Not the First Scandal for ‘Spikey’ Isikoff

If you are looking for definitive proof that the So-Called Liberal Media does not exist, you need look no further than the checkered career of Newsweek’s Michael Isikoff, right.

Today, he’s known as one of the authors of the Newsweek item in which an unnamed Pentagon “media person” confirmed that charges that U.S. interogators defiled the Qu’ran were going to appear in an official report on abuse of Moslem prisoners at the Guantanamo internment camp. It turns out the unnamed source was playing Newsweek for the fools they are. This source in the Bush Administration recanted – and now the Bush Administration is laying blame for the deaths of rioters in Afghanistan at the feet of Newsweek and Isikoff.

(In light of the 100,000-plus deaths caused by Bush Administration lies about Iraq, the fact that they can lay this guilt trip on Newsweek – or anyone – seemingly without irony proves that the Bush high command suffers from a collective pathology.)

For many of us, however, Isikoff – who was nicknamed “Spikey” by either Luciane Goldberg or Linda Tripp (can’t remember and who cares) – played a key role in bringing about the impeachment of President Clinton in the late 1990’s.

MediaMatters, the website published by David Brock, who was then a part of the Vast Rightwing Conspiracy but has since come back from the Dark Side, reminds us of Spikey’s water-bearing for the VRC back then :

If the news organizations that are spending so much time on Newsweek bothered to look at Isikoff’s background, they would find a reporter with a history of relying on unreliable sources — in addition to Paula Jones, there are such discredited Clinton accusers as Kathleen Willey, Linda Tripp, and Lucianne Goldberg…

Isikoff’s leading role in reporting sex stories relied heavily on his relationships with Tripp and Goldberg, who provided leads, testimony, and tapes of secretly recorded conversations. However, Tripp’s and Goldberg’s actions were motivated by their personal interests: specifically, animosity toward Clinton and financial windfall. As [Sydney] Blumenthal noted in The Clinton Wars, Goldberg had arranged to play for Isikoff taped conversations between Tripp and Lewinsky about Lewinsky’s relationship with Clinton, hoping that “playing the tapes would get Isikoff to write something that would provide publicity so that she could sell Tripp’s book.” Isikoff declined to listen to the tapes during the period when Tripp was continuing to record conversations with Lewinsky, but eventually quoted from them after the conversations ceased…

Isikoff also floated the claim, which later proved false, that the Clinton legal team had been involved in suborning perjury in the creation of a “talking points” document that Lewinsky gave Tripp in advance of her filing an affidavit in the Jones case. As journalist Joe Conason and political columnist Gene Lyons noted in their book, The Hunting of the President (Thomas Dunne Books, 2000), Isikoff later expressed regret at his role in advancing that story, claiming to have simply forgotten that the “talking points” closely mirrored a letter Tripp herself had written to Newsweek long before. [p. 356]…

As I used to tell my conservative friends (I say “used to tell” because I don’t know any conservatives at the moment) when we debated the “Librul Media” bugaboo, journalists have “liberal” views because they have chosen a profession in which a central objective is challenging orthodoxy. Propping up orthodoxy is what conservatives do. Poking and prodding the status quo is what liberals do.

But all that high-mindedness falls to the wayside for reporters who have lucked their way into the top tier of the national media – often referred to as “the Gang of 500.” These people would kill their mothers to get a story that would put them in the running for a Pulitzer. Whether the potential Pulitzer story might lead to negative fallout for Democrats or liberal causes is simply not a factor in pursuing it.

Isikoff is the poster child for this mindset.

In the 1990s, Michael Isikoff made a deal with Satan incarnated as a Rightwing cabal intent on bringing down the Clintons. That cozy arrangement has now become his likely downfall. He made a fatal error. He trusted Republicans. If they hang him for it, I, for one, won’t be sad.

Villaraigosa Landslide

Los Angeles Times:

Antonio Villaraigosa romped past incumbent James K. Hahn to make history Tuesday, winning election as the first Latino mayor of Los Angeles since the city’s pioneer days.

Riding a huge wave of voter discontent, the challenger avenged his 2001 loss to Hahn, who possessed an iconic family name but never connected strongly with voters during a rocky four-year term.

Villaraigosa’s landslide represented a crowning symbol of Latinos’ growing clout in California, after decades of population gains that failed to produce a commensurate rise in political power. L.A.’s last Latino mayor, Cristobal Aguilar, left office in 1872, when the now-sprawling metropolis was a frontier outpost of barely 6,000 people.

Hahn: 183,749 (41.34%) — Villaraigosa: 260,721 (58.66%)

The Blather Over Bloggers

(Disclaimer: I am not a paid political consultant and receive no remuneration from Pensito Review for my, ahem, contributions. Indeed, if my boss knew I was doing this at work, he’d probably DOCK MY PAY.)

A Forbes article by Steve McGookin explores the current quandry facing the Federal Elections Commission regarding the assumed power of Web logs to influence the political process. While the Internet consultancy Malchow Schlackman Hoppey and Cooper (which handled John Kerry’s on-line campaign) has submitted a letter calling for blogs to be granted the same exemption from election finance laws that “real” journalists enjoy, there remains the pesky issue of bloggers who are paid political advocates who do seem to influence election outcomes (not to mention journalists paid by the gubmint to promulgate policy, but that’s another matter).

While outlining the quagmire the FEC faces this summer, McGookin elucidates some of the questions the FEC is considering:

While a fundamental starting point, according to the FEC, is not to deter ordinary citizens from becoming involved in political activity, a big difficulty is placing any kind of accurate value on political activity conducted online. The Commission’s responsibility is to regulate only monetary exchanges, as opposed to intellectual, as well as deciding whether or not such activity even rises to a level where the FEC would be concerned in any case.

Most blog activity–political or otherwise–is carried out by individuals on what would charitably be described as a shoestring budget. But what about the increasing numbers of popular blogs that are using or adopting various structured business models?

Then there is the question of whether the FEC is limited to regulating only paid-for political advertising on blogs. Or is everything that supports or endorses a particular candidate appearing on a blog considered to fall under existing campaign contribution ceilings and, as such, subject to regulation?

To what extent are blogs–as distinct from mainstream media’s commercial online entities–protected, being primarily vehicles of individual personal opinion? Does the size of their audience make any difference?

Note that Pensito Review’s business plan consists of maybe someday hopefully getting a click-through deal with Amazon, and the estimated value of our combined “intellectual property” likely exempts us from any consideration of the “contribution” a PR endorsement would lend a hapless candidate. Size of audience? Let’s not go there.

That said, and the FEC’s concerns aside, there is other evidence that blogs just don’t matter that much, or at least no more than “real” media.

A Reuters article on a recent study by the Pew Internet & American Life Project appears to suss out the fact that blogs just aren’t as powerful as the worry-worts at the FEC think they are.

Charting the discussion of issues during the 2004 presidential campaign, the study found political blogs — online opinion and information sites — played a similar, but not greater role, as the mainstream media in “creating buzz” around the candidates’ campaigns.

The study dispels the notion that blogs are replacing traditional media as the public’s primary source of information, said Michael Cornfield, a senior research consultant at Pew.

“Bloggers follow buzz as much as they make it,” said Cornfield. “Our research uncovered a complicated dynamic in which a hot topic of conversation could originate with the blogs or it could originate with the media or it could originate with the campaigns.

“We can say that if people still have that idea that the bloggers are the new fifth estate, that the bloggers are the new kingmakers, that’s not the case.”

Of course, the evidence is clear, if you follow Pew’s line of reasoning:

For example, it showed the Bush campaign paid more attention to an Osama bin Laden tape than did the blogs. At the same time, the Kerry campaign made more mention of missing weapons of mass destruction in Iraq than the blogs. The mainstream media made more mention of Vice President Dick Cheney’s lesbian daughter than either the blogs or the campaigns.

Well, that should answer the questions for the FEC. Except the thought that perhaps the 40 out of 1.6 million blogs Pew examined were investigating more interesting issues than Osama, WMD or Ms. Cheney.

So please, FEC Director Scott Thompson, don’t treat blogs differently than mainstream press. According to Pew, Pensito Review is equally as irrelevant as the “New York Times.” Honest.

British MP Rips Creepy Sen. Coleman a New One

I’m not sure what to make of George Galloway, the British Member of Parliament who voluntarily traveled to Washington to face accusations by Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN), Chairman of the Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, that he had pocketed funds generated by the United Nation’s oil-for-food program in Iraq during the period in which sanctions were lodged against Saddam Hussein.

Bloomberg reports that ” Galloway is one of three foreign politicians named last week by the subcommittee as having received options to buy discounted Iraqi oil for their support of the ousted dictator. The options could be sold to oil traders, earning the holder a profit without ever handling a barrel of crude.”

The Senate panel accused Galloway of using a charity for children’s leukemia to launder Iraqi oil money.

“The only thing these people have against me is my name on pieces of paper written by we know not whom, and when we know not,” Galloway told a reporter today.

Bloomberg also notes that “Galloway won a libel suit against the London Daily Telegraph in December after it reported he had received a salary from Hussein’s regime. The newspaper, which has appealed, was ordered to pay Galloway 150,000 pounds ($275,865) in damages and about 1.2 million pounds in legal costs. ”

I do know what I think about Norm Coleman so it was refreshing to see portions of the Senate hearing on television today. The BBC has greatest hits from Galloway’s quotes:

  • “Who paid me hundreds of thousands of dollars? The answer to that is nobody and if you had anybody who paid me a penny you would have produced them here today.”
  • “I have met Saddam Hussein exactly the same number of times as Donald Rumsfeld met him. The difference is that Donald Rumsfeld met him to sell him guns and to give him maps the better to target those guns.”
  • “You traduced my name around the world without ever having asked me a single question, without ever having contacted me, without ever having written to me or telephoned me, without any contact with me whatsoever and you call that justice.”
  • “Senator [Coleman], this is the mother of all smoke screens. You are trying to divert attention from the crimes that you supported from the theft of billions of dollars of Iraq’s wealth.”
  • “You have nothing on me Senator [Coleman], except my name on lists of names in Iraq, many of which were drawn up after the installation of your puppet government in Iraq.”
  • “I have never seen a barrel of oil, owned one, bought one, sold one, and neither has anybody on my behalf.”
  • “I know that standards have slipped over the last few years in Washington but for a lawyer you are remarkably cavalier with any idea of justice.”
  • “One of the most serious mistakes you have made in this set of documents is such a schoolboy howler it makes a fool of the efforts you have made.”
  • “Senator [Coleman], in everything I said about Iraq I turned out to be right and you turned out to be wrong and 100,000 have paid with their lives, 1,600 of them American soldiers sent to their deaths on a pack of lies.”

I’d give anything to hear this Scotsman read George Bush the riot act. I suspect our Georgie’s poor head would explode.

Christian College to Bush: You Don’t Speak for Us

Score one for the (formerly) good guys. A Christian college is protesting having to hear a graduation address from God’s Friend and Yours, George W. Bush.

Washington Times (sorry):

One-third of the professors at an evangelical Christian college in Grand Rapids, Mich., are taking out a large ad in a local newspaper Saturday to protest President Bush’s commencement speech.

“As Christians, we are called to be peacemakers and to initiate war only as a last resort,” the ad will say. “We believe your administration has launched an unjust and unjustified war in Iraq.”

The 130 signatories, which include 20 staff members, work at Calvin College. Founded in 1876 as a school for pastors of the Christian Reformed Church, it now is one of the nation’s flagship schools for a Christian liberal-arts education.

Whoever wrote the ad kicked Bush butt and took no prisoners.

“No single political position should be identified with God’s will,” says the ad, which also chastises the president for “actions that favor the wealthy of our society and burden the poor.”

Christians are to be characterized by love and gentleness, it adds, but “we believe that your administration has fostered intolerance and divisiveness and has often failed to listen to those with whom it disagrees.”

Moreover, says the letter, set to run in the Grand Rapids Press, the Bush administration’s environmental policies “have harmed creation,” and it asks the president “to re-examine your policies in light of our God-given duty to pursue justice with mercy.”

Apparently no one’s told our leader that he can’t run for a third term. And everybody’s favorite evil comparative genius, Karl Rove, is still muscling his way to the head of the line.

The publication pointed out that the president had been looking for a speech venue in Michigan, a state he failed to carry in 2000 and 2004.

After U.S. Rep. Vernon J. Ehlers, a Republican whose district includes Grand Rapids, got an offer from presidential adviser Karl Rove, the college sidelined its previously scheduled commencement speaker, Yale University professor Nick Wolterstorff, in favor of the chief executive.

Thanks to the fabulous WTF Is It Now for noticing this story.

“They Will Know Us By Our T-Shirts” – Jesus?

At last, someone has figured out how to make even more money off the faithful: T-shirts for teens, adorned with messages of God’s love.

Or not.

AP:

Along with ones saying “Got Jesus?” and “Fear God” are shirts declaring, “Satan Sucks,” “My God can kick your god’s butt,” and “To Hell with the Devil.”

“Our shirts are a little extreme, but I think God is spreading the word and having the youngsters shout out their faith,” Devins said…

Strongly worded religious apparel is a growing trend, said Catherine Stellin, vice president of The Intelligence Group in Los Angeles, which forecasts trends. She said Devins “is ahead of the curve” with her stores.

Teens and those in their early 20s see consumerism as a way to express convictions, she said…

But it’s about more than being obnoxious, these enterprising entrepreneurs insist.

“I couldn’t feel any other way than doing this is doing the work of the Lord. He filled us with this purpose to do this,” she said…

Hard to believe with such a winning and Heaven-sanctioned idea, but there could be a downside.

“My concern with the T-shirts is that may be good for rallying the faithful, but offensive to those outside that circle,” Detweiler said. “Did Jesus build bridges or burn them? Did Jesus ever say they shall know us by our T-shirts?”

Yeah, wasn’t that in the New Testament, between the part about not doing stem cell research and the part that says gays can’t serve in the military?

…Wearers often want to make a point, said Kelton Cobb, professor of theology and ethics at Hartford Seminary in Connecticut.

“If I wear it, I’m not only saying that I’m a religious believer but that I’m also a cool and clever religious believer,” Cobb said.

Thanks for explaining that. The point would have actually eluded me.

Dixiecrats Will Make or Break Future Elections

Democratic gains in the West don’t offset loses in the South, according to Brookings Institution visiting fellow William H. Frey. His study of recent Census data, “The Electoral College Moves to the Sun Belt,” says Democrats better get busy in the South, or kiss future elections good-bye. Los Angeles Times:

…anyone who believes Democrats can consistently win the White House without puncturing the Republican dominance across the South is just whistling Dixie. The census projections present Democrats with an ominous equation: the South is growing in electoral clout even as the Republican hold on the region solidifies…

In 2004, Bush won 286 electoral college votes, while Democrat John F. Kerry tallied 252 (with 270 needed for victory). Frey projects that after the 2010 census, four electoral college votes will shift from Kerry states to Bush states…

By 2030, he forecasts, the Democratic strongholds of New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Massachusetts and Michigan would lose a combined 17 electoral college votes. Over that same period, Florida (up nine, to 36) and Texas (up eight, to 42) could gain that many votes alone. Arizona (up five, to 15), which has voted Democratic for president once since 1952, would be the other big winner.

The only Democratic bastion likely to increase in strength is California, which Frey projects would gain one electoral college vote (to 56) after 2010, and another after 2030.

The big lesson for Democrats from these numbers is that there is no substitute for restoring the party’s competitiveness in at least some of the South — particularly Florida and states such as Arkansas, Virginia and Tennessee…

There’s a warning sign for Republicans too. The three big projected electoral college winners — Florida, Texas and Arizona — all have large and growing Latino populations.

Florida’s Democratic party just went through a (surprise!) fairly contentious leadership change, after former head Scott Maddox stepped down to run for governor. State Representative Karen Thurman, the new chair, better come out swinging.

Bill O’Reilly’s Innocence Unlost

In a commentary piece for something called the Creator’s Syndicate, Bill O’Reilly urges us to “Keep ‘diversity’ books out of kindergarten.” He frames his argument with gilded memories of a halcyon youth spent climbing trees, stealing second base and learning to read “Dick and Jane” books. Then, Bill recounts a recent news event that illustrates how lost our society has become.

Today, in Lexington, Mass., 6-year-olds have another book. It is called “Who’s in a Family?” This book features not only Dick and Jane but also Jennifer and Lauren and Charles and Henry. The pages tell little kids about different kinds of families: mixed-race, gay and lesbian, and even traditional family units. They are all discussed in very positive ways.

A father named David Parker took one look at the same-sex part of the book and made an appointment to see the principal of Estabrook Elementary School, a woman named Joni Jay. Parker asked Jay to inform him when the gay family stuff was going to be presented because he felt his little son was too young to learn about homosexuality, and he would keep him home that day. Sounds reasonable, right?

Not so fast. Jay informed Parker that the family book had nothing to do with sexuality, so he was not entitled under the Massachusetts sex education law to get a heads-up. When Parker pointed out that same-sex situations contain the word “sex,” he was asked to leave the principal’s office. He refused. So the Lexington police arrested him on trespassing charges. See Dad get arrested. What does Jane think?

O’Reilly sees this as a symptom of “a massive mission of indoctrination going on in America.” He rails against 9-year-old girls with bare midrifts and third-grade boys wearing gold chains.

I think both Dick and Jane would agree that we should all back off and give the kids a break. Let’s bring back childhood in America, OK? No more “diversity” books for kindergartners ….
The world is a tough, nasty place, and children will learn that soon enough. Shouldn’t we make their first years fun years, free of political and social agendas? Why do some little kids these days look like Britney Spears and Kid Rock? What the deuce is wrong with us?

What’s wrong, Bill, is that Howdy Doody is off the air, coonskin caps are no longer in fashion and Beaver Cleaver is a chubby middle-ages has-been. This isn’t and can’t be the 1950s.

What’s right with us, Bill, is that white children go to school with black children, gay and lesbian couples can raise their own kids and even get lawfully wedded in some places, races and cultures are mixing in new and interesting ways, and the world is much more complicated and diverse than it was when “Father Knows Best” was popular.

Dick’s mommy has a new Latino boyfriend and his daddy only gets to see him every other weekend, while Jane has two mommies. Dick and Jane play “Grand Thefy Auto” on the computer and listen to Dirty Ol’ Bastard on the radio. Your nucular threat of the ’50s has been replaced by the terrorist threat of the 21st century. The world’s a far different place than when Sister Lurana taught you to read. Catch up, Bill.

Test Your Knowledge of the L.A. Mayoral Elections

Los Angeles Times columnist Steve Lopez – or “S.Lo” as he’s sometimes known – has put together a quiz on today’s mayoral election run-off in L.A. Here is an excerpt:

In national, state and local elections, it’s good to throw the bums out now and then because:
A: Fresh ideas are always welcome.
B: We have to let politicians know who’s in charge.
C: It’s time for a new set of crooks.

When it comes to municipal corruption, Los Angeles:
A: Is clean as a whistle.
B: Is in the minor leagues.
C: Could kick Chicago’s butt halfway to New York.

In Los Angeles, you’ve really struck it rich if you:
A: Have a screenplay aimed at the right demographic.
B: Invested in real estate 10 years ago.
C: Know somebody on the airport commission.

An L.A. mayor’s primary function is to:
A: Instill trust and leadership.
B: Keep hope alive.
C: Ignore the San Fernando Valley.
D: Always keep a safe distance from his bag men.

Mayor James Hahn’s nickname is:
A: Crazy Legs.
B: Mr. Saturday Night.
C: Slim Jim.

Hahn often does the town in the company of:
A: J. Lo.
B: S. Lo.
C: [City Controller] Laura Chick.
D: His sister, Janice.

The name Villaraigosa is pronounced:
A: Vee-ya-ga-rosa.
B: Vig-a-la-rosa.
C: Vira-la-gosa.
D: Don’t know.

After giving Hahn a well-deserved beating for what he saw as pay-to-play politics, Villaraigosa pocketed donations from Floridians whose boss used to have an LAX concession contract. Asked to explain why Floridians would send him money, Villaraigosa said (just before he returned the loot):
A: They liked his smile.
B: Hard to tell one palm tree from another.
C: No hablo ingles.
D: Florida believes the Hahn administration is adrift.

Hahn is behind in the polls, but he can still win if:
A: The City Hall corruption probe doesn’t produce any indictments between now and Tuesday.
B: He gets caught in the back seat of a car with a stripper.
C: He has persuaded enough voters he’s a trustworthy conservative and that Villaraigosa’s deputy mayors will include gangbangers and child killers.
D: All of the above.

Villaraigosa will breeze to victory if:
A: White voters embrace a new day.
B: Latino voters forget that he ignored them.
C: The outcome isn’t based on big ideas.
D: All of the above.

Best reason to vote in the mayoral election:
A: Takes less time than ordering a latte.
B: You can be the only one on your block.
C: No threat of insurgent attacks.
D: If we double the 26% turnout in the March mayoral race, we’ll be closing in on the voter turnout in Iraq.

If you picked the last answer to each question, you scored perfectly and are qualified to become a Los Angeles voter.

Olbermann Predicts ‘The Resignation of Scott McClellan’

As has been noted, we here in the Left Coast offices of the PR are big fans of “The Countdown,” with Keith Olbermann on MSNBC, but last night’s show was a real corker. Keith predicted the resignation of Press Secretary Scott McClellan, for starters, and laid out the Bush Administration’s flip-flops over the Newsweek report that copies of the Qu’ran were desecrated by U.S. interrogators in Guantanamo.

Amid all the coverage of the controversy yesterday, only Olbermann pointed out that as recently as last week, the Bush Administration, in the person of Richard Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters that the rioting in Afghanistan was more related to “the on-going political reconciliation” than the Newsweek story.

But Monday afternoon, while offering himself up to the networks for a series of rare, almost unprecedented sit-down interviews on the White House lawn, Press Secretary McClellan said, in effect, that General Myers, and the head of the after-action report following the disturbances in Jalalabad, Lieutenant General Karl Eikenberry, were dead wrong. The Newsweek story, McClellan said, “has done damage to our image abroad and it has done damage to the credibility of the media and Newsweek in particular. People have lost lives. This report has had serious consequences.”

Whenever I hear Scott McClellan talking about ‘media credibility,’ I strain to remember who it was who admitted Jeff Gannon to the White House press room and called on him all those times.

Whenever I hear this White House talking about ‘doing to damage to our image abroad’ and how ‘people have lost lives,’ I strain to remember who it was who went traipsing into Iraq looking for WMD that will apparently turn up just after the Holy Grail will – and at what human cost.

Whereas I look at this story and just see typical GOP mendacity – the Republicans can never lose when they’re pumping up the Librul Media boogeyman they have invented – Olbermann probes deeper into the story. He suggests a scenario beneath this story in which:

The news organization turns to the administration for a denial. The administration says nothing. The news organization runs the story. The administration jumps on the necks of the news organization with both feet – or has its proxies do it for them.

That’s beyond shameful. It’s treasonous.

Olbermann concludes by saying that Scott McClellan should resign because of his ” tasteless, soul-less conclusion that deaths in Afghanistan should be lain at the magazine’s doorstep.” That – and the fact that he’s a serial liar. (I know, I know. It’s in his job description.)

Btw, I’m glad to see that Olbermann’s post has been picked up by Buzzflash and Atrios.