Posts by Steven Reynolds

Steven Reynolds is a regular blogger for the All Spin Zone

Measure to Memorialize George W. Bush with Sewage Plant is on the Ballot
Posted by Steven Reynolds, The All Spin Zone on July 18, 2008 at 10:11 AM.

The Presidential Memorial Commission of San Francisco gathered far more signatures than they needed to get a measure on the ballot renaming the Oceanside Water Pollution Control Plant the George W. Bush Sewage Plant. I love the smell of democracy in the morning.

We reported this story here in April. The Presidential Memorial Commission of San Francisco is advocating for the renaming of the prize winning Oceanside Water Pollution Control Plant the George W. Bush Sewage Plant. Dana Perino isn't talking, as you can see in this report from June 25th. But we've got the full story from the San Francisco Chronicle, and here's an excerpt:

San Francisco voters will be asked to decide whether to name a city sewage plant in honor of President Bush, after a satiric measure qualified for the November ballot Thursday.

Backers of the measure, who for several months circulated a petition to place the measure on the ballot, turned in more than 12,000 signatures on July 7, said organizer Brian McConnell. The Department of Elections on Thursday informed those supporters, the self-proclaimed Presidential Memorial Commission, that they had enough valid signatures - a minimum of 7,168 registered San Francisco voters - to qualify for the November ballot.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Pat Tillman, Jessica Lynch Fall Down Bush Admin's Memory Hole
Posted by Steven Reynolds, The All Spin Zone on July 16, 2008 at 7:39 AM.

It turns out that an outbreak of amnesia has beset current and former Bush Administration officials when they are asked about the propaganda they put into place concerning Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman. Call in the CDC to investigate. Or name the pandemic here. No, not “Bird Flu.” How about “Rumsfeld Syndrome?”

OMG! Can the amnesia spread to the whole population? Someone contact the CDC and get them on the case now! This amnesia could be the work of some insidious drug passed into the sewers there at the White House, or somesuch. And we’d never know, except for some clever work on the part of the Congressional Committee investigating the propaganda tales about Pat Tillman and Jessica Lynch. Here’s a bit from ABCNews:

The committee says that in their quest to find out when officials first knew about the possibility that Tillman’s death was not due to enemy fire, they were “frustrated by a near universal lack of recall,” according to the report.

The committee interviewed several senior White House officials including former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, communications director Dan Bartlett, former Press Secretary Scott McClellan, and chief speech writer Michael Gerson.

“Not a single one could recall when he learned about the fratricide or what he did in response,” says the report.

Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Richard Myers told the committee that he learned by the end of April that Tillman’s death was possibly due to friendly fire, but that he could not remember whether or not he passed that information to Rumsfeld.

Members of Tillman’s platoon, however, knew “almost immediately” that Tillman had been killed accidentally by fellow Rangers, according to the report. Within days of his death, Colonel Craig Nixon, a top officer in Tillman’s battalion, passed on that information to the commander of the joint task force in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChyrstal, who in turn sent a message to top generals, including General John Abizaid, commander of CENTCOM.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

HUD Secretary -- Yet Another Corrupt Bush Crony, Resigns in Disgrace
Posted by Steven Reynolds, The All Spin Zone on April 1, 2008 at 7:10 AM.

Mr. Jackson is just the latest in a long line of Bush appointees who has resigned to go spend more time with his family. He may need that time, as the DOJ is investigating him for giving out contracts to friends. Yes, the culture of corruption is alive and well and living in the Bush Administration still. Here’s the skinny from the New York Times:

"There comes a time when one most attend more diligently to personal and family matters," Mr. Jackson said. " Now is such a time for me."

"Seven years ago, President Bush gave me an extraordinary opportunity to serve HUD and the nation," said Mr. Jackson, who first joined the department as deputy secretary in 2001. "As the son of a lead smelter and nurse midwife, and as the last of 12 children, never did I imagine I'd serve America in such a way. I am truly grateful for the opportunity."

Mr. Jackson said that he had worked hard to keep families in their homes, to revitalize public housing and to preserve affordable housing. "During my time here, I have sought to make America a better place to live, work and raise a family," he said.

He left the room without taking any questions.

Well, that didn’t tell us anything, did it? The Times was going to quote Mr. Jackson, which is fair, but they led off with the charges. They’re a bit exotic. Contracts in sweet places going to friends, threats to the Philadelphia Housing Authority if they won’t sell land they own to politically connected friends of Jackson. This seems a bit bald-faced, on the surface:

Housing secretary Alphonso R. Jackson resigned on Monday, saying that he needed to devote more time to his family. The announcement came as federal authorities were investigating whether he had given lucrative housing contracts in the Virgin Islands and New Orleans to friends.

His resignation, effective April 18, also comes as the Bush administration is increasingly relying on the department's Federal Housing Administration to help stanch the widening foreclosures.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Will Gay and Lesbian Voters Swing Philly for Obama or Clinton?
Posted by Steven Reynolds, The All Spin Zone on March 31, 2008 at 12:04 PM.

There’s an article in today’s Philadelphia Inquirer about how both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are courting the gay vote in PA as they square off for the primary here in just three weeks. It mentions how both campaigns value that voting bloc, and how Chelsea extended her campaign visit to Woody’s, a major gay bar here, in order to visit with the largely gay and lesbian crowd. I’m thinking this is a good thing. Neither Clinton nor Obama seems to have a lock on this segment of the voting population, but they sure are energizing the gay and lesbian voters here in Philly. Here’s a little of the piece from the Philadelphia Inquirer:

You don’t see many women at Woody’s, but Chelsea Clinton popped in last week.

To a packed house of screaming supporters, the 28-year-old former first child led a presidential pep rally for her mother at one of the oldest gay bars in Philadelphia.

“We love your highlights!” a man yelled from the crowd, referring to Chelsea’s tresses. “Wow,” she said, temporarily bumped off message, “that’s something I never heard before.”

At the end of an exhausting day of nonstop events, Chelsea was supposed to leave after 10 minutes. She ended up staying 25.

A few years ago, such a scene would have been unthinkable. But with an eye on the April 22 Pennsylvania Democratic primary, Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama are fervently courting the gay vote.

In Philadelphia, gays constitute an estimated 5 percent of voters, according to Malcolm Lazin, president of Equality Forum. That is not an inconsequential percentage in a race as tight as this one.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Who's the Bigger Criminal: Woman Boarding Plane with Nipple Ring or Bush Admin Official Who Misused Grant Money?
Posted by Steven Reynolds, The All Spin Zone on March 31, 2008 at 5:54 AM.

You make the call. First up is the woman airline passenger from Texas whose sole problem was she tried to get on an airplane with jewelry on. On her nipple, sure, but it was merely jewelry. They made Mandi Hamiln remove the mipple ring with pliers. From the AP wire:

A Texas woman who said she was forced to remove a nipple ring with pliers in order to board an airplane called Thursday for an apology by federal security agents and a civil rights investigation.

“I wouldn’t wish this experience upon anyone,” Mandi Hamlin said at a news conference. “My experience with TSA was a nightmare I had to endure. No one deserves to be treated this way.”

Hamlin, 37, said she was trying to board a flight from Lubbock to Dallas on Feb. 24 when she was scanned by a Transportation Security Administration agent after passing through a larger metal detector without problems.

The female TSA agent used a handheld detector that beeped when it passed in front of Hamlin’s chest, the Dallas-area resident said.

Hamlin said she told the woman she was wearing nipple piercings. The women then called over her male colleagues, one of whom said she would have to remove the jewelry, Hamlin said.

Hamlin said she could not remove them and asked whether she could instead display her pierced breasts in private to the female agent. But several other male officers told her she could not board her flight until the jewelry was out, she said.

She was taken behind a curtain and managed to remove one bar-shaped piercing but had trouble with the second, a ring.

“Still crying, she informed the TSA officer that she could not remove it without the help of pliers, and the officer gave a pair to her,” said Hamlin’s attorney, Gloria Allred, reading from a letter she sent Thursday to the director of the TSA’s Office of Civil Rights and Liberties.

The guards, evidently the male ones, ended up snickering as Ms. Hamlin was forced to remove the nipple ring with a pair of pliers in order to board the flight. This is America in the age of Bush — no civil rights, and snickering while you endure pain if you decide to protest that you have rights. We should be surprised that they didn’t try to waterboard the woman.

Now our next example, a Bush aide, Felipe Sixto, who has had to resign in the last day due to some financial improprieties that he’s going to be charged for. No, he didn’t commit these alleged crimes while working for Bush. That isn’t alleged. The Bush people are merely incompetent in screening their workers. Again, this is from the AP story:

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Why Republicans Should Be Scared of Don Siegelman
Posted by Steven Reynolds, The All Spin Zone on March 28, 2008 at 9:31 AM.

Donald Siegelman has been freed from jail. As many know, Siegelman was Governor of Alabama and was prosecuted for giving a position on a Board in the state to a major contributor, Richard Scrushy. I suppose if we were doing a tit for tat thing, that would mean every major contributor President Bush appointed to Ambassadorships is up for investigation, but that’s not how the US DOJ was working under President Bush and Alberto Gonzales. Nope, they prosecuted only Democrats for that sort of thing, even when Senior preosecutors in their office counseled otherwise. Scott Horton in Harpers, over a year ago, noted, basically, that miscarriage of justice should be seen as obstruction of justice on the part of the Bush appointed US Attorneys.

A couple of interesting things here. First, Siegelman would not be released unless there were a strong possiblity his appeal would go through. From the Birmingham News:

The judges wrote that Siegelman met both requirements for an appeal bond: He is not a flight risk and his appeal raises a substantial question of law or fact likely to result in reversal or an order for a new trial.

“After thorough review of this complex and protracted record, we conclude Siegelman has satisfied the criteria set out in the statute, and has specifically met his burden of showing that his appeal raises substantial questions of law or fact,” the judges wrote.

It’s going to be overturned, and we should have an investigation, a real one, into the role of the Bush Administration, Karl Rove in particular, in the prosecution here. I’m guessing the motive behind this selective prosecution was that the GOP felt threatened in their electoral bastion, the deep south. Be that as it may, the GOP claims they had not political role here, that Siegelman was prosecuted on the merits. Then why the heck do they have to act as if this is so godalmighty important to them, to the extent that they’re protesting the judge’s order? They’re protesting a whole whale of a lot for folks who claim they had no interest in the case. From WSFA in Alabama:

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Only Two Newspapers Put 4,000 US Troop Deaths on Front Page
Posted by Steven Reynolds, The All Spin Zone on March 25, 2008 at 6:52 AM.

The world the media sees simply isn’t the world as it is. That’s axiomatic here 5 years after the beginning of the Iraq War where the media served as cheerleaders. (Perhaps they were following Bush’s lead, he having served as a cheerleader at Yale.) Katharine Zaleski of Huffington Post notes that there were only two newspapers who featured the story about 4,000 US soldiers dead in Iraq on their front pages. Here’s a bit of her article at HuffPo:

It’s a sad day for America’s media when the tragic milestone of 4,000 soldiers’ deaths is reported and it appears that just two papers — yes two — place it across their front pages. After a search through today’s front pages, I found that The Rocky Mountain News in Denver and the Daily News in New York were the only papers to give their entire front pages to honoring the men and women killed in Iraq. The Los Angeles Times gave a top quarter of their front to a feature called “Stories Of The Fallen.” If I’ve missed a paper that featured the deaths across it’s entire front page then I welcome any corrections in the comment string of this post.

This was a big story, and Karen thinks the media has downplayed it. Downplayed? I’m not so sure entire front pages need to be devoted to the story of the 4,000 death milestone, but certainly this is a time to look back at the criminality that took us into Iraq in the first place, causing us to ignore the crimes of Osama bin Laden. The media surely has downplayed the notion that 97% of those deaths came after Bush’s “Mission Accomplished” photo-op on that aircraft carrier nearly five years ago. And they’re downplaying Dick Cheney’s response to 4,000 American deaths in Iraq — he notes how those soldiers were volunteers, dodging the question of the wisdom of sending them there under false pretenses. And I’m yet to see any story on how many Iraqis have died due to President Bush’s misadventure in Iraq.

Of course, today’s Philadelphia Inquirer features the 4,000 death story pretty prominently, but in a context that highlights what President Bush thinks is leadership. There’s not a whole lot of critique here as the Inquirer lets Bush’s words that the 4,000 dead were “not in vain” stand. Perhaps we can make it that those deaths are not in vain, but it is far from sure that those deaths were necessary, one of those conditions I would put on “not in vain.” Man, Bush seems in another world, and the Inquirer makes no comment about his words:

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Is It Hillary's Turn to 'Denounce and Reject' a Problematic Pastor?
Posted by Steven Reynolds, The All Spin Zone on March 24, 2008 at 10:00 AM.

Ed. Note: This blog post is inaccurate. The Reverend in question is from Clinton, NY -- and is not Hillary Clinton's pastor.

The blogs are talking about it, but the mainstream news is not. Still, this is interesting. Blogs such as AdvanceAmericablog, commondreams.org, the National Journal’s Hotline, and wakeupfromyourslumber.com are talking about the scandal that has enveloped the former Pastor of the Clintons, but it appears only the Utica, NY newspaper is covering the story. The rest of the mainstream media is silent. Perhaps the story isn’t divisive enough for the mainstream media to take notice. Of course, it is as unfair to blame Hillary Clinton for her former pastor’s abuses just as it is unfair to blame Barack Obama for Rev. Wright. Still, that means the mainstream media is far more enamored of condemning Obama for his Rev. Wright’s tirades about 9/11 and race than it is concerned with the plight of a seven year old girl abused by Hillary Clinton’s former pastor. From the Utica Observer-Dispatch:

UTICA -- When the Rev. William Procanick put his hand on the Bible during his sex-abuse trial in Oneida County Court earlier this year, he swore to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

But as the former Clinton pastor was sentenced Friday to three years in prison for inappropriately touching a 7-year-old girl at his home last March, Judge Michael L. Dwyer said Procanick sacrificed his honesty the day he testified.

"As a minister of God, you got on the stand and you lied," Dwyer told Procanick, the 54-year-old former pastor of Resurrection Assembly of God church on Kirkland Avenue.

A jury found Procanick guilty Jan. 22 of first-degree sexual abuse and endangering the welfare of a child.

Let me be clear here. Hillary Clinton has nothing to apologize for, nor should she feel tainted because her former Pastor, William Procanick has been convicted of sexual child abuse of a seven year old girl. By the same token, Barack Obama has no responsibility for the words of Rev. Wright, nor for the words of his successors in the pulpit. All of these people have personal responsibility, and Rev. Procanick is going to be answering for his crime. Hillary Clinton has no need to “denounce and reject” the man. Indeed, it may be a good thing if she were to express her sorrow for his crimes and compassion for those the man hurt. But she has no obligation.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Breaches of Obama, Clinton and McCain Passport Files: Just Bush Incompetence or Something Worse?
Posted by Steven Reynolds, The All Spin Zone on March 21, 2008 at 10:18 AM.

Update from Matt Corley @ Think Progress:

Yesterday, it was revealed that Sen. Barack Obama’s (D-IL) passport files breached three times in the past three months. Today, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told “Sen. Hillary Clinton that the security of her passport file were breached in 2007.” In a State Department press briefing today, spokesman Sean McCormack said that Sen. John McCain’s passport info had also been accessed by one of the people who looked at Sen. Obama’s file.

Update: Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) sent a letter to Rice today requesting the name of the companies that hired the contractors that breached the files.

Update: According to MSNBC's David Shuster, the employee who accessed both Obama and McCain's files was only suspended, not fired. Two other contractors were fired for accessing Obama's files.

****

First, it is inconceivable that the breach of a private file belonging to a Presidential candidate could happen without an alert going immediately to the federal department charged with holding that file private. That would be the State Department, right? And, no, this isn’t just about safeguarding anyone’s privacy. We know the Bushies don’t credit that as worthy of their time. Indeed, they’ve thrown privacy out the window over the last few years. What I want to know is why the Secret Service wasn’t notified immediately. No, there’s no information there that could be used in an operation against a Presidential candidate, but the protection of Presidential candidates is a fundamental mission for any government, whether Republican or Democrat. If for no other reason, we need to see why the Secret Service wasn’t notified.

OK, I’ll calm down a bit. Here’s the story from the San Francisco Chronicle:

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Are Hillary and Obama Destroying the Dems' Chances in November?
Posted by Steven Reynolds, The All Spin Zone on March 20, 2008 at 5:54 AM.

Our Blondsense blogger and friend Peter of Lone Tree comments on a post concerning his prediction of what will happen if Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama keep going at it from here until the convention:

In recognition of the first notice I've seen that it's in the bag for McCain, I'm cross-posting a comment I made "over home" at Blondesense:

To Wit:

As I opined a couple of weeks ago, the two Democrats are going to spend so much time and energy beating the shit out of each other, that it will enable McCain to walk off with the election:

Reuters: "Democrat Barack Obama's big national lead over Hillary Clinton has all but evaporated in the U.S. presidential race, and both Democrats trail Republican John McCain, according a Reuters/Zogby poll released on Wednesday."

'Course, maybe Barack & Hillary are getting paid to take a dive.

I've said in the past that I'd rather have our guys front and center with John McCain begging to get on the stage. Heck, the polls aren't even as bad as Peter claims, at least according to this writer at DKos. There's plenty of time in September and October to ratchet up his negatives. But Peter's point is the prevailing view, that Obama and Clinton are going to make each other unelectable unless we can get a winner here soon. Worse, I suppose, is the way the Obama/Clinton race is effecting families. From Crain's New York:

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

'Mission Accomplished' and Other Stupid Republican Reruns
Posted by Steven Reynolds, The All Spin Zone on March 19, 2008 at 1:17 PM.

I’m not sure at all why President Bush and John McCain want to bring Iraq back to the front burner. Bringing up the war over there, even if it is necessary in oder for us to clean up George Bush’s mess, is going to do McCain nor Bush any good. Oh man! Here’s one thing John McCain doesn’t need — George Bush repeating his “Mission Accomplished” statement several years after his rightly-ridiculed, flight-suited, codpieced original “Mission Accomplished” statement. But it appears that George Bush is going to make a “Mission Accomplished” statement today, though Americans are still dying in what has become the most expensive American military quagmire in history. From Reuters:

President George W. Bush will acknowledge on Wednesday the Iraq war has been fought at a high cost but will insist a U.S. troop buildup has opened the door to a “major strategic victory” against Islamic militants.

“The successes we are seeing in Iraq are undeniable,” Bush will say in an upbeat assessment of the U.S.-led campaign in a speech marking the fifth anniversary of the war, according to excerpts released on Tuesday.

With less than 11 months left in office and his approval ratings near the lows of his presidency, Bush is trying to shore up support for the unpopular war, which has damaged U.S. credibility abroad and is sure to define his legacy.

Excerpts of Wednesday’s speech at the Pentagon suggested a more triumphant tone than Bush’s recent Iraq addresses, but he still may have a hard time winning the public’s attention.

No, Bush’s saying it is so isn’t going to work any better than it did on that carrier deck, and I’m thinking Kieth Olbermann is going to have fun with this one later today. The blowback here is going to be on McCain’s candidacy as all Americans are going to be reminded of McCain’s constant support of Bush’s failed strategeries.

John has also caught a bit of the Bush fumblemouth. In a speech in Amman, Jordan, John McCain was all for blaming Iran for supporting the chaos in Iraq, but he misnamed the group Iran was supposedly supporting, having to be corrected by one of his aides. It is like Bush has some sort of fumblemouth disease that John McCain has caught. From today’s Philadelphia Inquirer:

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Iraq War Costs US $12 Billion Per Month
Posted by Steven Reynolds, The All Spin Zone on March 10, 2008 at 11:04 AM.

George Bush has run up record deficits during his seven+ years in the White House, ignoring what used to be thought of as a core Republican value, controlled spending. John McCain has supported Mr. Bush in the most expensive of his boondoggles, Iraq. In a country where the water provided by Halliburton (and KBR) makes our soldiers ill (seems a bad way to spend money to me), where the outsourcing started by Cheney and Rumsfeld has led to record poor performance and incompetence in Iraq, well. . . it looks like the future budget deficits for Mr. McCain’s next 100 years of US presence in Iraq are going to be records as well. From the Philadelphia Inquirer:

The flow of blood may be ebbing, but the flood of money into the Iraq war is steadily rising, new analyses show.

In 2008, its sixth year, the war will cost approximately $12 billion a month, triple the “burn” rate of its earliest years, Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph E. Stiglitz and coauthor Linda J. Bilmes write in a new book.

Beyond 2008, working with “best-case” and “realistic-moderate” scenarios, they project that the Iraq and Afghan wars, including long-term U.S. military occupations of those countries, will cost the U.S. budget between $1.7 trillion and $2.7 trillion - or more - by 2017.

Interest on money borrowed to pay those costs could add $816 billion to that bottom line, they say.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »