Obama: I’ll Fight To Strip Telecom Immunity From FISA

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., issued a statement in support of the House’s update of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, but said he would try to strip a provision granting immunity to telecommunication companies when the bill comes to a vote in the Senate next week.

The House approved a compromise bill Friday that would set new electronic surveillance rules that would also shield telecoms from lawsuits arising from their participation in the government’s warrantless eavesdropping on telephone and computer lines in the United States.

The government eavesdropped on American phone and computer lines for almost six years after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks without permission from the FISA Court, the special panel established for that purpose under the original 1978 law.

Some 40 lawsuits have been filed against the telecommunications companies by groups and individuals who say the Bush administration illegally monitored their phone calls or e-mails.

Obama said there is “little doubt” that the Bush Administration, with the cooperation of major telecommunications companies, “has abused [its] authority and undermined the Constitution by intercepting the communications of innocent Americans without their knowledge or the required court orders.”

“Given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as president, I will carefully monitor the program.

“[The bill] does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses.”

The House approved the legislation 293-129.

The White House had threatened to veto any surveillance bill that did not also shield the companies.

Critics say granting immunity to telecoms would scrap the pending lawsuits and prevent any public airing of details about the government’s surveillance activities.

Last February, when an earlier version of the FISA bill came to a vote, Obama voted for an amendment to strip the telecom immunity provision from the bill. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) voted in favor of keeping immunity for the telecoms.

Speaking in an interview to be aired on Bloomberg television this weekend, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said that he may schedule a separate vote on stripping immunity from the bill, although he expressed pessimism about its success.

“Probably we can’t take that out of the bill, but I’m going to try,” Reid told “Political Capital with Al Hunt.”

Original here

Friday Talking Points [36] -- End The Media's Pro-McCain Bias! Now!!

Anyone who thinks that the treatment Barack Obama has gotten from the media during this campaign is remotely the same as the treatment John McCain has received just has not been paying much attention. Because this pro-McCain prejudice has been both pervasive and unremarked-upon throughout almost the entire news media during the entire campaign season. McCain has even joked that the media is "his base" of support. It was a funny line, but there is an enormous truth at its core: the media has been hard on Obama but unbelievably light on John McCain. And this has to stop. Now. Because the election might just hinge on the media's portrayal of the two, so now is the time to point out the uneven nature of the press coverage to date on the two candidates. In time for the mainstream media to correct itself before the general election season really heats up.

Think about what you know or learned (through the mainstream media's coverage of this year's election) about Barack Obama. You may have heard of: his birth, his parents, where his parents lived, what nationality and race his parents are, where his grandmother lives, what race she is, where he went to elementary school, what Chicago radicals were doing while he was in elementary school half a planet away, where he went to college, what he did while in college, what he did after college, how he paid off his student loan, his career as a politician, which way he voted on things in the Illinois statehouse, what church he joined, what his preacher said back then, where he was married, where his kids were baptized, what his preacher said recently, what a visiting preacher said at his church even more recently, his stance on the war, his stance on race, his stance on Hillary Clinton, his stance on just about everything else, and the fact that he's a terrible bowler (but a pretty decent basketball player).

Now, what has the media informed us about John McCain this campaign season? His stance on the war. His stance on a gas-tax holiday. His stance on talking to foreign leaders. His stance on Iran (bomb it). How he's not like George Bush, dammit... even though the two agree on just about every policy you can name.

That's it.

Now, all the things we have been told about McCain are indeed fair game on the campaign trail (since they're mostly policy positions), and the media has reported on them (somewhat). But mostly what they've reported on is how amazing his campaign was at coming back from the dead last summer, when everyone had counted McCain out of the running.

Facts about John McCain's private life? Nothing. McCain's military history? Nothing (other than the P.O.W. ads McCain himself runs). McCain's legislative history? Nothing, other than to repeat stories seemingly written in 2000 about what a "maverick" he is. Any scandals in McCain's past? Crickets chirping.

Now, this blatant media bias (up until now) has had somewhat of an excuse, since John McCain wrapped his party's nomination up months ago, and the press has been focusing ever since on the Hillary-and-Barack show (admittedly a center-ring circus act, if ever there was one). But it's now time for the general election. In other words, there is no more excuse for the bias. The imbalance has got to stop. And the only way to make it stop is to rub the media's face in their outrageous bias until they admit it exists.

How many voters, for instance, have heard the words "Keating Five" during this campaign? On a national news broadcast? And how many times have they heard "Reverend Wright"? Millions of voters have come of age since the Keating Five scandal two decades ago, and most of them have probably never heard of it. Since the media has shown already that it is fine and dandy to go rooting around in the muck for one party, I think it's about time they extend the same courtesy to the other candidate running. Especially during a subprime mortgage meltdown.

So my Friday Talking Points are all questions the media should be asking McCain, but (sadly) aren't. For any Democrat being interviewed on television this weekend (by some chucklehead who calls himself a journalist), these questions can easily be turned around on the interviewer, to show the rampant pro-McCain bias to the media themselves. For instance, a Democrat could ask:

"Why do we know details like this about Barack Obama's life, when you haven't even scratched the surface of John McCain's life? When is the last time you informed your viewers about the Keating Five scandal? I am sure that your network has video of what happened to John McCain as a result of this, and yet I bet you have not shown one single second of that video during his entire campaign. This is a scandal he was involved in while he was in office -- and you haven't even mentioned it during the campaign, because you're so obsessed over what Barack Obama was doing when he was eight years old. There's a reason why if you asked ten voters on the street nine of them couldn't tell you what the words 'Keating Five' mean -- and that reason is that the media just has not done its job in examining John McCain as a candidate for president. You, sir, are showing your bias in asking questions like the one you just asked me about Obama, while absolutely refusing to do the same for John McCain. Is this network owned by the Republican Party, or what?"

This would be an ideal time to rip the headphones and microphone off, and stalk out of the studio in rage.

[Ahem.]

OK, I got a little carried away there, but I think you see my point. So, quickly, we will dispense this week's awards, and then we'll get to a special version of Friday Talking Points. And, since I gave that one away (as it were), I promise I won't even mention the Keating Five in said Talking Points. Because there are just too many other questions about McCain's past to even bother to bring it up. And he just keeps adding more, with his weekly flip-flops on issues both large and small.

Both the awards this week deal with the same subject: the complete and utter capitulation of Democrats in the House of Representatives to give Bush exactly what he asked for -- the ability to decide what is legal and what is not, on his very own.

Make no mistake about it, giving telecommunications companies immunity from breaking the law just because the president asked them to means the rule we learned from Nuremburg doesn't apply any more. Remember that? "I was only following orders" was deemed an insufficient defense. Now, we have Republicans saying things like:

"I'm not here to say that the government is always right, but when the government tells you to do something, I'm sure you would all agree that I think you all recognize that is something you need to do."

Um, no. "The government" is the people of the United States of America. Our representatives -- from dogcatcher up to the president -- swear an oath to the Constitution. Well, OK, I'm not sure dogcatchers are actually sworn in, but presidents certainly are. And now, apparently, if the president tells you to do something -- legal or not -- you'd better do it, right quick. And don't worry about prosecution later on, because you were "only following orders."

The whole episode is a disgusting display of spinelessness from Congressional Democrats. Well, some of them. Others opposed the bill (you can check the roll call to see what your Representative did). But Russ Feingold wins Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week for being first out of the gate with a quote that the media picked up. Here's what he had to say, in full:

"The proposed FISA deal is not a compromise; it is a capitulation. The House and Senate should not be taking up this bill, which effectively guarantees immunity for telecom companies alleged to have participated in the President's illegal program, and which fails to protect the privacy of law-abiding Americans at home. Allowing courts to review the question of immunity is meaningless when the same legislation essentially requires the court to grant immunity. And under this bill, the government can still sweep up and keep the international communications of innocent Americans in the U.S. with no connection to suspected terrorists, with very few safeguards to protect against abuse of this power. Instead of cutting bad deals on both FISA and funding for the war in Iraq, Democrats should be standing up to the flawed and dangerous policies of this administration."

Exactly right. And for that, Senator Feingold, you have earned the Golden Backbone of the week, the MIDOTW award.

[Congratulate Senator Feingold on his Senate contact page to let him know you appreciate his efforts.]

I should point out that Glenn Greenwald at Salon has been following this fiasco closer than anyone else, so if you need any of the details of this story, I would advise checking his column out.

The Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award should really go to all 105 House Democrats who voted for this abomination, but we just don't have that many statuettes to hand out this week, so I'm going to limit it to three.

Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer are the top culprits for putting this deal together, so they each win a MDDOTW award this week. They are currently giving gushing quotes to the media about how successful this "compromise" was, but I refuse to repeat such drivel here. I generally approve of Pelosi's leadership in the House, but I cannot condone this. I generally don't approve of Hoyer's actions, but then I don't live in Maryland, so there's not a lot I can do about him.

And (drumroll...) this week's third MDDOTW award goes to... Barack Obama.

Now, I know Obama's in the Senate (which will most likely vote on this bill next week), and that this was a House vote. But Barack Obama is not just any senator. He is the Democratic nominee for the White House. This means he's supposed to be a party leader. And the thing about being a leader is you've got to get out front and, well, lead. Obama's conspicuous silence on this issue has already been noted on the Huffington Post, and as of this writing there is still nothing up on his campaign website about the issue at all.

This is not leading. This is not a good sign.

Now, I do understand that Obama is now in the general election and that winning is more important than any one particular issue. I don't say that Obama's silence is all that surprising, therefore. But I do say it's disappointing. Which means he gets a MDDOTW award.

Remember, the federal government spied on Martin Luther King, Jr. in this very fashion. Why did they spy on King? They considered him a threat to "national security." Why did they consider him a threat to national security? Because he opposed the war we were fighting. Sure, Bush says he's only after "terrorists," but how soon before that gets watered down to the exact same reasoning used to spy on Martin Luther King, Jr.? Which was, incidentally, the whole reason the FISA law was passed in the first place -- to correct such abuses of power.

Sigh.

So Pelosi, Hoyer, and Obama... for shame. You have all earned your very first Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week awards.

[Contact Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, and Barack Obama on their respective congressional contact pages to let them know what you think of their actions.]

OK, enough of that. Onward to the Talking Points segment. Originally, I started writing this section as advice for NBC journalists (and those who call themselves such, but don't actually deserve it) who will be "trying out" the Meet The Press moderator's chair for the next few weeks. They all must have dreams of being the "next" Tim Russert, and they can all see themselves as the show's permanent host, I am quite sure.

My personal feeling is that they should go back to the days where they had a whole panel of "press" that interviewed one politician. I kind of like the concept of ganging up on them this way, and with more press on the panel, they'd compete amongst themselves in order to ask tougher and tougher questions than the guy or gal sitting next to them. But since that likely won't happen, I started writing this bit as advice for Meet The Press host wannabes, to show them some questions they should ask John McCain -- questions that (astoundingly enough) nobody else has seemed to ask him yet on camera, or at least not for quite a while. In the "gotcha" genre of journalism, Tim Russert was king, so in order to take his place, you've got to hone your "gotcha" skills.

So this week, the quotes are all suggestions for the media to ask John McCain (instead of for Democrats to answer in interviews, our normal format). Although (as I pointed out earlier), these questions can be easily turned around and thrown back in a reporter's face by a Democrat, if need be.

These questions might seem a bit harsh and confrontational to the uninitiated. They might -- but only if the detached observer who labeled them thus had absolutely no knowledge of what Barack Obama has already been through this year, and what John McCain has mercifully escaped.

So, you want Tim Russert's job, journalists and pseudo-journalists? Here are the questions you need to ask John McCain now, in order to prove you're worthy of filling his shoes.

Volume 36 (6/20/08)

Why won't you release your military record?

"Senator McCain, you have made an issue of your military service in your campaign, even running ads with pictures of you as a prisoner of war. So why have you refused to sign the military's Standard Form 180 and (by doing so), release your full military record to the public? Senator John Kerry was completely unafraid to do this when he ran for president in 2004. Why haven't you volunteered to do what John Kerry willingly did? If you are proud of your military record, then why hide it? Why not put it out there for the public to see? Or is there something in there you don't want the public to find out about? Aren't you as courageous as John Kerry, Senator?"

Why won't Cindy release her tax returns?

"Senator McCain, your current wife, to date, has released only two pages from a single year of her tax returns. Will she ever fully release her tax returns to reporters? How are the American people supposed to know if you will have any conflicts of interest if you won't even release your immediate family's tax returns? Senator Obama has released all of his tax returns for recent years, which include his wife's income, and yet your wife refuses to do so. What is she hiding in the tax returns that she has not released? Are you just afraid taxpayers will find out how wealthy she is, or is there a specific reason she has not come forward with this information? Don't you think the voters need to know where your family gets its money, Senator?"

What exactly did you do for Grumman?

"Senator McCain, you personally intervened with the Pentagon over an Air Force tanker contract. That contract went to Northrop Grumman and the parent company of the European company Airbus. Now it has been shown that the Pentagon did not handle the bidding process properly, and it looks like the American company Boeing will get another chance at the contract. So why did you intervene to send thousands of aerospace jobs overseas, Senator? Could it have anything to do with the lobbyist Northrop Grumman hired, who until a month ago was your national finance chairman? To put it bluntly, this doesn't exactly sound like straight talk, sir, it sounds like lobbyists buying influence."

Lie back and enjoy it, John

"Senator McCain, you abruptly cancelled an appearance at a fundraiser recently. The man whose house at which the fundraiser was held, Clayton Williams, was quoted while running as a Republican for the Governor of Texas, when he made a joke about being raped. He actually equated the bad weather at a campaign stop to being raped. His exact words, talking about the weather and being raped, were (quote) As long as it's inevitable, you might as well lie back and enjoy it (unquote). During the same campaign, he compared his opponent Ann Richards to cattle on his ranch, saying he would (quote) head her and hoof her and drag her through the dirt (unquote). And yet you, Senator McCain -- while you did not appear at his fundraiser -- have accepted $300,000 which Williams raised for you. What sort of message to the women of America do you think that sends, Senator?"

If we did to prisoners what was done to you, would you call it torture?

"If elected, you would not be the first man who has been held prisoner of war by an enemy, as Andrew Jackson had that distinction from his participation in the War of 1812. But you would almost assuredly be the first president who had ever been tortured by an enemy. Yet your views on torture seem to have, to put it politely, evolved over the past year. At first, you were strongly against it, but then you voted to allow the C.I.A. to use techniques on prisoners held by the United States which, if used against you in Vietnam, would surely have been called torture. So what is your stance on torture, Senator McCain? Should the United States government limit itself to the procedures outlined in the Army Field Manual, or should the C.I.A. be given latitude to use what many call 'torture' against prisoners of the United States? In short, Senator, where exactly do you stand on torture, and where exactly do you draw the line? If, as president, you discovered that George W. Bush used the exact techniques on American prisoners as were used against you by the North Vietnamese, what would you do about it? Would you tell the American public that such things had been done in their name?"

[If McCain denies the United States has tortured anybody, have this ready to go:]

"But Senator McCain, earlier this year 60 Minutes aired a clip of you answering the question 'Is waterboarding torture?' by stating (quote) Sure, yes, without a doubt (unquote). You were then asked 'So the United States has been torturing POWs,' to which you responded: 'Yes.' These are your own words, Senator."

So, are you a "war criminal" or not?

Senator McCain, when you were tortured by the North Vietnamese, you talked. You said later that you gave them misinformation to fool them, telling them in essence what they wanted to hear. When interviewed by Mike Wallace on 60 Minutes, he asked you what you had done wrong while a prisoner of war, and you said (quote) I wrote a confession. I was guilty of war crimes against the Vietnamese people. I intentionally bombed women and children (unquote).

In 2001, the United States captured Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi in Afghanistan. We sent him to Egypt. The Egyptians used harsh techniques to interrogate him -- what many would call 'torture.' He told his interrogators that al Qaeda had received chemical and biological training from Saddam Hussein's Iraq. This was a primary source for what Colin Powell told the United Nations, and what President Bush used as a rationale for going to war. And yet the Senate report which just came out points out that the Pentagon, on February 22, 2002 was saying (and I quote) It is possible he [al-Libi] does not know any further details; it is more likely this individual is intentionally misleading the debriefers. Ibn al-Shaykh [al-Libi] has been undergoing debriefs for several weeks and may be describing scenarios to debriefers that he knows will retain their interest (unquote).

So, Senator, do 'enhanced interrogation techniques' actually work, or do they just produce lots of false information? How can you say you were tortured and managed not to tell your captors the truth, but that it will work and should be allowed against people the C.I.A. interrogates?

Ever been to a shrink?

"Thomas Eagleton had to withdraw from running for Vice President with George McGovern in 1972 after it was disclosed that he had undergone electric shock treatment. Have you, Senator McCain, ever seen a psychiatrist, a psychologist, or any other mental health professional? About what? Would you make those records available to the media, and if not, why not? Don't you think the American public deserves to know the mental health of a man who wants to be president?"

Original here

AP writer rips Obama, gives McCain doughnuts (true story)

Mark Halperin points to some incredibly harsh commentary by AP's Liz Sidoti on Barack Obama today. Halperin says that AP is "objective," which must be a joke, because Sidoti's hit piece was anything but objective.

Sidoti hearts McCain...
...with doughnuts.

It opens by emphatically declaring that "Barack Obama chose winning over his word" and concludes with the bitter observation "so much for being a straight shooter."

Normally, I wouldn't waste my time or yours with Sidoti's nonsense, but there's an amusing story to tell involving her that's just too good not to share. It goes back to April 14, when both John McCain and Barack Obama appeared at an event for newspaper editors hosted by the AP.

At the event, the head of AP addressed Barack as "Osama" while John McCain was given a box of Dunkin' Donuts -- with sprinkles. And coffee, with a little cream and a little sugar. By none other than Liz Sidoti.

As Dana Milbank wrote in the WaPo:

So much for the liberal media.

John McCain and Barack Obama both appeared before the nation's newspaper editors yesterday. The putative Republican presidential nominee was given a box of doughnuts and a standing ovation. The likely Democratic nominee was likened to a terrorist.

"We spend quite a bit of time with you on the back of the Straight Talk Express asking you questions, and what we've decided to do today was invite everyone else along on the ride," Sidoti explained. "We even brought you your favorite treat."

McCain opened the offering. "Oh, yes, with sprinkles!" he said.

Sidoti passed him a cup. "A little coffee with a little cream and a little sugar," she said.

You have to watch to fully appreciate Sidoti's obsequiousness (video via Crooks and Liars):

So anytime someone tries to tell that the media is tougher on John McCain than on Barack Obama, just think of Liz Sidoti's doughnuts and her cozy relationship with John McCain. And don't forget the coffee -- a little cream and a little sugar.

Original here

Obama Calls Muslim Women Barred From Stage

Updated Shimaa Abdelfadeel and Hebba Aref, the two Muslim women who were asked not to sit where they could be photographed behind Senator Barack Obama because they were wearing traditional religious head coverings, received a call from the candidate himself today to follow up on his campaign’s initial apology. They released a statement about it to The New York Times:

At the rally for Senator Obama in Detroit on Monday, June 16, two volunteers denied us seating behind the stage the Senator would soon take. The volunteers informed us that we were not allowed to sit in that area due to the hijab, the headscarf that each of us was wearing.

This incident was unfortunate and extremely disappointing. Senator Obama has called us each to personally convey his deepest apologies and acknowledge that this was inexcusable. We both immensely appreciate the Senator’s phone call and his commitment to remedy this issue. We commend him for displaying qualities befitting an effective President. We acknowledge that this injustice has been taken seriously and that Senator Obama does not tolerate discrimination against Arabs, Muslims or any community. We are assured that he and his staff are committed to upholding the principles of justice for all peoples and bringing about change we can believe in. The infringement on our rights occurred and has been addressed; now we are ready to move forward. We will continue to support Senator Obama in his campaign and wish him the best as the race continues.

Regards,
Shimaa Abdelfadeel
Hebba Aref

Update: Mr. Obama’s released the following statement:

I reached out to Ms. Aref and Ms. Abdelfadeel this afternoon. I spoke with Ms. Abdelfadeel, and expressed my deepest apologies for the incident that occurred with volunteers at the event in Detroit. The actions of these volunteers were unacceptable and in no way reflect any policy of my campaign. I take deepest offense to and will continue to fight against discrimination against people of any religious group or background. Our campaign is about bringing people together, and I’m grateful that Ms. Abdelfadeel accepted our apology and I hope Ms. Aref and any who were offended accept my apology as well.

Original here

Bush’s Post-Presidency To-Do List

We all know President Bush can’t wait to say “Adios” to the White House next January. He’s had to endure years of international travel, bad hair days on C-SPAN, and the constant headaches of political correctness. Here’s a look at his post-presidency agenda—a back-to-the-basics approach to life in Crawford.

Keep Passing Notes with Ahmadinejad
Bush’s terse responses to the Iranian president’s famous eighteen-page letter have been building up within him. Look for Bush to grab his Crayola markers, tear a page out of his spiral notebook, and blast Ahmadinejad: “Yeah, well, you’re ugly and your mullah dresses you funny.” He’ll add lots of exclamation points—and pictures of mushroom clouds. Then he’ll fold the letter like we all did in middle school, tucking the last flap in tight and writing “To: Ahmadinejad/From: The Prez” across the top. Eventually, as they pass more notes, Bush may play peacemaker with a little—“Do you still think I’m a blood-sucking wolf? Check Yes or No”—action.

Get Memoirs Written
Bush will certainly hire someone to write his memoirs, and in his effort to help (with minimum effort), he will send his computer to the lucky author. The computer records will show exactly what was going on in the Oval Office, and will fuel the book’s title: Mine Sweeper and Solitaire: The Story of a President.

Toss the Passport
Bush, who had barely forayed out of the U.S. when he became president, needs to let the rest of the world’s utter disdain for him die down before he goes out of the country. He will once again be able to stay in Crawford for cookouts and Krispy Kremes. He might even use his passport as kindling for the big, post-presidency grill-out at his ranch. Pass the quail!

Get on a Soap Opera
Bush always thought he was good looking, but C-SPAN and CNN just didn’t excite him. Look for the former president to make a guest appearance on One Life to Live or As the World Turns.

Make a Mixed CD
Despite the fact that Cheney, Condi, and Rummy gave him some heartburn during his presidency, Bush will still want to make them a mixed CD with his favorite ditties. Look for the selections to include Toby Keith’s “Courtesy of the Red, White and Blue” (We’ll put a boot in your a**/It’s the American way) so he can remember the good old days when people admitted to voting for him, and the Geto Boys’ “Damn It Feels Good to Be a Gangsta” (To all you Republicans that help me win/I sincerely like to thank you/Cuz now I got the world swingin’ from my n**s/And damn it feels good to be a gangsta).

Buy a Hummer
He’s an oilman who doesn’t do “nucular,” and he won’t go quietly into the night driving a Toyota Prius and composting his kitchen scraps. Expect Bush to buy a Hummer and road trip with his family to the lovely beaches of Galveston.

Visit Jeb
Bush feels a little bad about neglecting younger bro Jeb for the past eight years. He will fill up the tank of his Hummer and head to South Beach for a long weekend. Look for the two to order California rolls at Nobu (the rest of that nasty stuff is raw!) and make eyes with J Lo and her new twins.

Hang with His Homies
He’ll have Laura arrange some playdates with his buddies, Cheney and Gonzalez. They’re all out of jobs.

Catch Up on Reading
Bush missed reading his favorite literature—Maxim and People magazines—during his White House tenure. Luckily his servants in Crawford have been saving back issues on the empty shelves of his home library.

Hire Someone Else to Clear Brush in Crawford
Bush famously took more vacations than any other president in history and his press office deftly disseminated pictures of him clearing brush. (Reports from inside say that the West Wing is covered with homoerotic pictures of Bush wielding a chainsaw). Now that there’s no political benefit, bring on the landscapers.

Keep Playing Dress-Up
Bush can put on his flight suit any time he wants and keep repeating, “Mission accomplished.” He may also like to wear his dad’s suits and pretend to be a respected ex-president.

Make a Workout Video
Bush, known for his fitness, will indulge his fans with a workout video. He’ll invite special guests (Scooter Libby, John Ashcroft, his wife Laura) to star in the videos, and he might even create a line of Bush-themed work out mats, leg warmers, and little hand weights.

Original here

10 of the Most Shocking American Political Sex Scandals

The last two decades have brought us so many political sex scandals that we might be tempted to think they’re a new thing. However, looking back over the history of this great nation, you’ll see that political sex scandals have been embarrassing politicians and causing a stir since the very beginning. Here are just a few of the most interesting, the most memorable, and the most bizarre political sex scandals in American history.

1. Strom Thurmond: One of the most vocal advocates of segregation in America was famous for his racist views and outspoken manner of expressing them. It was shockingly revealed shortly after Thurmond’s death in 2003 that he had fathered a child with an African-American maid when the maid, Carrie Butler, was just 15. The subject of consent has been debated ever since then, with the question being raised as to whether the encounter was consentual or amounted to rape.

2. Franklin Roosevelt: The strong, no-nonsense president is best known for serving the nation during the Depression and creating the New Deal to help the economy recover. What is less widely known about the president is that he carried on a long-term affair with his wife’s former secretary, Lucy Mercer. Eleanor Roosevelt discovered evidence of the affair in 1918 and agreed to continue the marriage if her husband would stop seeing Mercer. The affair continued anyway, apparently unknown to Eleanor. Lucy Mercer was with the president when the fatal brain hemorrhage struck him in 1944.

3. James Buchanan: Often considered to be among the worst (or at least the most forgettable) American presidents, Buchanan spent much of his public life facing speculation about his sexual orientation. Although he was at one time engaged to a woman (Ann Coleman), she died before their wedding and he never married. He did, however, spend 15 years living with a male companion who many people speculated was more than just a close friend. William Rufus King was referred to as “Buchanan’s Wife,” “Aunt Fancy,” and various other nicknames which were believed to indicate the presence of a deeper relationship than was publicly admitted. Most of the men’s voluminous correspondence was burned upon Buchanan’s death, so this is one political rumor that will never be solved.

4. Clarence Thomas: Who could forget the high-profile and seemingly never-ending case of Clarence Thomas and his alleged sexual harassment of lawyer Anita Hill and several other women? During his Supreme Court appointment hearings, many allegations were made regarding Thomas’ allegedly inappropriate comments and actions regarding several female staff members. Thomas repeatedly denied any impropriety on his part and was eventually sworn in as a Supreme Court Justice.

5. Alexander Hamilton: Among the few political figures who managed to look like sort of a good guy even after a sex scandal, Hamilton fell victim to a con man and his wife in 1791. Maria Reynolds approached Hamilton (who was married with three children) for help that year, claiming that her husband had abandoned her and that she had nowhere to turn. The two began an intimate affair that lasted for about two years. During this time, Maria and her husband, James, blackmailed Hamilton for over $1000 (a princely sum in the late 18th century) in exchange for the uninterrupted continuation of the affair. After receiving their money, the couple spread nasty political rumors about Hamilton, alleging that he was involved in insider trading of political secrets. Hamilton eventually cleared his name with unprecedented honesty and candor, but his public image never fully recovered. Having been pegged as a future presidential candidate prior to the scandal, Hamilton’s influence fell sharply following the incidents.

6. David Vitter: The Louisiana senator had a strong record of family-values Republican votes, but was nevertheless found out last summer as a previous client of “D.C. Madame” Deborah Jeane Palfrey. By the time the story hit news outlets, Vitter said that he had already asked for and received forgiveness from God and his wife for the indiscretions, which occurred before his election to Senate in 2004.

7. Warren G. Harding: Another one of the most ill-remembered presidents in US history, it’s widely thought that Harding would have been impeached if not for his early death. There were so many scandals marring his time in office that most people were convinced he would have been booted from office soon enough. In addition to his political snafus and unpopular choices, there were several high-profile extramarital affairs that grabbed the nation’s attention. One involved a 15-year long affair with his friend’s wife, Carrie Phillips. Mrs. Phillips reportedly accepted a hush bribe of $20,000 during Harding’s presidential campaign. The most well-known of Harding’s extramarital strayings was with a woman named Nan Britton, who was 30 years younger than the President. He invited her into the White House on countless occasions, conducting their affair in closets, bathrooms, and any other unoccupied space. Britton bore a daughter who she claimed was Harding’s; although Harding never saw the child, he did provide generous child support payments. When President Harding died, many speculated that his wife, Florence, had poisoned him in retaliation.

8. Bill Clinton: The granddaddy of modern political sex scandals, Bill Clinton got himself into deep water when Paula Jones accused him of sexual harassment. As a result of that investigation, Clinton’s sex life was put under a microscope - and it was found that he was involved inappropriately with a young intern named Monica Lewinsky. The president was held up for impeachment after repeatedly lying to a grand jury about his involvement with Lewinsky, resulting in his eventual impeachment by the House of Representatives. The Senate, however, did not vote to remove Clinton from office, and he managed to leave his presidency with a 65% approval rating.

9. John F. Kennedy: Almost everyone knows about JFK’s philandering ways. From models to journalists to Marilyn Monroe, Kennedy was a proven ladies’ man who enjoyed more than his fair share of extramarital escapades. For the most part, though, they were covered up by the media both during his presidency and, for a time, after his death.

10. George W. Bush: You didn’t realize that G.W. Bush has been the subject of two sex scandals? Don’t feel bad - they were largely ignored by the media. The first was a former stripper named Tammy Phillips who claimed to have an 18-month affair with then-governor Bush which ended in 1999, just before his first presidential bid. The second, Margie Shoedinger, accused Bush of rape in 2002. She later apparently committed suicide. The most interesting component of these scandals was the speed with which they were discredited, swept away, and for the most part never became known to most Americans.

Orignal here

Fuel Costs Pinch Cities; Mayors Push Mass Transit

MIAMI — Higher fuel prices are forcing cities across the country to cut public services, limit driving by employees and expand public transportation in what has become a sprawling movement to conserve energy.

A survey of 132 cities, released Friday here at a meeting of the United States Conference of Mayors, found that 90 percent were altering operations because of fuel costs. Republicans and Democrats from New Jersey to Hawaii are essentially becoming energy-pinching nags.

They are pushing City Council members, whether they get along or not, to car-pool. They are telling housing inspectors to arrange site visits in clusters so they stop criss-crossing neighborhoods. And, even as many of them still use S.U.V.’s, the mayors are asking nearly everyone to do a little more walking.

“It’s costing us millions of dollars a year,” said Mayor Manuel A. Diaz of Miami, the incoming president of the mayors’ group. “We can’t deal with a deficit, so everyone has to drive less.”

Several mayors — as they gripped-and-grinned at a downtown hotel — said the cost of fuel had become their obsession.

Coinciding with a real estate meltdown, rising energy costs have wreaked havoc because many city budgets were passed months ago with the assumption that gasoline would cost $2 a gallon. Now mayors are finding themselves squeezed by rising costs, declining revenues and increased demands for public transportation.

In the survey, 88 percent of mayors said their cities had experienced growth in the use of public transit, with nearly half of those reporting that the increases were significant or very significant. Some studies have documented growth of 10 percent to 15 percent over the last year in parts of the South and West.

“Public transportation is the way everyone is going,” said Mufi Hannemann, mayor of Honolulu. “Right now in my city, it’s all about the public bus.”

Mr. Hannemann said the federal government needed to give cities more money to expand their offerings. “We’re starting a ferry system, and making more bike lanes, more opportunities for people to walk,” he said. “And the federal government can help us immeasurably.”

For smaller, poorer cities, the shift away from driving can at times feel transformative. Mayor John Robert Smith of Meridian, Miss., population 40,000, said local officials never talked much about driving. It was just how everyone got around.

Now, he said, the topic of gasoline prices and transportation comes up at nearly every public meeting. To cut costs, he said he had asked city workers not to chat with their cars idling. Mr. Smith has also begun promoting bicycles and bike lanes and asking elected officials to share rides to events.

“We’re on the edge of people changing their travel patterns,” he said.

In the long term, Mr. Smith said, Meridian was working with the state to become part of a commuter line that would connect his city with Jackson, the capital. But he said the gains for most cities would be limited because the nation had relied heavily on cars for decades. “We have waited until we are at a crisis point to address transportation,” Mr. Smith said.

Other mayors agreed. And yet, some of them also acknowledged that higher gasoline prices could eventually make their cities bigger, better and richer.

“There is a strong argument that over the last 10 years there has been a trend of young professionals and empty nesters coming back to downtowns,” said Mayor John Hickenlooper of Denver. “We built 15,000 housing units in the past few years. If gas gets up to $8 or $10 a gallon, that will dramatically accelerate something that’s already going on. There is a silver lining.”

Original here

Congress pats itself on back as it caves on telecom immunity

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance," Rep Trent Franks (R-AZ) intoned on the floor of the House of Representatives, purporting to invoke the authority of Thomas Jefferson on behalf of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, which passed the House by a 293–129 vote yesterday.

If we wanted to pick nits, we could note that this is a misquotation, that Jefferson didn't write it, and that the "eternal vigilance" alluded to in that hoary aphorism is most assuredly not the government's unfettered power to eavesdrop on Americans' international communications without a warrant. But forget it, he's rolling. Why spoil such a rare bipartisan lovefest with quibbling over details?

Floor debate on the measure, which expands executive branch surveillance authority and provides retroactive amnesty for telecoms implicated in warrantless NSA wiretapping, consisted largely of mutual congratulation. Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-MO) lauded the bill as a shining example of "what we can do when we come together," a sentiment echoed by Rep James Langevin (D-RI), who said that the compromise "illustrates what this House can do when it deliberates with care, holds steady against fearmongering, and acts in the best interests of the country and its citizens."

Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-TX) interrupted the good vibes briefly to charge Democratic leaders, who had blocked a vote on a previous version of reforms to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, with "playing politics with national security." But even he managed to close on a positive note, stressing that "when this House is allowed to vote, we can come together and accomplish things for the country." Perhaps most effusive was Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD), the chief architect of the deal, who after being introduced as a man with the "wisdom of Solomon and the patience of Job" delivered an encomium to his colleagues and staff so fulsome that I found myself searching in vain for the golden statuette.

Some Democrats nevertheless felt obliged to assure skeptics that the compromise bill did not simply represent a capitulation to White House demands. Intelligence Committee Chair Silvestre Reyes (D-TX), for instance, distinguished the bill from legislation passed in the Senate by noting that "in this bill, Congress does not grant immunity. Congress isn't deciding the question of immunity; the district court will." Which is true: The Senate language granted immunity from lawsuits to any telecom that received a written directive from the attorney general, regardless of whether the company believed its actions to be lawful. The new, improved language instructs a federal court to grant immunity from lawsuits to any telecom that received a written directive from the attorney general, regardless of whether the company believed its actions to be lawful.

Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA) gave a nod to the concerns many in her district had voiced about the bill passed today. "My phones are ringing off the hook and my e-mail accounts are full," said Harman. "By the hundreds and hundreds, my constituents are saying 'don't cave in, don't toss due process out the window, don't compromise on our civil liberties, and all surveillance of Americans should require a warrant.'" She then explained why she planned to ignore them.

The most extended apologia came from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), who urged that the compromise be judged by comparison with the Senate bill, which she characterized as the only realistic alternative. She outlined several ways in which the current legislation is preferable to the Senate's version. First, the compromise bill reasserts that FISA is the "exclusive means" for conducting electronic surveillance, which would require the president to ignore such language twice in order to launch an extralegal surveillance program, rather than only once, as under traditional FISA rules. Second, it preserves prior judicial review of surveillance authorizations, except in "very, very rare" circumstances, such as when the attorney general asserts that waiting for a judge would entail delay. Third, it contains specific provisions barring the use of authorizations targeting parties abroad as a pretext for targeting U.S. persons, presumably to be enforced by a board of psychics. Finally, it provides for an internal investigation of the extent of past surveillance, which Congress will act upon with the same legendary zeal for civil liberties it has displayed over the past seven years.

There were, however, a few sour notes during the proceedings. Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA) complained that the bill "actually permits the government to perform mass, untargeted surveillance of any and all conversations believed to be coming into and out of the United States, without any individualized finding, and without a requirement that wrongdoing is believed to be involved at all." Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH): "these blanket wiretaps make it impossible to know whose calls are being intercepted by the National Security Agency." Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) invoked the specter of past intelligence abuses, such as the wiretapping of Martin Luther King and the FBI's controversial COINTELPRO operation—an argument Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) dismissed by conceding the political abuse of surveillance powers in the past but asserting that "those days are behind us." (The latter development coinciding, as chance would have it, with the passage of legislation prohibiting warrantless wiretaps.) Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ) warned that the compromise legislation would "redefine the Fourth Amendment, and thus the fundamental relationship between the government and its people" by licensing "a fishing expedition approach to intelligence collection."

On the question of immunity, Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) argued that the House was "breaking with a very proud tradition by intervening in a pending court decision in an effort to reach a preordained legal outcome." Rep. Jerrold Nadler blasted the transfer of the issue to federal judges as "a fig leaf granting blanket immunity to the telecom companies for possibly illegal acts, without allowing the courts to consider the facts or the law."

When the votes were tallied, just under half of House Democrats joined Republicans in supporting the bill. A lone Republican, Rep. Tim Johnson (R-IL), voted against it. A spokesman told Ars that Johnson "voted that way, consistent with all of his past votes on the FISA bill, because he's worried about its impact on civil liberties, and he believes that the necessary authority for the intelligence agencies already exists. He's talked to people on the front lines, and the system works very effectively now.

Original here

Obama Supports FISA Legislation, Angering Left

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) today announced his support for a sweeping intelligence surveillance law that has been heavily denounced by the liberal activists who have fueled the financial engines of his presidential campaign.

In his most substantive break with the Democratic Party's base since becoming the presumptive nominee, Obama declared he will support the bill when it comes to a Senate vote, likely next week, despite misgivings about legal provisions for telecommunications corporations that cooperated with the Bush administration's warrantless surveillance program of suspected terrorists.

In so doing, Obama sought to walk the fine political line between GOP accusations that he is weak on foreign policy -- Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) called passing the legislation a "vital national security matter" -- and alienating his base.

"Given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as president, I will carefully monitor the program," Obama said in a statement hours after the House approved the legislation 293-129.

This marks something of a reversal of Obama's position from an earlier version of the bill, which was approved by the Senate Feb. 12, when Obama was locked in a fight for the Democratic nomination with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.).

Obama missed the February vote on that FISA bill as he campaigned in the "Potomac Primaries," but issued a statement that day declaring "I am proud to stand with Senator Dodd, Senator Feingold and a grassroots movement of Americans who are refusing to let President Bush put protections for special interests ahead of our security and our liberty."

Sens. Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.) and Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.) continue to oppose the new legislation, as does Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.). All Obama backers in the primary, those senior lawmakers contend that the new version of the FISA law -- crafted after four months of intense negotiations between White House aides and congressional leaders -- provides insufficient court review of the pending 40 lawsuits against the telecommunications companies alleging privacy invasion for their participation in a warrantless wiretapping program after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

"The immunity outcome is predetermined," Feingold wrote in a memo today.

Obama came down on the side of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who argued that a provision in the new law reaffirmed that FISA, and that act's courts, gives the final say over government spying. President Bush has argued that a war-time chief executive has powers that trump FISA.

"It restores FISA and existing criminal wiretap statutes as the exclusive means to conduct surveillance -- making it clear that the President cannot circumvent the law," Obama said today.

Sen. Arlen Specter (Pa.), the most prominent Republican opponent of the compromise bill, issued a statement today calling that exclusivity provision "meaningless because that specific provision is now in [the] 1978 act." Specter said Bush just ignored existing law in starting the warrantless surveillance program.

Original here