preempt his midday broadcast." They quoted me accurately here. I said, "All these idiots on the Broward County Commission have to do is schedule their press conferences from noon to 3," and by the terms of the deal, if they want to do a three-hour press conference, they can preempt my show that day. In fact, they could do it today. They could schedule a press conference, not emergency information, but preparedness and things you could do. These people are just blooming idiots. (same source as above)

So, Rush despises using politics with emergency information, and then plays politics with emergency information. Do you honestly think that the rest of those commissioners have it out for you bad enough to want to pre-empt only your show to broadcast "preparedness and things you could do" without just cause, just because they're all Democrats?

Dream on. The other commissioners said that they don't listen to you and don't really care about you. They want to ensure that the right information reaches the right people, their constituency, expediently. If it happens to be from 12 to 3, so what? It could be all day for all I care. Alleging that Broward County officials (save Ritter) want to prevent people from listening to you by using this designation to their advantage is baseless.

Rush finished off with this gem:

I'll tell you what's going to happen tomorrow. Tomorrow morning, there will be a press conference or a little statement that will go out, a sunshine emergency declared in Broward County, press conference at noon, drought emergency press conference at one. (Laughing.) How to protect your skin. (same source as above)

There you go again, Rush. Thinking your views are relevant. But then again, you have the right to say them, and I have to defend it. That's what true patriots do — protect speech they don't like too.

By the way, WIOD will likely get to keep their emergency broadcasts.

~Deep Blue

The Truth About the SURGE!

I've avoided this topic long enough, mostly because it's been beaten to death on the Bill Manders show (hell, they're re-running his Friday show on this topic today), but I couldn't resist once I saw his headline.

RGJ: Cheney Lashes Out at Harry Reid

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Vice President Dick Cheney accused Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada on Tuesday of pursuing a defeatest strategy in Iraq to win votes in the next election -- a charge Reid said did not warrant a response.

The two sparred hours after President Bush said he will veto the latest war spending bill taking shape in Congress, which includes a timetable for withdrawing from Iraq.

Cheney, after attending the weekly Republican policy lunch on Capitol Hill, lashed out at Reid.

"Some Democratic leaders seem to believe that blind opposition to the new strategy in Iraq is good politics," Cheney said. "Sen. Reid himself has said that the war in Iraq will bring his party more seats in the next election.

"It is cynical to declare that the war is lost because you believe it gives you political advantage," Cheney said.

Reid, D-Nev., dismissed Cheney's remarks later to reporters, but not before getting in his own dig at the vice president.

"I'm not going to get into a name calling match with the administration's chief attack dog," Reid said.

That last line killed me. I don't care if you're a Democrat or a Republican, but you have to admit that calling someone a name whilst saying that you don't want to enter a name-calling match is funny, even if Cheney is the administration's attack dog. If I were Harry Reid, I would've put a sarcastic spin on a term of esteem, such as "I'm not going to get into a name calling match with the always dignified, never unintelligent Vice President."

Cheney's assessment of the War on Iraq giving the Democrats seats in the next election is actually quite accurate, but also quite obvious. The Democrats don't really have to do anything to gain seats in the next election. But is political gain the main reason why Sen. Reid even uttered the words "the war is lost" in succession?

No. He said them because it's the truth, and as I always say, the truth has a liberal bias.

The truth is that Iraq has gotten really deadly, not just for Iraqis, but our soldiers as well. Larry Johnson, who "worked previously with the Central Intelligence Agency and U.S. State Department’s Office of Counter Terrorism" (so he knows a thing or two about terrorism and war), wrote on his blog last Wednesday that 364 Iraqis were killed between April 15th and April 18th (source). Yesterday he wrote that 9 American soldiers were killed and 20 more were injured "in a suicide car bombing against a patrol base northeast of the capital in Diyala province" (source, quoting an AP article). Read those articles and tell me that the SURGE! is going well.

Some people (including Manders) say that we liberals want the SURGE! to fail. We already know that it will fail, because this isn't the first SURGE!. Oh no, there've been other SURGE!s over the past 3 years. Does "Operation Together Forward" ring a bell? It should, because that was when we SURGE!d into Iraq between July and October 2006 (source). You know how Bush says that he listens to "the generals on the ground?" Well, he didn't listen to Major General William Caldwell, who said that Operation Together Forward "[did not meet] our overall expectations of sustaining a reduction in the levels of violence" (source). So even the generals on the ground didn't think that that SURGE! worked.

Further SURGE!s can be documented in the Brookings Institute's Iraq Index (PDF link). The table in question is on page 23, titled "Coalition Troop Strength in Iraq since May 2003," and that table was taken from tens of articles and statistical compilations. This table shows numerous other SURGE!s, such as the SURGE! that happened between September and November 2005 (22,000 additional troops with no long-term benefits), or the between November 2004 and February 2005 (12,000 additional troops with no long-term benefits), or even the SURGE! between January and May 2004 that happened during troop rotations (7,000 troops reduction followed by a 20,000 troop addition with no long-term benefits).

So the right-wingers won't tell you that there have actually been nearly as many troop SURGE!s as there have been Rocky movies. The only reason why this is news is because the Democrats are now in power, and President Bush isn't used to not getting his way. This story has spread throughout the Right Wing Talking Points Network, hitting just about every major conservative talk show in the country. I'm surprised that a petition hasn't been created to try and recall Reid. There sure has been enough talk of it on right-wing websites. That's just like the typical conservative: all talk and no walk.

It is in this vein that I urge you to call Senator Reid and tell him that you support his views. It's great Americans like him that will help get our troops out of a civil war in Iraq and actually working to capture the real bad guy from 9/11. Does anyone remember a guy named Osama bin Laden?

Reno Office: (775) 686-5750
Carson City Office: (775) 882-7343
Las Vegas Office: (702) 388-5020
Congressional Office: 1-866-SEN-REID (736-7343) (Nevadans only); (202) 224-3542

~ Deep Blue

Update (11:22 PM PDT): JWH over at The Blog Formerly Known as "No Gibbons" has the Reid quote listed above as "I'm not going to get into a name-calling match with somebody who has a 9 percent approval rating" in his latest post. This quoting comes from the New York Times. I am going to keep my quote as-is because the RGJ article still states it as above, although this alternate quote (additional quote?) is just as funny.

Ruminations on a Villain

I wish that I didn't have to do this, but thanks to the incessant media coverage Seung-Hui Cho is getting, I feel like it is my duty to say something to the media:

STOP FOCUSING ON THE GODDAMN SHOOTER!!

I know it may sound crazy, but we as Americans should not give this guy anymore posthumous airtime. Focus on the victims and their heroic acts and innocence. Don't focus on the guy who would've been in a mental hospital if it weren't for Ronald Reagan's mental health budget cuts.

I have to say this, though...stay with me. I have to admit that he was brilliant, in a very sickening sort of way. This mentally sick individual knew exactly what he was doing and why he was doing it. He planned this "media manifesto" 6 days in advance, typing an 1800 word nonsensical rant, taking endless photos with himself posing with his weaponry, recording rambling video (some of which occurred between shootings). He then sent it to the people who he knew would give him exposure: a national news network.

He wanted to be a star. He wanted to be glorified like the Columbine shooters after he killed himself. And NBC fell for it hook, line, and sinker. It was a brilliant point to make about the celebrity-obsessed, "if it bleeds it leads" media, but it was the complete wrong way to make it. Thirty-three people needn't have died to make your point. No one needn't have died at all. There are better ways to get your message across. Then again, I'm trying to rationalize an irrational person's thoughts.

Some people say NBC "did the right thing" by turning it over to the FBI after they received it. Bollocks. They made copies of the material so that they would have the exclusive, thinking of their profit margins only, then they sent it to the Feds. Someone on Wednesday night on MSNBC (I forget who it is) even said that they had the right to copy all the material because it was their property. I don't deny that they had the "right" to do so, but they shouldn't have done so. It makes me sick. The manifesto should have become an urban legend, vanishing into some FBI bunker in Quantico. Shame on the media for reveling in this killer's exploitation of that very media. He played all of you for fools.

The problem lies in the media's desire to make money off of everything, especially tragedies such as this. There were even Google ads that were sponsored for people searching "Virginia Tech shootings." A screenshot of when I searched is posted below:


I compare the handling of the manifesto to the Rutgers women's basketball/Imus controversy. These victims died heroically, some defending their classmates, and this villain ruins their moment. Just like Imus ruined the moment of the Rutgers women's basketball season. This time, however, we will never hear an apology from the Imus figure. Not that he would've apologized; in his own head, he was justified.

Because of the excessive airtime that this guy has been receiving, numerous copycats are already showing themselves all across this country. There was even one here in Reno, where an Iraqi war veteran and former University of Nevada student said in an e-mail to a relative that "the Korean was a hero" and that he would be "on a mission" in a few days (source). He was fortunately arrested last night, but not before the UNR campus was closed down. I won't even mention his name because that would give saliency to the argument that Cho made when he sent that damn media manifesto to NBC.

I for one am glad that there will be no victims at UNR. Not from that guy, anyway. But I can't help but wonder if the horrors of the Iraq war made the Reno guy think that way, that maybe his mental condition is Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. If that's the case, it would pretty much destroy the idea that this war is a good thing.

Anyway, just some thoughts. No one in their right mind would've done such a thing. I don't think it's a gun thing more than it's a mental health thing, although if Virginia had more stringent gun laws, such as provisions preventing mentally unhealthy people from obtaining guns, this guy would've at least been thwarted on that avenue.

~ Deep Blue

Update (1:12 PM PDT): Speaking of nuts with guns, some breaking news out of the Gun State (or Texas, as you may call it): Gunman Opened Fire at NASA Building, Police Say (CNN), NASA Evacuates Houston Building Amid Alert (MSNBC), Reports: Possible Shooting at Johnson Space Center in Houston (Fox News).

I think it's telling that all these gun crimes happen in places where gun laws are already lax. It really debunks that whole "more guns = less crime" argument. So when a gun crime happens in a place where guns are easy to get, the solution is to make guns easier to get?

Everything you know is wrong, I guess.

Update (4-23 9:46 AM PDT): Minor fix: I transposed "Seung-Hui" and "Cho" so that they are now westernized. I didn't know that Cho was his family (last) name until I read a story about his parents.

John Edwards' Expensive Haircut

Sigh...

AP via The Boston Globe: Edwards' Haircuts Cost a Pretty Penny

Looking pretty is costing John Edwards' presidential campaign a lot of pennies. The Democrat's campaign committee picked up the tab for two haircuts at $400 each by celebrity stylist Joseph Torrenueva of Beverly Hills, Calif., according to a financial report filed with the Federal Election Commission.

FEC records show Edwards also availed himself of $250 in services from a trendy salon and spa in Dubuque, Iowa, and $225 in services from the Pink Sapphire in Manchester, N.H., which is described on its Web site as "a unique boutique for the mind, body and face" that caters mostly to women.

A spokeswoman for Edwards' campaign did not respond to requests for comment.

What pisses me off the most about this is that it goes against Edwards' small-town common man image. A small-town common man would get his hair cut at SuperCuts or a local haircut place, not a "hair salon." Way to connect to Middle America, John.

This story is tailor-made for the right-wing. They'll say, "He pays $1275 for 4 haircuts, just like he has that expensive house in North Carolina." Also notice what the first two words of the article are: Looking pretty. Is this author channeling Ann Coulter or something? She sure sounds like she's playing into the "John Edwards is a girlie-man" conservative stereotype.

The right-wing blogs should be picking up on this now, because the story only broke on the AP an hour or so ago. It'll be interesting to hear what they have to say. I better head over to Free Republic.

I (and other progressives like myself) want a Democratic common man (or woman) to lead the way, but many of these Democrats are not it. Hillary Clinton is always schmoozing with Hollywood, and now John Edwards has joined the fray with his celebrity stylist haircuts. I like Edwards' policies, but this incident shows that he's not focusing on that image enough. I also like Barack Obama because it sounds like he is connecting with us common folk. While he raised $24 million, just under Hillary's $25 mil, the FEC records showed that he received money from twice as many donors as Hillary, and more than Hillary and Edwards combined.

And Edwards wonders why he's trailing in the polls and donations. Oh well, at least he reported them, right?

I really want a Democrat to win (surprise surprise), and so I want to help them win. Four haircuts totaling $1275 is not the way to go.

~ Deep Blue

Manders on Social Security = Wrong!

Sorry for the lack of posts...my job's been a killer lately.

So I got a little bit of a pleasant surprise as I was wending my way home yesterday. I was listening to Bill Manders on KOH rant about God knows what (probably something to do with illegal immegration or Nancy Pelosi's Syria trip, two of his favorite topic as of late), and all of a sudden he switches gears. He says that he is about to read something that will either "light up the phone boards" or make the lines go silent, as in something that either everyone or no one knows. So I perked up my ears and took a listen.

Then he began reading something I heard before. On liberal talk. Where they debunked everything line by line thanks to a well-researched Snopes article (link).

What did he read? Social Security talking points.

He asked for people to give the answer to a program that originally:

1. Was completely voluntary
2. Participants would only pay 1% of the first $1400 of income
3. Monies invested would be tax-deductible, and
4. Annuity payments would not be taxed as income.

I had to call. To be fair, I didn't hear those last two (or know if those last two were even spoken) because I was dialing and talking to the call screener about my answer. I didn't want to give out my real name (though I toyed with "Blue"), so I gave the first name I could think of: Roy, after Roy Rogers. I was put on hold.

Whilst on hold, I heard that Manders pick up another person's line, a guy by the name of Steve. Steve correctly stated that it was Social Security that Manders was talking about. Since the Social Security list came out of a spam e-mail, I have a feeling that's where he heard it. The whole e-mail is full of anti-Democrat lies that have been well documented and debunked, so I was confident that I could set them straight if I got on the air.

I have to tell you before I continue: It's easier to scream at a radio host when you're not on the phone with him. Also, some of the wording may not be the same as how it actually happened, but the spirit is the same. I didn't tape it (I wish I had) and don't have a transcript. If you do, my e-mail's to the right.

Anyway, I was listening to Steve's exchange with Manders, who asked the caller about which president took Social Security from the independent fund and put it in the General fund. He didn't know, so Manders said "Let's see if Roy knows."

Showtime.

He asked me the same question, and I said that I too did not know. (The correct answer is no president, because the money has not been moved since the program's inception in 1939, but I honestly didn't know off-hand.) He asked me what I wanted to talk about, and I responded that I was going to answer "Social Security" as my answer but that he talked to Steve first. He then had both of us stay on, as sort of a competition to see who knew the talking points more. The killer for me: He called us "smart guys." Oh Manders, if you only knew...

He then moved down the line and asked us a question that I did know the answer to: I don't remember at this point in time, but I know it began with "Which political party..." Steve answered "The Democrats." Manders then asked me, and I said, "Well, I would say the Democrats, but the problem is that it would be a lie that was debunked on Snopes.com."

Manders was taken aback for a quick second but kept going. "It's all a lie, huh." I said something to the effect of "Yeah, it originated from a spam e-mail going around." He said that in fact he had compiled all of these "facts" (my air quotes). Not knowing how to react, I said, "Oh, I though you got those from an e-mail because the $1400 thing tipped me off."

That was it. I was done. He said "Nice talkin' to you," and I said, "No problem."

There were many things that I should have said. I should've told him that I heard the same talking points two days ago on the Thom Hartmann show on Air America. I should've told the listeners that the truth is out there. I should have said my blog name, or at least something more intelligent than "no problem," but that was that. I turned off my cell and continued listening.

Not surprisingly, Steve "won" the debate. However, I believe that this debate ended prematurely. Manders was going to go on down the line, spouting falsehoods all the way. I bet he would've gone down to Al Gore causing the taxation of Social Security annuities in 1993 (they were taxed at 50% in 1983, a joint effort from President Reagan and the Democratically-controlled Congress; the 1993 effort made that 85%). He then would've mentioned his personal favorite, given his propensity to talking about immigrants every other show: Jimmy Carter and the Democrats started giving annuity payments to immigrants who never would've paid a dime into the system. Which would've segued into a tirade about the Democrats and immigration, sliding into the topic of illegal immigrants and the Millennium Scholarship, his topic on today's show.

But he didn't get that far. I cut him short, and he wasn't interested in having someone steal his thunder. He just said, "Yeah, Social Security is not what it was intended to be," without a second thought to "Roy". I just wish I had a print-out of the Snopes page in front of me, where I could've quoted part of the Social Security Act.

Oh well, too many coulda-woulda-shoulda's. Time to focus on the future. I'm going to call Thom Hartmann on AAR tomorrow to tell him about my experience. To the rest of you, keep on the lookout for right-wingers spouting the same lies about Social Security. I provided the debunking link above, but here it is again: http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/sschanges.asp.

~ Deep Blue a.k.a. "Roy"

Tony Snow Has Colon Cancer Resurgence

The big story today is that White House Press Secretary Tony Snow's colon cancer has returned (source 2 3 4). Snow battled colon cancer two years ago successfully, but now a new crop of the same cancer has shown up in his liver. It was removed on Monday, and Snow is reportedly in good spirits, optimistic about his chances for survival.

Today, I urge all liberals, progressives, moderate-lefties and true patriots to stand with Tony Snow and send up your prayers to him and his family, just as we have done with Elizabeth Edwards last week. I feel like anything less would be hypocritical and inhuman, so please, think of him. This disease transcends political boundaries.

That being said, I decided to perform a little test to see how hard-core conservatives would react to a liberal offering good wishes to Tony Snow. I created a login name on freerepublic.com, the Freepers' domain, under Deep Blue Nevada. After acquiring my password (promptly changed), I posted a message of support for Snow on a thread (this one). It went a-little something like this:

Off the bat, I have to say that as a liberal, I may not agree with everything that you guys say most of the time.

However, my thoughts and prayers are now with Tony Snow. I wish all the best for him and his family, just as I have wished all the best for Elizabeth Edwards and his family. To do any less would be inhuman and soulless of me.

This disease reaches across the aisle, as it is a tragedy when anyone is afflicted with it, especially after previous occurrences. Having two family members that have died of cancer helps me identify with, and pray for, Tony and Elizabeth and anyone else suffering from it.

~ Deep Blue

I posted this message around 10:13 AM PDT on 3/27/2007. It told me that the post would be "reviewed," probably because of earlier abuse from other Freepers. Here is a picture of that page:

I then waited to see when it would show up and what the reaction would be. Five minutes went by. Then 10. Now it's been almost 25 minutes and my post hasn't shown up.

Now, it is their site and they can manage it anyway they please. But it will be a sad commentary on how they act if they decide that a liberal reaching across the aisle is not worthy of server time. I was not inflammatory (well, the first sentence could be), and I was not mean-spirited...I just wanted to show my support for Snow's battle. I haven't even called him by his nickname once in this post.

I will periodically check back to see if I've been approved, rejected, rebuked, and/or kicked off the site. I hope they lighten up over there.

~ Deep Blue

Update (10:58 AM PDT): My post still hasn't shown up, so I fired off an inquiry to the webmaster asking him if he could check on the status of my post to see where it went. I'll update ASAP.

Update (11:08 AM PDT): My comment was posted at 10:55 AM PDT on this page. I am post #480 on the page, shown here:

And now I play the waiting game...

Update (12:33 PM PDT): I received my first response from a Freeper who said that they went to Edwards' site and left them a message of prayer for them. I'm glad that the first response to my post was a positive one. Every word I said in that post was true and sincere, and I'm glad that I've at least got some people thinking about it. That's all I really wanted to do: show people that this disease knows no ideology, and that we should pray for recoveries for everybody. In some regard, it changes my admittedly preconceived notions about all Freepers.

Update (1:22 PM PDT): I just realized I made a typo when I posted my original message. I said "...Elizabeth Edwards and his family..." as opposed to "her family." My mistake. I will not correct it on this site because I cannot correct it on FreeRepublic. Stupid copy/paste and not proofreading...


Update (3:59 PM PDT): I got another positive response from a Freeper, saying that it took me a lot of courage coming in here. It really did...I had no clue what the response would be, just my aforementioned preconceived notions. I wish that more liberals would wish Tony Snow the best, in spite of his political leanings.

All my responses can be viewed here.

Zippy's Column

Gonzogate Update - March 22:

Tony "Zippy Longstocking" Snow is still defending President Bush's right to executive privilege in press conferences. This is in stark contrast to his opinion of President Clinton's right to executive privilege in a March 29, 1998 Detroit News column, as reprinted by the Chicago Tribune on March 21, 2007 (link). I've decided to take out all references to Clinton, exchange them for Bush references whenever possible (bolded), and reprint the article below. Enjoy:

From Day One, the chief challenge facing this White House has been to place maximum distance between George W. Bush and his behavior. That strategy has succeeded, but only with the help of mighty assaults on our common sense.

In order to exonerate the chief, aides have made fantastic claims: that they lied to their personal diaries, that Velcro-brained lawyers couldn't recall crucial incidents, that e-mails vanished or moved from one place to another as if by magic, that scores of people with nothing to gain from lying nevertheless perjured themselves, and that this contagion of amnesia, sloppiness and venality was just the gosh darnedest series of coincidences ever witnessed by man or beast.

The wall of separation between Mr. Bush and his deeds remains strong because minions have stuck to their alibis. But now comes an episode in which the Man from War stands alone. It is his recent attempt to claim executive privilege for Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove and former White House counsel Harriet Miers.

Mr. Bush can't blame his lawyers for this latest feint. He alone can assert the privilege. The maneuver places him at the heart of his administration's ongoing effort to use executive privilege as a way of concealing the truth about whether the president exposed himself. It is almost impossible to think of this as anything but a tactic to delay Congress long enough for Alberto Gonzales and other red-ant assailants to nibble at Congress and pump as much venom as possible into the political system.

Consider the key issues:

• Are former White House counsels subject to privilege?

*snip of Hillary Clinton material that doesn't sync up*

• What kinds of conversations does executive privilege protect?

The courts have said a president generally can shield communications that reveal fundamental deliberative processes. That includes communications between aides as they try to develop recommendations for their boss.

But protected conversations involve predictable categories: military, diplomatic or national security secrets or law-enforcement activities. Jurists haven't found a constitutional writ for protecting damage-control meetings involving allegations of using politics to fire attorneys. So unless Alberto Gonzales were ... advising the president on nuclear proliferation or the tobacco deal, the assertion of privilege seems highly suspect.

• What are the limits on privilege?

Earlier in the Clinton administration, then-White House legal counsel Lloyd Cutler decreed that the White House never would assert privilege in the face of a criminal investigation. He merely was reiterating long-standing executive-branch policy along those lines. President Ronald Reagan didn't invoke privilege in Iran-contra, and neither did President George Bush.

But precedent is gone, and Mr. Bush wants to protect conversations about subverting checks and balances. In so doing, he becomes the second president since Richard Nixon to use executive privilege in a criminal inquiry. (Deep Blue note on the "second": fair is fair)

Evidently, Mr. Bush wants to shield virtually any communications that take place within the White House compound on the theory that all such talk contributes in some way, shape or form to the continuing success and harmony of an administration. Taken to its logical extreme, that position would make it impossible for citizens to hold a chief executive accountable for anything. He would have a constitutional right to cover up.

Chances are that the courts will hurl such a claim out, but it will take time.

One gets the impression that Team Bush values its survival more than most people want justice and thus will delay without qualm. But as the clock ticks, the public's faith in Mr. Bush will ebb away for a simple reason: Most of us want no part of a president who is cynical enough to use the majesty of his office to evade the one thing he is sworn to uphold the rule of law.

Hypocrisy's a bitch, ain't it Zippy?

Aside from parts excluded about Hillary (which I almost could turn into a Harriet Miers comment if it weren't for the Kennedy Law), it translates perfectly.

Also of note is the comparison between Gonzogate and the -gate that started it all. In the 3,000 pages of e-mails released by the DOJ a couple of days ago, a 16-day gap was found, the loudest silence since the 18½ minute gap on the Nixon tapes. President Bush doesn't use e-mail (source), Alberto Gonzales doesn't use e-mail (source), and Harriet Miers has alleged that she doesn't use much e-mail (heard on Thom Hartmann show, 3-22-2007 9:17 AM PDT), so how do you think they communicated and why do you think the gap exists?

~ Deep Blue

Zippy Ruins a Bush Talking Point

Ellen Ratner of the Talk Radio News Service called the Thom Hartmann show on Air America Radio at 11:35 AM PDT today to give an update on the Ed Henry/Tony "Zippy Longstocking" Snow debacle. For back-story, what I didn't include yesterday in my Gonzogate post (because the news was coming so fast and furious) was that President Bush turned cowboy, making all sorts of veiled threats when the Democrats started threating subpoena power for his officials. The Democrats, spines intact, voted to allow subpoenas to be presented to White House officials today. Let's hope they don't wuss out.

Anyway, Zippy gave a press conference today saying that the decision to fire the attorneys wasn't made by President Bush or anyone in the White House but someone underneath him in the Executive Branch hierarchy. At this point, Henry asked "If the decision wasn't made by a White House official, why is the president using executive privilege to prevent White House officials from testifying under oath on these matters?"

Zippy's response was classic: "That's an intriguing question."

That's it. Four words long. And he never came back to it, according to Ellen Ratner.

This proves one of three things:

a. They're lying about not authorizing the attorney firings and they don't want to be found out.
b. They're telling the truth about not authorizing the attorney firings but don't want to reveal that they exerted influence on certain people.
c. They didn't have anything to do with Gonzogate but don't want this to set a precedent for subpoenas on, say, election fraud in 2000 or 2004, or misleading the country into Iraq, etc. ad infinitum.

It's not that they fear Gonzogate will be a media circus, it's that they fear their cronyism will be uncovered. Zippy showed that when he destroyed Bush's talking point on not allowing officials to testify under oath. The whole Executive Branch makes me sick.

I'm just glad the media is waking up from their post-9/11 slumber.

~ Deep Blue

Gonzogate Update

For those of you just tuning in, Alberto Gonzales just got bitch-slapped by the Senate. In a 94-2 vote, the Senate passed a bill that put the kibosh on a section of the Patriot Act, authored by the Justice Department, that allowed the embattled attorney general to fill vacant federal prosecutor seats without Senate confirmation and oversight (source). His resignation seems imminent (source).

Naturally, whenever any senior official is embroiled in scandal, President Bush gives out his "Heckuva Job" Award to that official before accepting (or forcing?) his resignation. This month, Gonzo joins Rummy and Brownie as the newest recipient (MSNBC source above).

The Justice Department, meanwhile, also released 3,000 pages of e-mails to congressional investigators, who will now sift through this material to determine wrongdoing on behalf of J.D. officials (MSNBC source above). I think it won't be long until they find something. Hell, they've already found a bunch of e-mails stating the original goal of firing all 93 prosecutors in one go, eventually reducing that number to 20% of prosecutors deemed to be "underperforming," keeping only the ones who were "loyal Bushies" (source).

The right-wing regressives are all up in arms over the Democrats' determination to bring this to light, whining on various sites (such as Free Republic) about all of the injustices that Democratic presidents did to the prosecutors when they were in office. For example, on one article called "Selective Amnesia on firing US Attorneys" (link), one Freeper pulls a reductio ad Clintonum, saying that Slick Willy fired them all (at the beginning of his term) and the mainstream media isn't mentioning it at all.

The problem with this logic is that while yes, Clinton did fire them all at the beginning of his term, so did Bush. This is the executive privilege that all presidents have. I and my liberal counterparts do not care that Bush and Clinton (and probably Bush Sr. and Reagan and Carter and…) fired the attorneys at the beginning of their terms. I don't even care that Bush did it 6 years in. That's not what matters.

What matters is why Bush fired only eight attorneys who had stellar performance reviews for investigating Republicans (such as with Duke Cunningham in California) and not investigating Democrats, according to congressional Democrats (source). What also matters is why Bush snuck in a provision in the PATRIOT Act saying that he can appoint any attorney without Senate confirmation. Bush hasn't seen a check-and-balance loophole he didn't like (why do you think he's using those signing statements all the time?), so naturally, he'd jump on the bandwagon on this one too.

I also like how rejected potential Supreme Court justice Harriet Miers was thrown under the bus again by the Bush administration, saying that she was the one who had initiated the program in 2005. Our old buddy Karl Rove also was accused of having a hand in this, because he does have a hand in lots of other scandals in Red Washington (source).

I really hope that when the Gonzales hits the fan for the Republicans that the Democrats grow a spine and do what we as a nation elected them to do: clean up our capitol. Right-wing corruption and cronyism appears systemic in the Executive branch, but apparently those held in GOP hypnosis in the Legislature are starting to wake up. The 94-2 majority to revoke the PATRIOT Act provision demonstrates that this is not a political issue but an ethics/morals issue.

The vote on the bill, S. 214, can be found here. Here are 2 that voted no and the 4 that didn't vote:

• Joe Biden (D-DE) - Did Not Vote


• Kit Bond (R-MO) - No


• Chuck Hagel (R-NE) - No


• Tim Johnson (D-SD) - Did Not Vote recovering from brain surgery


• John McCain (R-AZ) - Did Not Vote


• Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) - Did Not Vote

I'd like to know why Biden, Bond, Hagel, McCain, and Mikulski voted (or didn't vote) the way they did, especially McCain.

~ Deep Blue

Breaking News (12:00 pm PDT): Rove and Miers will be interviewed by committees probing the attorney firings, but not testify under oath., says Rep. Chris Cannon by way of CNN (source). Additionally, it will be behind closed doors with no transcripts, and "[a] representative of the Office of the Counsel to the President would attend these interviews and personal counsel to the invited officials may be present at their election" (source)

So they will once again sidestep the blame. Great, the same old song and dance. Why am I not surprised?

This cartoon from CNN's Bill Mitchell says it all:

Update (2:45 pm PDT): Patrick Leahy (D-VT) rejects the offer for interviews, stating that Rove needs to answer questions under oath and on the record, according to CNN's home page and MSNBC. I guess the Democrats are growing spines after all. Good on ya!

Is Tony Snow Dr. Evil?

Off-camera before a press conference today, Tony Snow lambasted the Democrats for supporting a so-called "Recipe for Defeat" for Iraq in the House today. Undaunted, CNN's Ed Henry decided to ask what the White House's corresponding "Recipe for Success" was. Snow, snotty and indignant, proceeded to ask Henry what his recipe for success was. Henry objected to the question, as it is not up to a reporter to define governmental policy, and repeated the question, where at that time Snow told Henry to "zip it" (source with video clip). Apparently, Snow revealed his true age to be five.

Snow eventually apologized and laid out the plan, which consisted of turning things over to the Iraqis at some point (without elaboration) but admitting "[y]ou don't know how things will play out" (same source).

Henry stated that it's the same thing that's been said for four years and one day now. I really wish that I had podcasting set up because at this point I'd play Sinatra's "Same Old Song and Dance" à la Bill Manders whenever he talks smack about the Democrats as of late. Put it on the to-do list, I suppose.

Which brings me to the question of the day: Is Tony Snow really Dr. Evil? I think I'm gonna start calling him "Zippy Longstocking" from now on. That's a great nickname.

~ Deep Blue

Inaugural Post

Welcome to the inaugural post of Silver State Blues, your one-stop shop for Northern Nevada politics from a liberal point of view. I've only lived in the fine city of Reno for the past 9 months or so, and I love it here. However, I've been following national politics for the better part of a decade, and I feel that there is not enough of the progressive voice in a town that I feel has a very strong, yet underrepresented, liberal undercurrent.

For example, compare the amount of time dedicated to local political talk on two radio stations: KOH 780 AM, and KJFK 1230 AM. KOH is a 50,000 watt right-wing station (source) with a local talk show hosted by Bill Manders that lasts from 3 to 6 pm daily. Being a high-profile station, they have major media presence in the area, from contests and on-location broadcasts to connections to local TV stations and online radio streaming. KJFK, on the other hand, is an 820 watt small-time station (source) carrying the Air America family of programming (along with Jones Radio Network staples Stephanie Miller and Ed Schultz) with a local talk show that lasts only from 3 to 4pm, 2 hours less than Manders' rant-fest. In addition, KJFK's website has been under construction for almost two years, meaning that there is no chance for people outside of the tiny broadcast radius to listen to this station on-line.

But despite what Bill Manders may say about "Airhead America," KJFK happens to be doing quite well considering its small size. It has a 2.1 share in the ratings for this past fall, and though it is down from the 2.3 share in Spring 2006, it is an overall increase from a year ago. This makes it second among all Reno talk stations behind KOH's 11.7 share, a 557% difference (source). For those of you not in the radio business, a share represents the percentage of radios tuned to that station in a market. On the aforementioned "source" site, Reno's 12+ population is 384,900. So, assuming that the share is proportional to the population, KOH has 45,033 listeners and KJFK has 8,083 listeners, once again, a 557% difference. But KJFK has a higher listener-to-wattage ratio; KJFK has 9.86 listeners per watt, while KOH has 0.9 listeners per watt. This means, that for the wattage that they have, KJFK is better utilizing its signal, and if it were the size of KOH, it would have 10 times as many listeners.

Clearly the right-wingers would dismiss this as fuzzy math and not proving anything. But this shows that if KJFK had the market presence and wattage that KOH has, it would be the dominant radio station in town. But the station (rather, Americom Broadcasting, its parent company) isn't doing anything to promote the station. As I have mentioned, they don't have a website, they don't have streaming audio, and they have only an hour-long local political show. There are also no events promoting the station, or promotional materials, for that matter. I called up Reno Radio Representatives (Americom's Reno presence) asking for a bumper sticker to put on my car, and to my surprise, they don't make them! They also had no plans to create a website. I should've offered to build it for them. It shows that RRR has no plans to vault the station higher than it is now, despite clearly having the audience and the potential for growth.

That's where I come in.

I want to increase the liberal media presence because the actual liberal media won't do it. They won't add wattage, they won't promote the station, they just won't do anything. It is my goal, nay, my mission, to educate people and give them the facts on local and national issues that affect all of us.

I have enabled commenting for anyone on this site; you don't even have to be a Blogger member. You also don't have to be a liberal. At this point in time, your comments will go largely unfiltered, unless you make things like hate speech, reveal personal information that is not your own, or make threats of violence against myself or any American political leaders. So that means that you conservatives have a chance to respond to my ramblings. And to show I'm not a faceless machine, my e-mail address is silverstateblues@gmail.com. The same rules for commenting apply.

Also, if you've stumbled upon this blog and agree with the views, please tell your friends about it. Reader comments make me happy.

Finally, I am offering an open invitation for Northern Nevada bloggers that have a better grasp on local politics than I do to post on this blog as a contributor. If you're a liberal and feel that you have what it takes to join Team Reno, send me one of your lefty rants to the e-mail above. Amateurs and fellow bloggers only at this point in time; I like fresh faces and want to get people in on the action.

So that's it for my really long inaugural post. More will be coming soon, and remember, dissent is the highest form of patriotism.

~ Deep Blue

Edit: I added sources on the wattage information for each station. Also, compare the coverage maps for KOH and KJFK. KOH's coverage envelops the central California valley, while KJFK's local coverage area stops short of Carson.