HotShot Blog

Now that I'm back from a two week vacation, there's a lot of events to catch up on. ScAlito hearings are coming up soon, Iraq is still a mess despite holding elections, Jack Abramoff has pleaded guilty, and the list goes on.

But one particular ongoing has really got me inflamed. King George has ordered the NSA to secretly spy on the telephone conversations of ordinary Americans without court approval. Now, the fact that the government is eavesdropping on phone calls arouses suspicion, but there may be a valid defense of the need to do so to prevent terrorism. I do not necessarily support this notion, but the eavesdropping itself does not anger me so much.

The real issue here is that there is already a law that governs telephone monitoring. The law requires that government agencies file a request with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, a court designed explicitly to handle these cases that in general simply rubber stamps the requests. Simple procedure - can surely be done to fight terrorism.

However, Bush has ordered eavesdropping be done without seeking approval of the FISA court. Why bypass the system? WaPo has the answer:

Bush administration officials believe it is not possible, in a large-scale eavesdropping effort, to provide the kind of evidence the court requires to approve a warrant. Sources knowledgeable about the program said there is no way to secure a FISA warrant when the goal is to listen in on a vast array of communications in the hopes of finding something that sounds suspicious. Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales said the White House had tried but failed to find a way.

One government official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the administration complained bitterly that the FISA process demanded too much: to name a target and give a reason to spy on it.

"For FISA, they had to put down a written justification for the wiretap," said the official. "They couldn't dream one up."

So, the reason they couldn't go through the court was that the court requires a written reason for eavesdropping? Surely, "connected to suspected terrorist plot" counts as a reason. There are only two reasons to bypass the court.

First, the program could be monitoring anyone and everyone's phone calls to scope out any information. Not only would this be a gross invasion of privacy, it would be completely ineffective. The NSA would have to wade through millions of phone calls to find one between terrorists, who probably don't discuss plans over a non-encrypted phone line anyways.

Second, the program could encompass far more than anti-terrorism efforts. Republicans have shown a great propensity to label their opponents as traitors and terrorist sympathizers. Why not take action against these traitors? We already know (from Fahrenheit 9-11 for example) that anti-war groups have been labelled a terrorist threat and monitored by government agents. We also know that the White House keeps dossiers on more than 10,000 people it considers political opponents. What is in these files? Since it was a secret program with no oversight, the spying program could easily have been used to dig up political dirt for the Bush 2004 campaign, as well as hundreds of other Republican campaigns. Given Republican political operatives' Machiavellian tactics to win at all costs by spreading lies, it does not seem a stretch to use government tools at their disposal to maintain and expand their power.

Bush apologists will continue to proclaim that national security trumps all and that anyone who disagrees with them is a traitor. But to those conservative blowhards, I ask them how they will feel in four years when President Hillary Clinton uses the NSA to dig up evidence of Rush Limbaugh's drug abuse, O'Reilly's sexual harassment, or pry into the sexual practices of Republican candidates, many of whom have mistresses the public is not aware of. This is a police state can of worms that neither side should want to open up.

This isn't a "Dean is crazy" story, so the media won't report it, but here's an awesome blurb from the political world:

The Democratic National Committee raised more than $51M in 2005, a record for an off-year and twenty percent higher than the comparable period in 2003.

Dean's been kicking ass and taking names. The Democratic party has never raised so much money in an off-year, even when Clinton rented out the Lincoln bedroom (which incidentally Bush does as well now) or when Democrats controlled Congress and took millions in lobbyist money.

Better yet, this $51 million is clean money from small donors, not special interests seeking favors. Where the previous DNC chairman bent over backwards to woo big dollar donations, Dean has in fact gone out of his way to show them the finger. Case in point:

William W. Batoff, a Philadelphia real estate developer and longtime Democratic fund-raiser who backed President Bush in 2000 and 2004...claims he will help fund the Dems' congressional efforts but will boycott the national committee while Dean reigns.

In order to build a long term sustainable progressive infrastructure, the Democratic party cannot rely on donations from business interests that are fundamentally hostile to the values of the party. As we learned in the Clinton years, the temporary gains from passing corporate interest legislation (ex NAFTA) are more than offset by the long term damage to the party's public standing (ex the landslide defeat in 1994).

This is why Dean's revamping of party fundraising is so important. The $51 million raised this year is money that will pour in year after year whether or not Democrats are in power, as long as the Democrats stand up for their core values. It is incentive to do what they should be doing, not what a bigtime lobbyist wants them to do.

Of course, the Republicans will continue to vastly outraise the Democrats. They are men of business, and being in power they are exceedingly efficient at selling access and influence. But the Democrats don't need to outraise the GOP. They simply need to raise enough to spread their message everywhere. $51 million will go a long way toward that.

I've been watching the Alito confirmation hearings over the past two days, and I learned a lot. I learned about how a group of conservative Princeton alumni tried to keep women and minorities out of the school. I had a refresher course in how there are three branches of government and that Congress makes laws, not judges. I also found out that Alito is a family man.

But what I haven't learned about is anything relating to Alito's judicial views. He has simply refused to answer just about every question asked of him, other than on the completely noncontroversial principle of one man-one vote. Case in point today:

SCHUMER: And yet you said yesterday and I think you repeated today to Senator Kohl and maybe Senator Feinstein as well, but what you said yesterday was, quote, "I think that one person, one vote is very well settled now in the constitutional law of our country."

So you were able to answer on the basis of something as to whether it's settled, not being in the -- the words are not in the Constitution. But you were queried by a few of my colleagues and you had a different explanation.

Now, you said you can answer on the other issues because it's settled law; it's not going to come before the court.

So let's go over settled law a little bit.

In case after case, you have been telling us -- you have been comfortable telling us that certain cases are settled and yet you won't use that word with respect to Roe. You've done it in a host of other cases and issues. I'll read a few.

So, "I think that one person, one vote is very well settled now in the constitutional law of our history" in response to Senator Kohl.

"The status of independent agencies I think is settled in the case law." That was in response to Senator Leahy.

"But I do think that most of those commerce clause cases in the years preceding Lopez, the ones that come to mind I think are well settled precedents," reference to Senator Feinstein.

"I think the scope of immunity that the attorney has is now settled by Mitchell v. Forsyth, and that's the law."

So can you answer the question? Is Roe settled or not?

It's less of a concern which way you answer. I just would like you to answer the question.

You can say: Roe is not settled; Roe can absolutely be re- examined. I think a lot of people think that's the answer you want to give but it's controversial. And you may not want to give it because it's controversial, even though some of these other issues will come before the court.

Commerce clause cases will come before the court. Certain types of one man, one vote cases will come before the court. Certain types of administrative agencies will come before the court.

SCHUMER: So, why is it only when it comes to Roe, you can't tell us whether it's settled, whether it's not settled or how it is settled. And you can pick any formulation you want.

Other judges have commented on Roe being settled and Lindsey Graham pointed out -- he's not here -- but Ruth Bader Ginsburg talked about her view and she still got a lot of votes on the other side of the aisle. Same might happen to you.

So, the question, Judge Alito...

(LAUGHTER)

The question, Judge Alito, is: Why won't you talk to us about Roe in terms of whether it's settled or not when you will about so many other issues, even issues that would come before the court?

ALITO: The line that I've tried to draw -- and I've tried to be as forthcoming as I can with the committee. I've tried to provide as many answers as I could. And, obviously, I'm speaking here extemporaneously in response to questions. The line that I have tried to draw is between issues that I don't think realistically will come before the court and on those I feel more freedom to respond. And one person, one vote is an example.

SCHUMER: Sorry to interrupt, but we have limited time. What about commerce clause? Raich came to the court a couple years ago. Raich has roots all the way back in Wickert v. Fillburn.

You talked about commerce clause cases being settled.

ALITO: Well, it depends on which commerce clause cases you are talking about. Certainly, the initial commerce clause cases that moved away from the pre-New Deal understanding of the commerce clause have been on the books for a long time.

Maybe I have been more forthcoming than I should have been in some areas. And, if that's the case in providing these extemporaneous answers, I can be faulted for that.

But the line that I have to draw, and I think every nominee, including Justice Ginsburg, has drawn, is to say that, when it comes to something that realistically could come before the court, they can't answer about how they would decide that question.

ALITO: That would be a disservice to the judicial process.

This is the Republican strategy now. Talk at length about meaningless points but never respond to an actual question. This is then combined with neverending praise from Republican Senators, who instead of asking questions, seem intent to criticize Democrats for doing so.

GRASSLEY: And I think several horses have been beaten to death, particularly on the other side. And you've been very consistent in your answers, and I thank you. And I think that that speaks to the intellectual honesty of your positions.

It's kind of like we're in the fourth quarter of a football game and you're the quarterback and your team is way ahead here in the fourth quarter and opponents are very desperate, trying to sack you and aren't doing a very good job of it. And they haven't hit you all day, now for two days.

And you're going to keep getting these last-minute Hail Marys thrown at you. So just bear with us.

I want to compliment you, first of all, before I ask some questions, and I just did, to some extent, about the consistency of your testimony, but I think it's been good. I think under very difficult circumstances you've handled yourself very well -- being responsive, forthright, thoughtful.

I sense in you a person that's very sincere. And, obviously, I don't know you except this appearance here and the small period of time we spent in the office. Seems like you have modesty, that's a breath of fresh air, demonstrating a command of and very much a respect for the law and the Constitution, of course.

GRASSLEY: And this is all stuff that we ought to be looking for in the tradition of Alexander Hamilton saying the role of the court -- or the Senate is to make sure that only competent people get on the court and that political hacks do not get on the court.

You are surely no political hack, and you are very competent. And that's been demonstrated with your fair and open-minded approach to your being a judicial person.

It is too bad that we are getting this misconstruing of your record or the answers, the claim that you have not written a single opinion on the merits in favor of a person of color alleging race discrimination on the job in your 15 years on the bench.

I have looked at a lot of opinions you have given, and it is just not true. Your record shows that you ruled in favor minorities making allegations of racial discrimination in employment not once, but in a number of cases.

The claim that you acted unethically in the Vanguard case is just not true. You did nothing improper and actually went beyond the rule to ensure compliance.

The claim that you would support an unchecked executive is just not true. Your record shows that you have repeatedly ruled against the government and that you have told us no one, including the president, is above the law.

The claim that you have ruled in a vast majority of time against the claims of individual citizens in favor of the government and large corporations is just not true. The reality, as I see it, that you have found in favor of the little guy in numerous cases but because of who was right and who was wrong, not just because you have a bias one way or the other.

GRASSLEY: Your critics are, I think, grasping at any straw to tarnish your record, and that's unfortunate.

Then, follow up the simulataneous praise of Alito and criticism of Democrats with trivial questions.

GRASSLEY: Judge Alito, in your opening statement you said -- and I hope I quote you accurately -- "No person in this country, no matter how high or powerful, is above the law, and no person in this country is beneath the law."

You didn't go into detail about what you meant. I think it's quite clear above the law. But give us that diverse opinion, above the law versus beneath the law.

ALITO: Every person has equal rights under the law in this country, and that involves includes people have no money, that includes people who do not hold any higher or prestigious position, it includes people who are citizens and people who are not citizens.

Everybody is entitled to be treated equally under the law. And I think that's one of the greatest things about our country and about our legal system.

I can just imagine a followup: Judge Alito, do you eat babies? "No, in fact I would find that disgusting."

I would laugh off the ridiculousness of these hearings if they were not of paramount importance. Samuel Alito is going to affect the way Americans live their lives for the next 30 years or more. The Supreme Court in future years will hear cases on personal liberties (ex illegal wiretapping), end of life issues, origin of life issues, separation of church and state, and a whole gamut of new legal dilemmas caused by new medical, computing, and communications technology. These hearings should allow the Senate to carefully weigh the merits of Alito's nomination. Instead, the Republicans have made a mockery of the process, and in effect the Constitutional provision for advice and consent of the Senate.

I don't consider Bush to be a good leader. Good leaders don't insulate themselves from criticism. Good leaders acknowledge faults and mistakes. Good leaders change course when something doesn't work. Bush does none of these things.

Yet the opposing party is so inept, it's no wonder voters elected this buffoon to a second term. Case in point from the AP:

A Democrat who plans to vote against Samuel Alito sided on Sunday with a Republican colleague on the Senate Judiciary Committee in cautioning against a filibuster of the Supreme Court nominee.

"I do not see a likelihood of a filibuster," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif. "This might be a man I disagree with, but it doesn't mean he shouldn't be on the court."

She said she will not vote to confirm the appeals court judge, based on his conservative record. But she acknowledged that nothing emerged during last week's hearings to justify any organized action by Democrats to stall the nomination.

Alito is no Roberts. The man has a record of opposing civil liberties, workers' rights laws, and believes the President has unlimited authority to do whatever he wants during wartime. Here is a clear case where Democrats can step up to the plate and lead the country in a progressive direction by blocking the nomination of Alito. There is little doubt that when confirmed, Alito will reverse many of the major decisions that have shaped constitutional law over the past 50 years, including Roe vs. Wade. Yet, Feinstein refuses to fight back, choosing instead to make a token symbolic gesture of voting against Alito.

Real leaders would take initiative in fighting Alito. They would swarm the media, explaining to the American public that Alito is an ideological conservative with an agenda hostile to the interests of ordinary Americans. Instead of sitting back and watching how the polls go, they would actively try to move the public against conservative extremism. And even if the public sided with the Republicans, real Democratic leaders would fight Alito because it was the right thing to do.

But we have no leaders in Washington. And so the Supreme Court will be overtaken by extremist ideologues who will reshape American society and destroy our freedoms. All the Democrats will choose to do is sigh.

I've written several times about the need for real leadership in this country. Today we honor a man who knew the real meaning of courage, determination, and bravery. Many of the freedoms that we enjoy today, regardless of race, are a direct result of what King fought for and ultimately died for. Civil rights meant not only desegregation, but Miranda rights, the right to vote in a fair and free election, equal representation, and a host of other liberties that we now take for granted.

These liberties did not come free, not will they be easily maintained. And so as we stand facing weighty issues of government authority and liberty in a time of war, let us pause to remember the words of a true leader.

I am happy to join with you today in what will go down in history as the greatest demonstration for freedom in the history of our nation.

Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand today, signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of their captivity.

But one hundred years later, the Negro still is not free. One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Negro is still languishing in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land. So we have come here today to dramatize a shameful condition.

In a sense we have come to our nation's capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check which has come back marked "insufficient funds." But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. So we have come to cash this check -- a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice. We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy. Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of segregation to the sunlit path of racial justice. Now is the time to lift our nation from the quick sands of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood. Now is the time to make justice a reality for all of God's children.

It would be fatal for the nation to overlook the urgency of the moment. This sweltering summer of the Negro's legitimate discontent will not pass until there is an invigorating autumn of freedom and equality. Nineteen sixty-three is not an end, but a beginning. Those who hope that the Negro needed to blow off steam and will now be content will have a rude awakening if the nation returns to business as usual. There will be neither rest nor tranquility in America until the Negro is granted his citizenship rights. The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright day of justice emerges.

But there is something that I must say to my people who stand on the warm threshold which leads into the palace of justice. In the process of gaining our rightful place we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred.

We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force. The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny and their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom. We cannot walk alone.

As we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall march ahead. We cannot turn back. There are those who are asking the devotees of civil rights, "When will you be satisfied?" We can never be satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality. We can never be satisfied, as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of travel, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the highways and the hotels of the cities. We can never be satisfied as long as a Negro in Mississippi cannot vote and a Negro in New York believes he has nothing for which to vote. No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream.

I am not unmindful that some of you have come here out of great trials and tribulations. Some of you have come fresh from narrow jail cells. Some of you have come from areas where your quest for freedom left you battered by the storms of persecution and staggered by the winds of police brutality. You have been the veterans of creative suffering. Continue to work with the faith that unearned suffering is redemptive.

Go back to Mississippi, go back to Alabama, go back to South Carolina, go back to Georgia, go back to Louisiana, go back to the slums and ghettos of our northern cities, knowing that somehow this situation can and will be changed. Let us not wallow in the valley of despair.

I say to you today, my friends, so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal."

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

I have a dream today.

I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification; one day right there in Alabama, little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.

I have a dream today.

I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together.

This is our hope. This is the faith that I go back to the South with. With this faith we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.

This will be the day when all of God's children will be able to sing with a new meaning, "My country, 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing. Land where my fathers died, land of the pilgrim's pride, from every mountainside, let freedom ring."

And if America is to be a great nation this must become true. So let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire. Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York. Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania!

Let freedom ring from the snowcapped Rockies of Colorado!

Let freedom ring from the curvaceous slopes of California!

But not only that; let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia!

Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee!

Let freedom ring from every hill and molehill of Mississippi. From every mountainside, let freedom ring.

And when this happens, When we allow freedom to ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!"

The dream lives on indeed.

Haha...I just saw an ad for Match.com that brags how they are featuring Dr. Phil's relationship advice along with their service. That's great considering that Dr. Phil's son is marrying a Playboy playmate. I guess old Dr. Phil is now peddling his pornstar-getting smarts to the public for a fee. So sign up for match.com and you too can have your very own collagen-enhanced lover. YAY!

This is part 1 of a multipart series on the sad state of our media. In this posting, I focus on the disregard for facts by supposed journalists and the disdain for truth-based reporting.

The most irksome lie I have seen in the media over the past few weeks is the repeated assertion that Democrats are somehow guilty in the Abramoff scandal. This is an accusation with no basis whatsoever. When the scandal broke, the Republican National Committee issued talking points and a list of contributions from Indian tribes that Abramoff had represented to media outlets. It then was published in the Washington Times, a partisan GOP newspaper. This led to reporters all over the media claiming that Democrats would be implicated in the scandal. Courtesy of the RNC site, here are a few of the comments reporters made.

"Law-Enforcement Authorities And Others Said The Investigation's Opening Phase Is Scrutinizing ... Byron L. Dorgan, North Dakota Democrat; And Minority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat ..." (Jerry Seper and Audrey Hudson, "Abramoff-Linked Probe Focuses On 5 Lawmakers," The Washington Times, 1/11/06)

"Democrats Have Taken A Special Interest In [Team Abramoff Lobbyist And Former Reid Staffer Eddie] Ayoob's Clients. Of The Eight Tribes Ayoob Represented When He Was With Greenberg Traurig, Reid Acted In Behalf Of Or Moved Legislation Benefiting Six." (Rebecca Adams, "The Game's The Thing: Reid Has Been A Ready Ally To Abramoff-Linked Interests," Congressional Quarterly Weekly, 1/16/06)

Larry Noble, Executive Director And General Counsel For The Non-Partisan Center For Responsive Politics: "I Would Say, Broadly Defined As A Question Of The Tribes' Buying Influence In Washington, It Includes Democrats." (Donald Lambro, "Dean Denies Party Ties To Abramoff," The Washington Times, 1/11/06)

CNN's Ed Henry: "I Want To Underline Again, There Are Democrats Implicated In [The Abramoff Scandal] As Well. So [Democrats'] Argument About A Culture Of Corruption May Not Resonate With People Across The Country." (CNN's "CNN Live Today," 1/3/06)

Henry: "[D]emocrats Like Byron Dorgan Of North Dakota ... [Are] Returning The [Campaign] Money Because They've Been Implicated At Least Generally In This Investigation ..." (CNN's "CNN Live Today," 1/3/06)

Even the Washington Post, a paper that conservatives deride as far-left, took the bait. In an article by WaPo ombudsman Deborah Howell, she repeated the assertion that Abramoff had contributed to Democrats.

Schmidt quickly found that Abramoff was getting 10 to 20 times as much from Indian tribes as they had paid other lobbyists. And he had made substantial campaign contributions to both major parties.

The problem with this: it's not true. A quick search at the Center for Responsive Politics shows that Abramoff was a partisan Republican. He never gave a single dime to a Democrat ever. Furthermore, Harry Reid and other Democrats have gone on record claiming that they have never met the person. To this date, no one has disputed that claim. So how do you get influenced by a lobbyist you've never met and have never taken money from?

We expect the Washington Times and conservative pundits on CNN to mouth off this crap. But the Washington Post claims to report facts, not heresy. Mediamatters.org and a group of WaPo readers took Howell to task for this incorrect statement. They posted comments on a feedback blog that the paper had created. Being the ombudsman, a position that exists to solicit reader feedback and correct mistakes, you might think she would simply issue a correction and move on.

Instead, Howell and others at the Post continued to defend their claim without any facts whatsoever. Four days after the initial article, she issued the following statement:

I've heard from lots of angry readers about the remark in my column Sunday that lobbyist Jack Abramoff gave money to both parties. A better way to have said it would be that Abramoff "directed" contributions to both parties.

Lobbyists, seeking influence in Congress, often advise clients on campaign contributions. While Abramoff, a Republican, gave personal contributions only to Republicans, he directed his Indian tribal clients to make millions of dollars in campaign contributions to members of Congress from both parties.

Her proof: Indian tribes contributed to both parties. Yet just because the tribes contributed to both parties does not mean that Abramoff asked them to do so. By looking at the past giving records of the tribes, Howell would have seen that the tribes gave money to both parties well before they hired Abramoff to represent them.

So again, readers take her to task. The response this time was even more incredible. The Washington Post shut down their blog, effectively telling readers to shut up. She then attacked her critics, issuing this non-apology:

I wrote that he gave campaign money to both parties and their members of Congress. He didn't. I should have said he directed his client Indian tribes to make campaign contributions to members of Congress from both parties.

In fact, Howell, it's exactly the opposite. According to a study by a non-partisan group Dwight L. Morris and Associates, Abramoff directed his clients to stop giving to the Democratic Party and increase their contributions to Republicans

The analysis shows:

• in total, the donations of Abramoff’s tribal clients to Democrats dropped by nine percent after they hired him, while their donations to Republicans more than doubled, increasing by 135 percent after they signed him up;

• five out of seven of Abramoff’s tribal clients vastly favored Republican candidates over Democratic ones;

• four of the seven began giving substantially more to Republicans than Democrats after he took them on;

• Abramoff’s clients gave well over twice as much to Republicans than Democrats, while tribes not affiliated with Abramoff gave well over twice as much to Democrats than the GOP -- exactly the reverse pattern.

  “It’s very hard to see the donations of Abramoff’s clients as a bipartisan greasing of the wheels,” Morris, the firm’s founder and a former investigations editor at the Los Angeles Times, told The Prospect.
  

But the assault on people who want the Post to do its job continues. On Saturday, the WaPo ran an article attacking liberal bloggers. This is part of a systematic effort by major news organizations to attempt to discredit the blogs that criticize them. Although I can't find the link, a few months ago the Post ran an article about how blogs were threatening businesses and how businesses can protect themselves from the evil bloggers.

This whole saga eeriely parallels the "Rathergate" scandal of the 2004 election campaign. A reporter carelessly failed to check the accuracy of his/her reporting. Members of the audience call him/her on it. Then, rather than issuing a correction, the reporters stands by the erroneous story.

But instead of discrediting and deriding the media as ideologically hostile, what people like me want is for reporters to be journalists. Stop reporting talking points as facts and start researching your stories. Too often, an article will boil down to some kind of he said/she said nonsense like the following.

Republican Senator Blah claims that "blah blah blah". Democrats assert that "blah blah blah".

This is not journalism. It is stenography. Real journalists would take the claims and check their accuracy. They would then report the facts, not simply each side's talking points. But that would require hard work and a willingness to seek the truth, something many reporters seem to lack.

Tracy sent me a link to this hilarious website that gives instruction on how to turn your junk mail into some fun. Check it out.

The filibuster failed. It wasn't even close: 72-25. The United States Senate today confirmed an openly right-wing ideologue to the Supreme Court. There is almost no one on either side that doesn't believe Alito will push the entire judiciary strongly to the right, nullifying many of the labor rights, women's rights, civil liberties, and other rights we enjoy in this society. In fact, that was the express goal of conservatives in nominating him.

Yet there was only token Democratic opposition. Sure, the final confirmation vote was 68-42, an almost party-line vote. But on the vote that mattered, the vote to invoke cloture, 19 Democrats broke ranks, including solid "blue-state" Senators Leiberman, Akaka, Carper, and Inouye. This was the full list of Democrats who voted for cloture:

Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carper (D-DE)
Conrad (D-ND)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Inouye (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)

Spineless Democrats are certainly part of the problem, and I don't absolve them of their responsibility. But they are not the only cause of this monumental defeat. Conservatives have been organizing to take over the judiciary for the past 30 years. Pat Buchanan, during the Harriet Miers debacle, said that there were two big goals that spawned the conservative movement. The first was to defeat communism. The second was to move the courts in a decidedly conservative direction. That is why, he said, conservatives were furious with the Miers nomination. They felt this was their moment at last.

The New York Times ran an article yesterday about how long term conservative planning and hard work, since before I was born, led to this confirmation.

After the 1987 defeat of the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Robert H. Bork conservatives vowed to build a counterweight to the liberal forces that had mobilized to stop him.

With grants from major conservative donors like the John M. Olin Foundation, the Federalist Society functioned as a kind of shadow conservative bar association, planting chapters in law schools around the country that served as a pipeline to prestigious judicial clerkships.

During their narrow and politically costly victory in the 1991 confirmation of Justice Clarence Thomas, the Federalist Society lawyers forged new ties with the increasingly sophisticated network of grass-roots conservative Christian groups like Focus on the Family in Colorado Springs and the American Family Association in Tupelo, Miss. Many conservative Christian pastors and broadcasters had railed for decades against Supreme Court decisions that outlawed school prayer and endorsed abortion rights.

During the Clinton administration, Federalist Society members and allies had come to dominate the membership and staff of the Judiciary Committee, which turned back many of the administration's nominees.

Real change has never been brought about by politicians, but by broad political movements. Going all the way back to our revolution, a relatively small group of extremists led an historic rebellion against one of the most powerful colonial armies of the era. Since then, all the major changes that shaped American society, such as the abolition of slavery, Prohibition, the New Deal, and civil rights, have all been borne of large-scale movements that did not rely on a few politicians.

We need to stop looking at recent failures of our Democratic leaders as the problem in and of itself, but rather as a symptom of a larger disease. We face a conservative machine that comprises grassroots groups, churches, think tanks, and media outlets, all of whom communicate and collaborate regularly. This behemoth is paired against a random assortment of left-wing interest groups and policy institutes who don't seem to collaborate at all.

Which leads us to the Alito defeat. Focus on the Family and the RNC asked members months ago to pressure their senators, especially red-state Democrats, to confirm Alito. Other than some clamor from People for the American Way, there was little from the left-wing side. I looked back through my email and couldn't find even a single email from our very own Democracy for America on Alito. Incredible. Not one email on possibly the most important battle of Bush's term.

It may be that these groups were waiting for the hearings to expose Alito's extreme views to America. But by the time the hearings rolled around, Alito was a done deal. The whole process seemed an exercise in futility. The Republican majority were just about unanimously in support of Alito. A few Democrats would probably support him too. Hence, the only media coverage centered around Alito's wife running out in tears.

What would a real progressive movement have done? To start, we would have had a nationally coordinated campaign that started as soon as Alito was announced. Organizations such as DFA, MoveOn, DNC, People for the American Way, NARAL, the Sierra Club, and unions would form a working coalition. This coalition would be led by a national team which then thoroughly researches Alito and forms a strategy and message. The message would be spread throughout blogs, emails, letters to the editor, phone banks, etc. Every concerned group, no matter how big or small, would be provided with a set of facts and what exactly they could do to stop Alito.

Instead, we had no nationally coordinated effort. Various groups did things here and there. At DFNYC, we were somewhat twiddling our thumbs trying to figure out what we could do. It wasn't that the interest wasn't there. We simply did not know how a relatively small locally focused group could do anything to influence Washington, especially given that we already had two strong Democratic senators.

I am sure other progressives throughout the country felt similarly disempowered. We were not part of any national movement to move the Senate our way. Despite this, with some effort by Kerry and Kennedy we mounted a last ditch effort to filibuster. By this standard we were enormously successful. We got 25 Democrats to vote against cloture, many or most of whom had already been on the record as opposing a filibuster.

In order to win in the future, we will need coordinated national efforts to persuade the American public that they share our interests. If we can shape the hearts and minds on the ground, the politicians and votes will surely follow. Because even a spineless Democrat will vote progressive if the polls and media point in a progressive direction.