DeLay Said "Judges Need to Be Intimidated"

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay has denied that the recent threats he made against judges were not an attempt to intimidate them, claiming "I believe in an independent judiciary. I repeat, of course I believe in an independent judiciary." However, Tom DeLay told the Washington Post on 9/14/97:

"Judges need to be intimidated."
- U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay [Source: Washington Post article "Hill Republicans Target 'Judicial Activism'" by Joan Biskupic, 9/14/97]

Incredible.

(Thanks to this blog for the tip)

Who Is Bernie Sanders?

In response to news that there will be a big open-seat Senate race in Vermont in 2006, a number of blog readers have said they don't know enough about Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) career, other than how it has been caricatured by the right-wing media. Sanders has confirmed that he will, in fact, be running for the Senate, so here are a few snippets to get you acquainted with why Bernie's election is so important to progressives:

WILLINGNESS TO STAND UP TO POWERFUL INTERESTS: To get a good idea of what Sanders will be like in the Senate, take a look at some eye-opening video clips that show how willing he is to confront powerful interests in face-to-face situations - something rarely seen on Capitol Hill. In 2003, he publicly dressed down Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) for shilling for the pharmaceutical industry in front of the Senate Commerce Committee (he essentially calls Santorum a drug industry lobbyist at 3:45 in the clip, prompting admiring laughter from Sen. John McCain at the end). Also in 2003, Sanders ripped apart Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan to his face, telling him to visit the real world and stop listening to the country-club types in pushing economic policy. And in 2000, he gave a stirring speech in front of the Capitol about how Congress was selling out America's interests by passing the corporate-backed China free trade deal.

"RECORD AS A VOICE FOR MIDDLE-CLASS AND WORKING CLASS": According to the Rutland Herald (Vermont's second largest, and conservative-leaning, newspaper) Sanders has built up a "record as a voice for middle-class and working-class Vermonters." In the House, "his leadership on the issue of prescription drugs and on pension abuses has shown [he is] someone willing to take flak [and] also get things done."

RECORD OF AUTHORING AND PASSING BIPARTISAN LEGISLATION: Sanders was the first lawmaker lead prescription drug bus trips to Canada, highlighting how the drug industry is ripping off American seniors. He subsequently introduced the original bipartisan legislation that would allow drug reimportation. He was also the first lawmaker to highlight how more and more companies are using unfair schemes to raid their workers' pensions, ultimately passing legislation to bar some of the most egregious practices. He was also the original author of the $300 tax rebate that ultimately passed with President Bush's unfair 2001 tax cuts (Sanders offered his rebate as a substitute for Bush's tax cuts, and the rebate ended up being, by far, the most progressive piece of that tax legislation). And, he was the leader of bipartisan efforts to repeal some of the most offensive sections of the Patriot Act.

Tell Moveon to Support Sanders for Senate

Moveon.org, the terrific grassroots progressive organization, today sent out a note asking Vermonters whether it should aggressively back Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) in the 2006 open-seat Senate race. This is a great sign that Moveon knows how important this race is - and their request for input from Vermonters is what makes them such a dynamic group that is so well-connected to the grassroots.

If you are a Vermonter, go to Moveon's special Vermont site to respond to their letter - and let them know Bernie deserves their support in 2006. With Howard Dean out of the race, and national Democrats ready to support the Independent Congressman from Vermont, Bernie is clearly the strongest candidate we can field to keep this seat out of Republican hands. For more on the dynamics, see Jerome Armstrong's post at Mydd.com. And see this new post at Dean For America trumpeting Bernie.


Why is this important? Because Bernie doesn't take corporate PAC money, meaning he has to raise money the old fashioned way: through the grassroots. Groups like Moveon will be critical to raising the small dollar, grassroots contributions that he needs to keep this seats for the Democrats.

First State to Get Universal Health Care?

Vermont's Times Argus reports that "the Vermont House took a historic step Wednesday toward providing health benefits to the state's 63,000 uninsured. Despite fierce opposition from Republicans, the Democrat-controlled House gave preliminary approval to a health care reform plan designed to provide coverage to all Vermonters."

During the debate, Republicans "harshly criticized the proposal" because "they believe is the first step toward establishing a single-payer, government-run health care system." But, as I've noted in an earlier piece for the Nation Magazine, the Washington Post's national poll found in 2003 that almost two-thirds of Americans say they prefer a universal healthcare system "that's run by the government and financed by taxpayers" as opposed to the current private, for-profit system.

Additionally, local doctors and small business in Vermont are supporting the bill. As WCAX-TV notes, "doctors were pleased to see the proposal picking up steam" because "they say universal access to health care would help them provide better care, and would not drive them from the state." Similarly, the president of Vermont Businesses for Social Responsibility said, "We believe this bill will move Vermont in a direction that is good for the economy. A program of this type will make Vermont a more desirable place to do business."

Keep your eye on this bill. If Republicans have their way, they will once again block a major step forward on health care. But if progressives prevail, we might finally see a state become the first to offer universal access to health care. And once one state takes such an important step, it will open up the possibility of such a step in states all over America. With more than 40 million Americans without health insurance, this is long overdue.

What Happens When Dems Run Things

In Montana, the Legislature has wrapped up its first session under the new Democratic majority, and what an impressive record they have amassed. See this Billings Gazette article about exactly what they've accomplished. For the highlights, see the following:

TOWARDS ENERGY INDEPENDENCE: Passed bills promoting the production of ethanol in Montana by mandating its use in fuel.

COUNTRY OF ORIGIN LABELING: Passed legislation requiring groceries to put up signs telling people the country of origin of most meat sold in stores, even as Congress had passed a similar requirement but postponed it and is considering making it voluntary.

HEALTH CARE: Passed legislation helping small business pool their resources to buy health insurance.

HIGHER EDUCATION: Passed legislation reinvesting money in state's colleges of technology, the two-year schools.

PRIMARY & SECONDARY EDUCATION: Put $80 million into Montana's K-12 school funding over the next two years - one of the largest increases in state history.

BALANCED BUDGET: Final legislation set a balanced budget that will have a projected surplus or general fund balance of about $80 million as of mid-2007, without raising taxes and that honors the spirit of the budget spending cap.

SMALL BUSINESS TAX CUTS: Passed legislation to eliminate the property tax on business equipment for some 13,000 businesses by raising the exemption from the tax to $20,000 in business equipment, up from the current $5,000.

CRACK DOWN ON DRUG USE: Passed legislation to crack down on methamphetamine use in Montana through a series of measures that Schweitzer said amount to the strongest package in the nation, apart from Oklahoma's.

IMPROVE HUNTING ACCESS: Passed legislation to improve access for hunting and fishing by making permanent the Habitat Montana, block management and the fishing access enhancement programs.

DEVELOP THE LOCAL ECONOMY: Reinstate the Made in Montana program, which the administration of Republican Gov. Judy Martz had discontinued, to promote items produced and grown in Montana.

SENSIBLE MALPRACTICE REFORM: Bridged the divide between doctors, patients and trial lawyers to pass four commonsense medical malpractice bills.

Dems Coalescing Around Sanders in 2006

Dems are quickly coalescing around Bernie Sanders for U.S. Senate. Under the headline "Sanders Favored for Jeffords Seat," Roll Call newspaper reports that a Democratic source said: "I think people will coalesce around Bernie, he is the strongest candidate statewide."

The Boston Globe reports that influential Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) said if/when Sanders declares his candidacy, "senior members of the [Democratic] party would discourage other Democrats from challenging Sanders, avoiding a three-way race that could tip the election to a Republican in the liberal-leaning state." Meanwhile, AP reports that Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), head of the Democrats Senatorial campaign committee, said it is "very possible" that Democrats would back Sanders.

Why the rush to embrace Sanders? As the Washington Post reports, "Sanders has proved an effective vote-getter in Vermont since winning his House seat in 1990, often appealing to working-class conservatives by stressing trade protection, jobs and higher wages." The paper continues, "he has been treated as a Democrat in the House and likely would face only GOP opposition."

This is a big opportunity for progressives to put a real fighter for working class issues in the U.S. Senate. It's also a great opportunity to keep this seat in Democratic hands. Because Bernie doesn't accept corporate PAC contributions, he's going to need all the help he can get. Contribute to his campaign, and help put one of America's strongest progressive leaders in the U.S. Senate.

Douglas Has Huge Liabilities in a Senate Race

GOP Gov. Jim Douglas is widely considered to be the strongest Republican candidate to run for the open Senate seat in Vermont in 2006. But, as the LA Times reports, while Douglas is being courted by the White House, he is "a very reluctant" candidate. Why? A few reasons. First, as Vermont political scientist Garrison Nelson notes, Vermont is "now a clear blue state" meaning "it's Sanders' seat to lose." But even more than that could be Douglas's highly controversial positions and friendship with George W. Bush - not exactly a popular figure in Vermont:

DOUGLAS SUPPORTS SOCIAL SECURITY PRIVATIZATION: The Los Angeles Times reported on 2/27/05 that during the National Governor's Association meeting in Washington, Jim Douglas told reporters he supports President Bush's plan to privatize Social Security. Back in Vermont just days later, Douglas tried to blur his position. As the Rutland Herald noted, Douglas "has taken pains to distance himself from any direct support of the president's Social Security approaches when in Vermont." [LA Times, Wallsten, 2/27/05; Rutland Herald, 3/4/05]

DOUGLAS TRUMPETS CLOSE TIES WITH BUSH: In 2000, Douglas was the Bush for President Vermont State Chair, bringing George W. Bush to the state for a fundraiser. On 1/19/05, Douglas told the Burlington Free Press that "The president is a good friend." [Sources: Bush for President Press release, 10/29/99; Burlington Free Press, 1/19/05]

While as Governor he has been able to blur the implications of those liabilities by saying they aren't state issues, in a federal race they will certainly be major points of debate. And a candidate who supports privatizing Social Security and is a "good friend" of George W. Bush might have a lot of trouble in a place like Vermont...

Tom DeLay's Words from 1995 Challenge Tom DeLay in 2005

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay is facing a major ethics investigation into his past lavish, lobbyist-paid trips. DeLay has so far refused to offer any details into his activities. Maybe DeLay should take his own advice from 1995 and follow his own standards in 2005:

"The time has come that the American people know exactly what their Representatives are doing here in Washington. Are they feeding at the public trough, taking lobbyist-paid vacations, getting wined and dined by special interest groups? Or are they working hard to represent their constituents? The people, the American people, have a right to know...I say the best disinfectant is full disclosure, not isolation." - U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay, 11/16/95

GPO is acting funny...for another link directly to DeLay's comments, go here (give it some time to load). Or, go to thomas.loc.gov and search for it there in the Congressional Record of the 104th Congress.

UPDATE: In the interest of always giving credit where credit is due, notice that scoop Joe Conason dug up this quote recently as well and used it in his column. Good to see it's getting around...

Help Dems Retain the Senate Seat in Vermont

I've never fundraised for a candidate on my blog. But there is a first time for everything, because this is just too important a fight for progressives. Go to www.bernie.org to contribute to Bernie Sanders' anticipated campaign for the open U.S. Senate seat in Vermont. He's going to need all the help he can get to fight the right-wing spin machine and keep this seat for the Democrats.

Dean Says He's Out; Sanders Looks Like He's In

As a follow up to my last post, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean has issued a statement indicating he is not running for the open Vermont Senate seat in 2006.

Meanwhile, Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) just issued a press release which he seems to indicate he is running. He says, "I have been clear about my intentions, which have not changed, but today is not the time to talk about politics or elections." I'm sure we are going to hear more in the next few days.

Sanders Best Positioned to Win '06 Senate Race

With the announcement this morning that U.S. Senator Jim Jeffords (I-VT) is retiring, a hugely-important open seat Senate race will now take place in Vermont in 2006. Though I worked for Vermont Rep. Bernie Sanders a few years ago, and though he's indicated in the past he would be interested in running for the seat, he has yet to announce. That said, he is clearly the best positioned to keep this seat in the hands of the Democrats - and that means people should go to www.bernie.org and urge him to run:

POLL: SANDERS THE MOST POPULAR POLITICIAN IN VERMONT: On May 5, 2004, WCAX Vermont reported "58-percent of those surveyed have a favorable opinion of Sanders, making him the most popular politician in the state." [Source: WCAX TV, 5/5/04]

IN 2004, SANDERS RECEIVED MORE THAN 200,000 VOTES: In the 2004 election, Sanders trounced his Republican opponent with 68 percent of the vote – or 201,000 votes. That was more than any Republican running in Vermont, including Gov. Jim Douglas. [Source: CBS News election results]

SANDERS STRONG AMONG SWING VOTERS: In the 2004 exit polls, Sanders posted strong numbers among key swing voters in Vermont. He won 51 percent of those who identify themselves as political independents, and 62 percent of rural voters outside of Burlington, where Sanders lives. [Source: CBS News 2004 exit polls]

SANDERS HAS STRONG RECORD DEFEATING ALL KINDS OF REPUBLICANS: Sanders has a long record of trouncing all types of Republicans at the polls. In 2004, he won 68 percent of the vote against well-funded archconservative Greg Parke, a former military pilot who raised more than a half million dollars. In 2002, he defeated moderate Republican Bill Meub with 65 percent of the vote. As the Burlington Free Press noted, the Republicans have worked hard to defeat him for years, but "in the end, no candidate in this election or in the recent past has come close to toppling Sanders." [Source: CNN election results, 2002 & 2004; Burlington Free Press, 10/28/04]

SANDERS WON HANDILY EVEN WHEN NATIONAL GOP TARGETED HIM: In 1996, the national GOP targeted Sanders for defeat, using its national fundraising apparatus to finance a serious challenger. Even then, he won a strong 55 percent of the vote. [Vermont election results, 1996]

DESPITE REFUSING CORPORATE PAC MONEY, SANDERS IS A STRONG FUNDRAISER: Sanders currently has more than $600,000 in the bank – putting him in a strong fundraising position for the 2006 race. Despite his refusal to take corporate PAC money, Sanders has used a strong in-state and national grassroots fundraising base to raise almost $6 million for his campaigns since being elected to Congress. [Source: Center for Responsive Politics]

SANDERS GETS WIDE PRAISE FROM MEDIA: In its 2004 endorsement of Sanders, the Burlington Free Press noted, "You can agree with Sanders or you can disagree...what can't be dismissed is his passion and energy, his command of the issues and his connection to the grass roots." To most of Vermont, Sanders "is just 'Bernie,' as recognizable in the Northeast Kingdom as he is in Burlington and Brattleboro. Even those who oppose Sanders' message tend to respect his integrity and honest hard work...After more than 30 years in politics, Sanders remains remarkably committed to the fight." Similarly, the Eagle Times wrote in its endorsement, "It is very clear where [Sanders] stands. If you do not know his views, Sanders will gladly explain his positions until the sun goes down. His seemingly limitless energies have been focused on issues such as spending for veterans, a voice in the wilderness on an issue the federal government has largely ignored for years. Bernie will stop at nothing to do what he feels is right for his people, the definition of a true representative." The Brattleboro Reformer wrote on 10/27/04, "Even his enemies in Vermont respect Sanders for the level of constituent service he has provided...In Sanders' 14 years in the House, he has proven that he can build coalitions and get things done." [Source: Burlington Free Press, 10/28/04; Eagle Times, 10/20/04; Brattleboro Reformer, 10/27/04]

SANDERS HAS RECEIVED NATIONAL RECOGNITION FOR HIS EFFORTS: Over his career, Sanders has been credited with bringing national attention to critical middle class issues. In 2001, for instance, the New York Times ran a profile of Sanders called "Independent No Longer Alone in Fight Over Drug Costs" about his leadership as the first lawmaker to take seniors on prescription drug bus trips to Canada. "There are few more persistent irritants [to the drug industry] than Representative Bernard Sanders," wrote the Times. "These days, of course, nearly everyone says he wants to do something to help the elderly with drug costs, but Mr. Sanders stands out." Similarly, the Washington Post credited Sanders with blocking the Bush administration's efforts to slash thousands of workers' pensions. "The Bush administration proposed regulations that would have deemed cash-balance plans not to be age-discriminatory," wrote the Post on 12/9/2004. "But critics on Capitol Hill, led by Rep. Bernard Sanders have blocked those rules." [Source: NY Times, 4/10/00; Washington Post, 12/9/2004]

Embarrassing Hypocrisy on Human Rights

It's good that the U.S. Government is trying to get Iran to change its awful human rights record. However, the hypocrisy of the situation is stunning. It shows just how difficult it is for America to press a pro-democracy, pro-human rights agenda with this administration's credibility in shreds:

"The Bush administration accused Iran on Tuesday of violating the rights of Arabs and other minority groups and urged restraint in dealing with them." - Associated Press, 4/19/05

VERSUS

In May of 2004, President Bush condemned the mistreatment of Arab prisoners in Iraq, claiming he shared "a deep disgust that those prisoners were treated the way they were treated." Yet, weeks later, Newsweek reported "Bush, along with Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and Attorney General John Ashcroft, signed off on a secret system of detention and interrogation that opened the door" to widespread abuse of Arab prisoners in Iraq. The Magazine noted that "it was an approach that they adopted to sidestep the historical safeguards of the Geneva Conventions, which protect the rights of detainees and prisoners of war."

CLAIM vs. FACT: Condi Rice on Media Control

CLAIM:
"U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Tuesday called the Kremlin's tight grip on power and the media 'very worrying.'"
- Reuters, 4/19/05

FACT:
The UK Guardian reported that "the Bush administration was confronted with fresh evidence of a far-reaching clandestine campaign to influence public opinion yesterday after a third conservative commentator admitted receiving payments for championing its policies...a report issued by Democratic members of the House of Representatives suggested the Bush administration may rely far more heavily on pay-per-view columnists than had been previously thought." Though the White House has denied knowledge of the matters, the LA Times today reports "a White House aide was told about potential problems with the Education Department paying a conservative commentator to promote an administration policy, but did nothing to prevent the contract from being renewed." Meanwhile, Rep. George Miller (D-CA) revealed that the Bush administration is considering "invok[ing] executive privilege [to] prevent its staff members from cooperating" with investigations into the matters.

CLAIM vs. FACT: Bush's Record on Labor Issues

Bush Labor Secretary Elaine Chao gave a Q&A interview with the fringe-right magazine "Human Events." Not surprisingly, she offers up some nice nuggets of dishonesty:

CLAIM:
"We have been able to strengthen overtime protection for 6.7 million working Americans." - Labor Secretary Elaine Chao, 4/15/05

FACT:
According to CNN, changes to overtime rules proposed by the Bush administration will "strip overtime pay for about 6 million workers." Adding insult to injury, AP reported that "the Labor Department is giving employers tips on how to avoid paying overtime to some of the 1.3 million low-income workers" who remain eligible under the new rules. - CNN, 7/14/04; AP, 1/5/04

CLAIM:
"As much as $160 million of our budget is earmarked by Congress." - Labor Secretary Elaine Chao complaining about Congressional earmarking, 4/15/05

FACT:
Chao herself notes in the same interview that "the budget of the Department of Labor is approximately $50 billion" of which $11.5 billion is discretionary. While she tries to make $160 million sound like a lot, in reality she is complaining that giving elected representatives control of only about one percent of the Department's budget is too much.

CLAIM:
"Right now, for example, there are new jobs being created that are seeking workers and can't find them. That's because many workers don't have the skills. We need to match workers with the jobs that are available now so we can close the skills gap." - Labor Secretary Elaine Chao, 4/15/05

FACT:
President Bush has proposed at least $1 billion in cuts to job training programs since he was elected President in 2000. - Center for American Progress study, 1/20/04

Blunt Talk From Montana's New Sheriff

Check out this Q&A that Salon.com did with Gov. Brian Schweitzer about Democrats, the Rocky Mountain West, and national politics - it is an interesting read. He uses a bluntness that Democrats can learn from, and does a very good job of tackling the "values" issues. Some highlights:

ON DEMS TROUBLE WITH LANGUAGE: "You know who the most successful Democrats have been through history? Democrats who've led with their hearts, not their heads. Harry Truman, he led with his heart. Jack Kennedy led with his heart. Bill Clinton, well, he led with his heart, but it dropped about 2 feet lower in his anatomy later on. We are the folks who represent the families. Talk like you care. Act like you care. When you're talking about issues that touch families, it's OK to make it look like you care. It's OK to have policies that demonstrate that you'll make their lives better - and talk about it in a way that they understand. Too many Democrats - the policy's just fine, but they can't talk about it in a way that anybody else understands."

ON THE PERCEPTION THAT DEMS LACK CONVICTION: "If I'm for something, you're gonna know it pretty quick. And if I'm against it, you're gonna know it too. I'm straight about those things. Some people can't do that. Maybe they've had a lot of time in politics, or they're lawyers, or it's just their makeup. And they have all these highfalutin pollsters and media people, and they say, 'Well, there's this demographic that kind of bleeds into this demographic, and you don't want to lose these over here because you were on this.' I don't believe any of it. I think most people will support you if they know that you'll stand your ground."

ON RELIGION IN POLITICS: "I went to high school in a monastery. I understand Catholicism. But I don't have a need to carry my religion on my sleeve. It's something I have in my heart...Is it important in the flyover areas, the Midwest and the West, to understand something about God, I think it is. I think people are likely to be more God-fearing."

ON PRO-CHOICE DEMOCRATS: "Simply say, like I do, 'I'm pro-choice - I just think that's an intensely private decision that every woman and her physician can and should be able to make, period' - what else is there? That's certainly not someplace for government to be sticking its nose."

Read the whole piece - it's quite a ride.

CLAIM vs. FACT: Bush Treasury Dept. on Taxes

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities really nails the Bush Treasury Department for its latest distortions and dishonesty about taxes. Let's put the administration's crap into the merciless Claim vs. Fact dojo:

BUSH ADMINISTRATION CLAIM:
"The President’s tax cuts have shifted a larger share of the individual income taxes paid to higher income taxpayers." - Bush Treasury Department, 3/2/05

FACT:
"Since 2001, President Bush's tax cuts have shifted federal tax payments from the richest Americans to a wide swath of middle-class families, the Congressional Budget Office has found." - Washington Post, 8/13/04

BUSH ADMINISTRATION CLAIM:
"A small group of higher income taxpayers pay most of the individual income tax each year." - Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 4/13/05

FACT:
"Although high-income households paid a larger share of federal taxes in 2002 than in 1990, these households still saw their incomes increase much faster over this period than any other income group, even after taxes are taken into account. The CBO data show that from 1990 to 2002 — the period that the Treasury fact sheet covers — the average after-tax income of the top one percent of the population jumped 40 percent, while the average after-tax income of the middle fifth of the population rose 13 percent...It also should be noted that a significant part of the increase in the share of taxes paid by high-income households reflects the large rise in their share of overall income in the nation."
- Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 4/13/05

BUSH ADMINISTRATION CLAIM:
"The individual income tax is highly progressive." - Bush Treasury Department, 3/2/05

FACT:
"While the nation’s tax code is progressive, it is not nearly as progressive as the Treasury fact sheet would lead one to believe. The Treasury analysis shows that the one percent of taxpayers with the highest incomes paid 33.7 percent of federal individual income taxes in 2002. However, a new analysis by the Congressional Budget Office shows that this group pays a substantially smaller proportion — 21.1 percent — of federal taxes overall, including payroll, excise, and other taxes. The progressivity of the tax system is further muted if state and local taxes are taken into account; most state and local tax systems are regressive."
- Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 4/13/05

Fear, Loathing & the GOP

Check out my latest column in In These Times about the Republican Party's shift towards violent rhetoric and intimidation. It really is scary stuff.

Go West, Young Man - Part II

Another very interesting article on the opportunities and challenges Democrats face in the West.

Go West, Young Man

The Los Angeles Times analyzes why the West is going to be the place where Democrats can start turning things around. Go read the story.

Proof Of the Media's Hard Right Bias

There's been a lot of debate over whether the media is "liberal" or "conservative." But as I saw this week's cover of Time Magazine, I realized just how ridiculous it is for there to even be a debate.

The cover trumpets right-wing crazy person Ann Coulter. This is a woman who advocating blowing up the New York Times offices and claimed Vietnam war hero/triple amputee Max Cleland didn't deserve to be honored for his losing his limbs on the battlefield.

In a vacuum, you can certainly argue that its fine for a magazine to explore the ramifications of Coulter on America's culture. But this isn't a vacuum. When was the last time you saw someone of equal (if not more) importance on the left promoted on the cover of America's mainstream magazines?

Take, for instance, Noam Chomsky. You can disagree with Chomsky's positions all you want - and that's fine. But the point is that most people would classify Chomsky as far to the left as Coulter is to the right. Yet, the nobel prize winning author is rarely ever seen in the mainstream media, much less on the covers of its most prominent magazines. His best-selling books and political work is considered an afterthought, while Coulter's is treated as serious and important material to be promoted and publicized.

Or, just look at the news talk shows. You see pundits from the conservative Weekly Standard or New Republic on as regular recurring guests. Yet, only once in a while do you see someone from the Nation Magazine on, despite it having a far wider circulation than these other magazines.

So the next time someone tells you that the media is "liberal," don't get mad. Instead, feel sorry for them because the facts are so clear and so overwhelming to the contrary that the only explanation for their ignorance is that they've been completely brainwashed.

GOP "Changing the Tone" To Violence

There's a new chapter in the GOP's increasingly frightening use of violent language to intimidate its political opponents...

Some background first: A few weeks back, I traced a brief history of how the GOP is infusing its rhetoric with thinly-veiled threats of violence. The post was in response to House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) threatening judges with retribution for their ruling in the Terry Schiavo affair. Delay said, "The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior."

In case you thought that wasn't a threat, Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) subsequently took to the Senate floor to justify physical attacks on judges (this came just a few weeks after a federal judge's family was murdered).

Which brings us to this weekend, and back to DeLay. Facing more and more corruption/ethics questions, DeLay told the National Rifle Association this weekend that he wasn't worried. "I feel really good," he told the group, because "when a man is in trouble or in a good fight, you want to have your friends around, preferably armed."

The Bush administration has refused to stop these increasingly frightening threats. Instead of telling its partisan allies to calm down and cut it out, White House press secretary Scott McClellan told the national media that the "Majority Leader DeLay is someone the President considers a friend" and that he "looks forward to continuing working closely with the Majority Leader" - an effective endorsement of DeLay's behavior. One thing's for sure - Bush and the GOP really have "changed the tone"...for the worse.

Lip Service vs. Reality on Energy Prices

The New York Times reports that President Bush yesterday called on Congress to pass the energy legislation he proposed nearly four years ago, saying that "American families and small businesses across the country are feeling the pinch from rising gas prices."

But as the paper notes, "the bill would do little or nothing to address the current spike in crude oil and gasoline price" and "the White House has neither proposed nor backed any steps to address the immediate surge in gasoline prices."

In other words, Bush is lying when he says his energy bill is key to solving our current energy problems. And as a former oil man, he knows he's lying. Even folks in the reddest of red states believe the White House's energy bill is a sham: "America cannot drill its way into energy independence," says a new editorial in the Idahol Statesman. "America needs an energy strategy that encourages new energy sources, from next-generation nuclear to wind and solar, and encourages conservation. And it needed such a strategy long ago."

Then again, Bush probably doesn't really want his bill to bring down prices - after all, higher energy prices may hurt consumers, but they have been a boon to oil companies, who are among Bush's top campaign donors.