Democracy for Pittsburgh Meetup Tonight!

Meet the group who told Senator Santorum, and the world, "Santorum doesn't live here anymore" (not for homestead tax purposes, anyway).

The Pittsburgh DFA meetup is the home meetup of Democracy for Pittsburgh.

Stop by, there's plenty of good stuff on the agenda!

What: The Democracy for Pittsburgh June Meetup
When: Wednesday, June 1 at 7:00PM
Where: Mario's South Side Saloon
1514 E Carson St
Pittsburgh PA 15203
412-381-5610

You do not have to RSVP online, but you can if you like HERE

Baby Steps

Elections of Officers for the Young Dems of Allegheny County took place last night. Elected officials are:

Marc Daffner, President
Jen Rapach, Vice President
Janis Williams, Secretary
Joy Sabl, Treasurer

While I'm not a member of YDAC, I am very familiar with new officers Janis Williams and Joy Sabl. Those of you who are/were connected with the Kerry grassroots meetup group, Dean grassroots meetup group, Democracy for America, MoveOn, Progress Pittsburgh, etc., will have run into Janis and Joy as well. They were also supporters of Bill Peduto for mayor.

Baby steps. Baby steps.

And We Have A Winner! Deep Throat Is...

W. Mark Felt

ABC interrupted Preznit Chimpy McFlightsuit's press conference to announce that W. Mark Felt (who held the second most senior position at the FBI) has admitted that he is "Deep Throat." The story will be in an upcoming issue of Vanity Fair.

Felt said he was "only doing his duty" and did not seek to bring down Nixon over the cover-up of a break-in at Democratic Party offices in the Watergate complex in Washington, D.C.

Carl Bernstein, who with Bob Woodward broke the story as Washington Post reporters, issued a statement neither denying nor confirming Felt's claim. Bernstein stated he and Woodward would be keeping their pledge to reveal the source only once that person dies.

Full story HERE.

Only one question now: Who will be the Bush Administration's Deep Throat?

Any takers? Or is the Republic too far gone for any amount of leakers to help us now?

Bush is a Big Fucking Liar

Sign This Letter!

Rep. Conyers: "I believe the American people deserve answers about [the Downing Street Memo] and should demand directly that the President tell the truth about the memo."

Rep. John Conyers is trying to get 100,000 signatures on the following letter:

The Honorable George W. Bush
President of the United States of America
1600 Pennsylvania Ave, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005

Dear Mr. President:

We the undersigned write to you because of our concern regarding recent disclosures of a Downing Street Memo in the London Times, comprising the minutes of a meeting of Prime Minister Tony Blair and his top advisers. These minutes indicate that the United States and Great Britain agreed, by the summer of 2002, to attack Iraq, well before the invasion and before you even sought Congressional authority to engage in military action, and that U.S. officials were deliberately manipulating intelligence to justify the war.

Among other things, the British government document quotes a high-ranking British official as stating that by July, 2002, Bush had made up his mind to take military action. Yet, a month later, you stated you were still willing to "look at all options" and that there was "no timetable" for war. Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, flatly stated that "[t]he president has made no such determination that we should go to war with Iraq."

In addition, the origins of the false contention that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction remains a serious and lingering question about the lead up to the war. There is an ongoing debate about whether this was the result of a "massive intelligence failure," in other words a mistake, or the result of intentional and deliberate manipulation of intelligence to justify the case for war. The memo appears to resolve that debate as well, quoting the head of British intelligence as indicating that in the United States "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

As a result of these concerns, we would ask that you respond to the following questions:
1)Do you or anyone in your administration dispute the accuracy of the leaked document?
2) Were arrangements being made, including the recruitment of allies, before you sought Congressional authorization to go to war? Did you or anyone in your Administration obtain Britain's commitment to invade prior to this time?
3) Was there an effort to create an ultimatum about weapons inspectors in order to help with the justification for the war as the minutes indicate?
4) At what point in time did you and Prime Minister Blair first agree it was necessary to invade Iraq?
5) Was there a coordinated effort with the U.S. intelligence community and/or British officials to "fix" the intelligence and facts around the policy as the leaked document states?

These are the same questions 89 Members of Congress, led by Rep. John Conyers, Jr., submitted to you on May 5, 2005. As citizens and taxpayers, we believe it is imperative that our people be able to trust our government and our commander in chief when you make representations and statements regarding our nation engaging in war. As a result, we would ask that you publicly respond to these questions as promptly as possible.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Please sign the letter HERE.

If you're still unfamiliar with the "Downing Street Memo" which is actually MINUTES transcribed during the British Prime Minister's meeting on July 23, 2002 please go to www.downingstreetmemo.com

Of BoBos, Bubbas and Custard

I don't really have an excuse for not posting, though I have been involved in a discussion of the recent primary election HERE and HERE and mentioned HERE. The Angry Drunk Bureaucrat (TADB) contends that Bill Peduto's support derives mainly from the BoBos (or the Custard Class) and the "Revolutionaries" while Lamb has more "New-Old Guard" support and, thus, Lamb would have won in a two-way between himself and Peduto. Others have repeatedly pointed out that Peduto came in second while Lamb came in third and that Peduto won more districts than Lamb with less money.

Since TADB's main argument seems to be that Peduto is a "Leftist" and his appeal is "elitist" and being that I have yet to see any hard evidence given for these claims, I am going to venture an opinion of my own as to Bill Peduto's future chances for becoming mayor of Pittsburgh that is based PURELY ON ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE AND OPINION too. [snark]

Subject of said anecdote is an 89 year-old near life-long resident of the South Side and a solid Democrat who was active in local politics in her day. A first generation Russian-American, non college-educated woman who's deceased husband was a foreman at US Steel. (Have I sufficiently described her as a NON BoBo, NON elitist who knows better to ask what flavor of custard is in her donut at the local bakery/Iggle?)

Let's call this woman "Bubba." As may be deduced from the above description, Bubba voted for Bob "He's been to my house" O'Connor. Let's take this a step further and note that Bubba has a granddaughter who was solidly for Peduto. While said granddaughter won commitments from four out of five family members to vote for Peduto, any appeal to Bubba was met with, "You, know better. O'Connor's going to win," and "I like him, I know him, he's been to my house."

Flash-forward to the day after the election and the following conversation:

Bubba: Did you see O'Connor's acceptance speech?

Granddaughter: Uh-uh.

Bubba: I was so disappointed. He sounded stupid. He kept saying...he said three...times, "We're going to turn this city around." He never says how.

Granddaughter: Uh-uh. Did you see Peduto's speech last night?

Bubba: You know I voted for O'Connor, but Peduto's speech was brilliant. He's a brilliant man. He was so eloquent. Mark my words, in four years, he'll be mayor. They were saying such nice things about him on the TV too. In four years from now -- if I'm still here -- I would vote for him.

What does this all mean? It's anecdotal, so, maybe nothing. But if TADB can contend that Bill can only appeal to BoBos than I can contend that when your average Pittsburgher actually gets a chance to really listen to Bill, they like what they hear. And, Michael Lamb? Well, he never came up in the conversation -- it was about the future of this city.

"Do not be fooled, the Republican Senate RAPED you tonight."

Well, that seems to be the Freeper response to last night's compromise over the Senate Nuclear Option/Filibuster debate. The fact that the Freepers are apoplectic over the compromise makes me want to be happy with it. A Daily Kos diary has a nice roundup of their response to it HERE.

Certainly Sen. Frist and Focus on the Family Action Chairman Dr. James C. Dobson seem to be taking it hard, which can't be bad (interesting analysis of Dobson's comments HERE).

But, as Josh Marshall points out, aren't we just delaying the inevitable showdown?

Marshall does claim it as a "draw" though which is sorta a "win" for a minority party.

[sigh]

I wish I could feel better about this...

The Passion of Rick Santorum

The only thing missing from the New York Times Magazine cover piece on Sen. Rick Santorum on Sunday was the halo and the crucifix so, we've supplied those:



They paint him as some sort of pugilist for Christ; full of conviction and a True Believer. But, the real fun comes in as they buy the line -- hook, line, and sinker -- that Lil Ricky's other real passion is as an "antipoverty crusader." The word "poverty" is mentioned five times in the article. The word "antipoverty" is mentioned three times and the word "poor" is mentioned four times.

Most of the evidence that they give for Lil Ricky as Crusader for the Downtrodden is his efforts to get more government bucks into the hands of faith-based charities. Seeing as how Santorum needs to rely heavily on the Catholic, Evangelical and anti-choice vote as his base, could there not be an ulterior motive for his concern in this area? The NY Times doesn't see fit to ask that question. Perhaps this is a matter of "faith" with them.

At least they had the decency to mention the following:

"Earlier this year, Santorum voted against a Democratic amendment to a bankruptcy bill to raise the federal minimum wage to $7.25, which would seemingly be one of the more efficient ways to get money to poor people. He offered his own amendment to hike it to $6.25 as part of a package that included tax cuts for small businesses and exemptions on overtime pay for some workers currently eligible for it."

The NY Times piece does not mention Santorum's reaction -- or should that be lack of action -- in the matter of the flood-ravaged business districts in Carnegie and Oakdale, PA in September of last year.

From the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:

"But Santorum said he could not deliver the one thing owners say they need most: direct federal grants to help with the rebuilding process."

[snip]

"Understand that this is going to have to be a mostly local effort with the federal government helping where it can," Santorum said. "The federal government doesn't have money for this type of relief."

Funny how the person who holds his party's third-ranking leadership position could not exert any pull in getting aid to his own constituents. Perhaps if the floods had been more "Biblical" in proportion and if there were some way to funnel some cash back to the Church, he may have tried harder.

Loyal Puppy that he is, Santorum Speaks

Let's start with Senator Santorum's most recent offering and work backwards. In the May 18 edition of the Post-Gazette, Rick Santorum attempted to set the record straight (I love it when homophobes use that metaphor, don't you?) We shall see that he's not completely straight with the truth himself.

The Senator begins:

A May 11 column used erroneous information from a liberal Web site, http://www.rawstory.com/, rather than conducting a simple fact check to determine my voting record on judicial nominations ("Political Animals Sniff the Winds of Change"). Though a correction has been made, the record must be completely set straight.

He never mentions who wrote the May 11 article, does he? For the record, it was Sally Kalson. He does mention that "a correction has been made" but he doesn't say what the correction is for. Is the correction for the entire Kalson column or just something in the Kalson column? I'd imagine Senator Santorum is hoping we would assume it was one or the other.

However, the correction is for this article by Maeve Reston. On May 2, Reston, among other things, wrote that:

Santorum said he objected to the nomination of John H. Bingler Jr. to U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania because he did not believe Bingler was qualified for the post.

This is what needed to be corrected. By the way, it sparked on May 8, an angry letter to the editor of its own. From former US District Court Judge Donald Ziegler. Judge Ziegler wrote:

The statement of Sen. Rick Santorum that John H. Bingler Jr. was not qualified to serve as a judge of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania cannot go unchallenged ("Democrats Say Santorum Blocked Judges, Too," May 2). Mr. Bingler was one of the ablest and most competent trial lawyers to ever appear in the District Court, and he was respected by the bench and bar. He also served as president of the Allegheny County Bar Association, was a member of the Academy of Trial Lawyers and was rated exceptionally well qualified in all ratings by the bar association.

But more from the judge later. Here is the correction (although the P-G calls it "a clarification") from May 14:

Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., said this week he opposed former President Bill Clinton's nomination of John H. Bingler Jr. for a federal judgeship in Western Pennsylvania because Bingler had not been on a short list of recommended candidates drawn up by an advisory committee that he and Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., had appointed. Santorum clarified that when he said he found Bingler "unqualified" for the position for a story published May 2, 2005 he meant only that the committee had not put forward Bingler's name. "I've never sat down and met with John Bingler. I never looked at his resume," Santorum said. "If I say [nominees] weren't qualified, I'm basically saying they weren't qualified by the commission." Bingler was first nominated in 1995 and received the American Bar Association highest rating of "well-qualified."

So I guess what he's saying is that it was the committee that he and Senator Arlen Specter appointed that found Bingler "unqualified." No reason was given as to why he wasn't on the short list (was he on any "long" lists? was he on any lists at all?).

But take a look again at the dates: Santorum's initial remark about Bingler being unqualified is dated May 2. The letter from Judge Ziegler is dated May 8. Sally Kalson's column appeared on May 11 and the correction (clarification??) from May 14. Finally Senator Santorum's letter appears on May 18th.

It also should be noted that the correction involves only one of the three people mentioned in Reston's May 2 article. The other two are Lynette Norton and Robert Freedberg. Indeed, our friend Judge Zeigler had this to say about Lynette Norton:

The same can be said of Lynette Norton. Ms. Norton was an expert in insurance law, an author of textbooks on the subject, a mediator, lecturer and member of the Academy of Trial Lawyers. She practiced for years in federal court and was relied on by the court for many complex and difficult assignments. She too received exceptionally well qualified ratings by the bar association.

While the correction published by the P-G is silent on Norton and Freedberg, Reston wrote something that neither Santorum or the P-G has corrected:

Santorum said he held up the confirmation of Lynette Norton, who also was nominated for a seat on that court, because Clinton White House officials did not follow through on their standing agreement with him and Specter that for every three Democrats, the senators would get to choose a Republican.

Interesting. So this "exeptionally well qualified" nomination was stopped because she wasn't a Republican. Interesting. And with all the current discussion about how it's the President who makes the nominations and the Senate is limited to giving only "Advice and Consent" what should we think about this "standing agreement" that Santorum and Specter had with the Clinton Administration?

But beyond all this. Take a look again at Santorum's letter. He doesn't mention Bingler, Norton or Freedberg, does he? After the expected bluster/Republican talking points about the Senate Filibuster, he "clarifies" the situation about two other nominees Kalson said he blocked. Kalson wrote:

In addition, he voted to filibuster two Clinton executive nominees, David Satcher and Henry Foster (twice); voted to block another judicial nominee, Richard Paez; and then, after the GOP filibuster was broken, voted to indefinitely postpone a vote on Paez.

So let's see what Santorum offers as a clarification. He wrote:

I was opposed to Richard Paez, who had a record as a judge that I believed was deplorable. However, despite my opposition, I did not "block" him as a nominee. I voted in favor of ending debate on the nomination of Paez, and in favor of the motion to postpone the Paez nomination. In the end I voted against Paez's nomination, although he was confirmed by a vote of 59-39.

But what he doesn't say is that Richard Paez was waiting for a vote for years. And (and this is the biggest deception of all here) while Senator Santorum wrote that he voted in favor of the motion to postpone the nomination what he doesn't respond to was something Kalson wrote - that it was a vote to postpone the vote indefinitely. Go back and check the roll. It says:

Question: On the Motion to Postpone (To indefinitely postpone the nomination of Richard A. Paez) [emphasis added]

Question: how is that not an attempt to "block" the nomination? Richard Paez was nominated in 1996 and in March of 2000, Rick Santorum voted in favor of postponing the vote forever.

Senator Santorum wrote this in his letter:

All Republicans are asking of Democrats now is to let us vote. If a senator opposes a nominee, that senator should vote no when the nominee comes to a vote.

But when it came to Richard Paez, he voted to postpone the vote indefinitely, rather than have it, didn't he?

A brief history on the Paez nomination. Now remember, the current argument is that all Presidential nominees should get an up or down vote. Here's what they did to Richard Paez. YOu can find all this out by going to this site and typing the word "paez" in the search box.

His nomination was initially recieved by the Judiciary Committee on January 25, 1996 with hearings held on July 31 of that year. On the following October 4, the nomination was returned to the President under the provisions of Senate Rules XXXI, paragraph 6 (and we'll get to that rule in a little bit).

The nomination was then resubmitted the following January 27, only to be sent back to the President for the same reason (Rule XXXI, paragraph 6) on October 21, 1998.

What is Rule XXXI, paragraph 6? Here it is:

Nominations neither confirmed nor rejected during the session at which they are made shall not be acted upon at any succeeding session without being again made to the Senate by the President; and if the Senate shall adjourn or take a recess for more than thirty days, all nominations pending and not finally acted upon at the time of taking such adjournment or recess shall be returned by the Secretary to the President, and shall not again be considered unless they shall again be made to the Senate by the President.

The important text is put in bold letters. Turns out that in 1997, the Senate ended its business on October 3, and went home for a recess. In 1998 business ended on October 21. So the Judiciary, by using Senate Rule XXXI halted the nomination of Richard Paez not once, but twice, before it made it to the Senate floor.

After a re-renomination, Paez finally made it out of committee on July 29, 1999. However his nomination had to wait until March 2000 for a debate and a vote in the Senate. That's when Rick "I Didn't 'Block' The Nomination" Santorum voted to postpone the nomination.

But the deception is even deeper. Take a close-closer-closest look at what Santorum wrote:

However, despite my opposition, I did not "block" him as a nominee.

It looks like he was saying, "Yes, I opposed the nomination, but I didn't do anything to "block" the nomination." But he said nothing of the sort. If the Senator were 100% honest, he would have written:

I tried, but failed, to use the rules of the Senate to stop this nomination.

See the difference? But we'd only hear that from the pious lips of Rick Santorum, if he were 100% honest.

Lil Ricky Santorum's Nazi Fetish

NAZIS Here, NAZIS There, NAZIS, NAZIS Everywhere!

Aside from contemplating hot "Man On Dog Action" PA's Jr. Senator, Rick Santorum, also seems to have Nazis on the brain. As Tim from the Chuck Pennacchio campaign demonstrates, Rick "I spy with my little eye...Nazis" Santorum sees Nazi comparisons EVERYWHERE. The Democrats are just like Nazis...the New York Times are Nazi lovers...who's next?

Santorum Nazi Comparison Is a Pattern by Tim :: Posted on Friday, May 20, 2005.

Yesterday's embarrassment wasn't the first time. Here he is comparing the New York Times to the French Revolutionaries, Communists, and Baathists, and yes, the Nazis.

VIDEO HERE

The Bottom Line on Social Insecurity

From Atrios:

Brad Speak, You Listen

Three simple points on the increasingly irrelevant Social Security debate which our great and mighty and ethical press corps needs to understand before they should write about it:

It is a clown show, an episode of stupidity of a jaw-dropping magnitude:

1. The administration's Social Security gurus shove Bush out there with talking points saying that we need to act now to pass the Bush plan, because starting in 2017 Social Security will start taking resources away from the rest of the government and that's a very bad thing--and then they roll out a plan in which Social Security starts taking resources away from the rest of the government in 2011.

2. The administration's Social Security gurus shove Bush out there with talking points saying that passing the Bush plan is essential because if we don't the Social Security trust fund balance will hit zero in 2041, and big benefit cuts will then be necessary--and then they roll out a plan in which the Social Security trust fund balance hits zero in 2030.

3. The administration's Social Security gurus shove Bush out there with talking points about the importance of restoring actuarial balance to Social Security--and then they roll out a plan which closes less than a third of the 75-year funding gap (and refuse to specify the plan in sufficient detail to allow anyone to do a longer-run analysis).

Santorum and Hitler and Hypocrisy

As the Chuck Pennacchio campaign is only too happy to remind us all:

Just two months ago, Rick Santorum said Senator Robert Byrd “lessen[ed] the credibility of the senator and the decorum of the Senate,” when he obliquely referred to Hitler in a March 1 speech. [Charleston Journal 3/11/2005]

Cliche ALERT: Santorum uses Hitler to demonize Democrats!

This afternoon, Rick Santorum, Junior Senator from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania said this during the debate:

Remarkable. Remarkable hubris. I mean, imagine, the rule has been in place for 214 years that this is the way we confirm judges. Broken by the other side two years ago, and the audacity of some members to stand up and say, "How dare you break this rule?"

It's the equivalent of Adolf Hitler in 1942 saying, "I'm in Paris. How dare you invade me. How dare you bomb my city? It's mine."

Un-fucking-believable. See for yourself. Senator Santorum in all his glory.

=====

UPDATE: I changed the link - try it out if you had problems with the old one.

Free Falling Republicans

1. Latest NBC/WSJ poll reveals "angry electorate"

- 52% of the country believes that the country is headed in the wrong direction, compared to 35 who think it's great.

- Just 33 percent of the respondents approve of Congress' job (down 6 points since a poll in April and 8 points since January).

- By 47 percent to 40 percent the public says it would prefer Democrats controlling Congress after the 2006 elections.

-Just 34 percent say the Senate should generally confirm the president's judicial picks as long as they are honest and competent, while 56 percent argue that the Senate should make its own decision about the fitness of each nominee to serve.

- Just 20% of those polled say the economy has gotten better over the past 12 months, an 11% decline since January.

- 51% believe that removing Saddam Hussein from power was not worth the cost and casualties of that war.

- Only 36% support Bush's plan to allow workers to invest their Social Security contributions in the stock market.


2. Bush's approval rating at 43% according to Pew Research

- A survey by Pew Research taken from May 11 to May 15 put Mr. Bush's overall approval rating at 43 per cent.

- Republican leadership in congress at approval rating at 35 per cent.


3. Even FOX News Ratings in Free Fall according to TV Newser

- Ratings for the cable news channel have been plummeting since before the November election.

- According to TV Newser, the number of people watching Fox during prime time in the 25 to 54 age bracket dropped in April for the sixth straight month.

- Totals for Fox's primetime audience in the 25 to 54 age bracket: Oct. 04: 1,074,000; Nov. 04: 891,000; Dec. 04: 568,000; Jan. 05: 564,000; Feb. 05: 520,000; March 05: 498,000; April 05: 445,000. That amounts to a decline of 58 percent, with no sign of leveling off.

- Other cable stations' ratings were also down since the election, but CNN's, for example, appeared to have stabilized last month while Fox's continued to drop.

Guaranteed True Story!

Date: 5/18/05, morning
Place: Squirrel Hill
All dialogue guaranteed verbatim:

So, Pittsburgh mayoral Democratic primary winner (and shoe-in for November) Bob O'Connor walks into Starbucks to get some caffeine. He looks around and greets a random patron (as politicians are wont to do).

O'Connor: "Hi. How are you doing?"

Random Patron: "Terrible! You won and now we're all in trouble!"

[Snickers and laughter from the other patrons.]

O'Connor leaves with tail between his legs.

The Tribune Review

We made it! Take a look. So now anyone who sifts through the Trib's webpage devoted Pittsburgh's blogs now has the opportunity to read what you're reading right now!

And so let me take the opportunity to deconstruct one of today's editorials. Here's the set-up:

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid is using the politics of personal destruction to redefine McCarthyism.

Mr. Reid, a Nevada Democrat, announced on the Senate floor Thursday that he continues to oppose judicial nominee Henry Saad because of "a problem" in the highly confidential FBI report regarding the Michigan judge.

And the kicker:

Standing Rule of the Senate 29, Section 5, states that a senator risks expulsion for disclosing the secret, confidential business or proceedings of the Senate.

And a "Memorandum of Understanding" covering FBI background checks states only Judiciary Committee members and the nominee's home-state senators are allowed access to it.

Reid is neither.

And the pay-off:

Now that Reid has let Saad twist slowly, slowly in the wind, the Senate should act swiftly to enforce its own rules in a bipartisan move to expel him.

And finally it ends with the nod to the Right's own McCarthite past:

Until this moment, Sen. Reid, America never really gauged your cruelty or your recklessness. You have done enough.

Have you no sense of decency?

I have been waiting for this from the Trib for sometime. Since the 13th, at least, where the story was "broken" by Charles Hurt of the Washington Moonie Times.

The Trib says that Reid should be expelled for "disclosing" some secret or confidential Senate business. With many thanks to kos, I'd like to point out that the file that the Trib feels is so "highly confidential" seems to have been mentioned more than a year ago in the Detroit Free Press.

Did Senator Reid disclose the contents of that file? No. Was the existence of the file already known? Yes.

So tell me again, why should Senator Reid be expelled?

=====

An Update: After digging around the great work of others, I found this. It's also from the Washington Moonie Times. It's also from Charles Hurt. Like the piece in the Detroit Free Press, it's also from about a year ago. Here's an interesting paragraph:

From the moment Mr. Hatch began the meeting, he struggled to get the quorum required to vote on a nominee. As soon as a quorum gathered, Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, Vermont Democrat, requested a private meeting to discuss accusations stemming from Judge Saad's FBI background check.

Please note the last sentence. Looks like it was Charles Hurt himself who established the existence of Judge Saad's FBI file.

Here I am, one guy sitting in the library and over there there's the whole dang Tribune-Review. And who gets the story right?

This Scares the Crap Out of Me

No doubt, you've all seen the ubiquitous fish symbol for Christianity that's often displayed on cars and lapels. Perhaps you own one.

Now, we have the Bush Fish:


I thought that this HAD to be a parody when I came across the link at Exit Stage Left, but sadly, it seems to be the real thing.

The symbol's creator claims that it shows, "...worship to the Lord, respect for the President, and hope for all."

Can anyone out there argue that this symbol is somehow not blasphemous? Is this an attempt to create a whole new religion?

Personally, it reminds me of a phrase that my favorite teacher, Henry Koerner, used to say:

"It makes me want to vomit so much that I could cover the world in a sea of vomit."
Henry knew a little something about propaganda, himself, having escaped the Nazis and also having created some well known propaganda of his own for the US during W.W.II.

The Bush Fish symbol is either seriously misguided piety or seriously nasty propaganda.

O'Connor Rakes in Out-Of-State $$$

According to the Tribune-Review Pittsburgh mayoral primary candidate Bob O'Connor is not only the recipient of the most big money donations (28 contributions of $10,000 or more and 353 of at least $1,000), nearly two-thirds of the $1.2 million he has raised has come from OUTSIDE the city.

So what will these Big Spenders get for their dollars? As the Trib notes, "Political observers and O'Connor's competitors say campaign contributors will want at least access for their financial support."

The Trib further quotes opponent Bill Peduto saying the following:

"I would say that special interests have chosen their candidate in Bob O'Connor, and with it comes their agendas."

HOT DOG! GOTV!

Looking for something to do this weekend? Want better city government? Then PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE give even an hour or two this weekend to help put Bill Peduto into office!

Sat, Sun, Mon – GOTV = GET OUT THE VOTE
Phone calls, lit drops, help at the office. 9am to 9pm

SAT, 1:30 pm Meet Bill Peduto @ Tazzo D’Oro
1125 Highland Ave, Highland Park

SAT, 6:30 pm DEBATE PARTY with Bill Peduto
Cappy’s Café, Walnut Street, Shadyside
Stop by and watch the debates with Bill and supporters

SUN, Noon – FREE HOT DOGS and VEGGIE DOGS
The hot dog truck returns to Peduto Headquarters.
Stop on by for some lunch, stay to help with GOTV

ELECTION DAY – Poll watchers, door-knockers and phone bankers are still needed. Work downtown? Help phone bank during your lunch hour or after work!

To sign up call 412-338-1460, email lindsay@yahoo.com or just show up!

The Peduto Headquarters is located at 1100 Smallman St. in the strip district. Free parking is available next to the building and they have passes to the lot across the street.

Have you signed up to help yet? Click HERE

White House Moves Disability Benefits to The Chopping Block

THEN
Bush: Disability Benefits Won’t Be Cut. “[Bush] said he has no plans to cut benefits for the approximately 40 percent of Social Security recipients who collect monthly disability and survivor payments as he prepares his plan for partial privatization.” [Washington Post, 1/16/05]

NOW
Bush Administration Won’t Protect Disability Benefits. “Future Social Security retirement benefits for disabled workers is a matter for negotiations with Congress as it drafts solvency legislation, the Bush administration said Thursday, declining to say whether they should be raised, lowered or left unchanged. ‘Any plan that maintains current disability benefits will need to address the transition to retirement, and those details will be worked out through the legislative process,’ said White House spokesman Trent Duffy.” [AP, 5/13/05]

Read the entire story at BUZZFLASH

Scathing Reviews

Yesterday's Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Letters to the Editor section included three less-than-rave reviews of the P-G's endorsement of Bob O'Connor for Mayor.

You can read them HERE, and yes, the second letter is from me.

And while we're on the topic of Tuesday's primary election, I attended a fundraiser for Bill Peduto last night. The highlight of the evening (aside from Peduto's speech) was a blooper roll from Peduto's TV commercials. Aside from being hilarious, it was also nice to see a candidate who can laugh at himself.