News Machine

Three weeks after the mother on ABC’s Brothers and Sisters (“Nora Walker” played by Sally Field) fretted over the GOP “denying global warming,” the ABC drama featured an episode centered around her daughter, “Kitty Walker-McCallister,” a Republican candidate for Senate in California played by Calista Flockhart, coming under attack from conservative rubes who think she used her influence to get the visa renewed for her older sister’s French boyfriend, “Luc.”

At a campaign event with mini-video camera-toting bloggers visible, protesters boo and repeatedly chant: “America for Americans!” as they hold up signs, such as “FRENCHIE GO HOME!!!” and, with a mustache added to Kitty’s face, “Hi Kitler!” Just like the real media’s slander of Tea Party protesters.

Kitty’s husband whom she is running to succeed, incumbent “Senator Robert McCallister,” played by Rob Lowe, charges: “It’s just the conservative purity police trying to purge the party of lily-livered Republican moderates.” Kitty complains to her sister, “Sarah Walker,” played by Rachel Griffiths: “I am fighting for my political life with a bunch of ultra-conservative yahoos who want my head because you decided to fall in love with a guy who has immigration issues.”

Audio: 90-second MP3 clip that matches the video highlights.

As the plot proceeds, Kitty condemns the “character assassination” and “guilt by association” while Sarah yells at a blogger with a video camera: “It’s people like you who give this country a bad name!” Kitty also rues: “We can’t control this crap that they put on the Internet.”

But it all ends on a happy note with a Bob Schieffer-like fairly tale of bi-partisanship, as Kitty, Sarah and brother “Kevin,” played by Matthew Rhys, go to the airport to stop Luc from returning to France and to confront the irresponsible bloggers. Kitty defends her sister: “She is a professional businesswoman, taxpayer, soccer mom and my sister. And this, this is Luc– Luc Laurent. And, yes, he is a French citizen and an artist who takes no jobs from Americans. He loves Sarah and Sarah loves him.”

Kevin soon proclaims: “We can despise each other’s political opinions, but we don’t despise each other.” Kitty agrees:

That’s right. And that is the spirit that I want to take to Washington. You see, if I ever get to the point where my ideology is so rigid that I can’t see another point of view or if my loyalty lies with my party instead of my country, well, then I want the voters to send me home.

Which earns applause from a crowd that has gathered, including the blogger Sarah earlier denounced as a “douche-bag.”

In the early days of the program produced by ABC Studios, Kitty was a DC-based conservative host of a TV debate show who was frequently at odds with her liberal and vocally so mother, Nora. As recounted in a November of 2006 NB post, “ABC’s Conservative Character: ‘Acknowledge the War Was a Mistake,’” it “took ABC until just the ninth episode…to have its sole conservative character ‘grow’ — as they say of conservatives who move to the left — from a pro-war right-winger to a critic of the Iraq war who declared it ‘a mistake.’”

The Associated Press’s 10:33 p.m. rendition of its coverage of the ongoing James Sikes "Runaway Prius" saga begins with the following headline and opening pair of paragraphs:

The problem is that the AP report’s complete content, in combination with properly understood English and the relevant definitions at the always-handy dictionary.com, make it clear that Sikes’s lawyer hasn’t "rebutted" anything.

Here are the alternative definitions of "rebuttal" found at the web site:

The definitions and verbal treatments at Merriam-Webster.com are consistent.

But using "rebut," the AP’s headline writer clearly wants readers, particularly those who only see the headline, to believe that Sikes’s lawyer has put the matter to bed and that his client has been vindicated. The problem is that the very first sentence of Elliot Spagat’s and Ken Thomas’s story, by using the word "dismissed," actually, uh, "rebuts" the headline writer. Also, note that because "rebut" has an object in the headline ("doubts"), the wire service’s headline writer can’t lean on the weakest definition of the three above, because that meaning can be inferred only when there is no object.

Sikes’s lawyer John Gomez can "dismiss" the evidence disputing his client’s account all he wants, but he doesn’t have the final say, and the article presents no new evidence in Sikes’s favor that bears any semblance to a "rebuttal." In fact, Gomez wants us to believe that investigators’ failure to replicate the problem doesn’t matter:

A Toyota official who was at the inspection explained that an electric motor would "completely seize" if a system to shut off the gas when the brake is pressed fails, and there was no evidence to support that happened, according to the (congressional investigators’) memo.

"In this case, knowing that we are able to push the car around the shop, it does not appear to be feasibly possible, both electronically and mechanically that his gas pedal was stuck to the floor and he was slamming on the brake at the same time," according to the report for the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

Kurt Bardella, a spokesman for the committee’s top Republican, Darrell Issa of California, said Sunday that the findings "certainly raise new questions surrounding the veracity of the sequence of events" reported by Sikes.

… John Gomez, Sikes’ attorney, said the findings fail to undermine his client’s story.

… "It’s not surprising they couldn’t replicate it. They have never been able to replicate an incident of sudden acceleration. Mr. Sikes never had a problem in the three years he owned this vehicle."

Brian Pennings, a spokesman for the California Highway Patrol, said his agency’s view that there is no evidence of a hoax is unchanged. The CHP does not plan to investigate the incident because there were no injuries or property damage.

"Unless they can completely disprove Mr. Sikes, we’re done," Pennings said. "It doesn’t sound like they can do that."

Though CHP’s claim that there is "no evidence" is highly dubious, its stance that it won’t go further actually makes sense. Their concern would be whether or not a crime was committed. For a district attorney to prosecute such a matter, he or she would have to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Sikes committed a hoax. That would seem to be a tough standard to meet in the circumstances.

If Sikes were to pursue a civil suit, his standard of proof would be a less stringent showing that a preponderance of the evidence supports his claim. His stated intent not to sue would seem to indicate that he and Gomez can’t get there, or anywhere near it.

Yesterday, I noted (at NewsBusters; at BizzyBlog) that Michael Fumento, in a column at Forbes, raised huge doubts about the Sikes’s rendition of events, including this one:

His claim that he’d tried to yank up the accelerator could be falsified, with his help, in half a minute.

… I tried to imitate Sikes’ alleged effort in a 2008 Prius.

… it required squashing my face against the radio and completely removing my eyes from the road. (this is something Sikes says he never did — Ed.)

Further, in terms of the California man’s claim that he tried to stop the car by pressing the brake pedal with all his might, Spagat’s and Thomas’s AP report tells us that "the Wall Street Journal reported Saturday that the wear was not consistent with the brakes being applied at full force for a long period, citing three people familiar with the probe, whom it did not name."

In other words: Rebuttal, reschmuttal — no matter what the AP’s headline writer wants us to believe.

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

In “Andrew Sullivan revises history (again),” Atlantic national correspondent Jeffrey Goldberg sagely observed that “Andrew Sullivan should be thankful that The Atlantic’s fact-checking department has no purview over the magazine’s website.” Goldberg subsequently appended this clarification: “”When I implied above that a magazine with standards would not allow Andrew to misinterpret history, I should have stated that the Atlantic’s website has no fact-checking standards, and not that it has no standards at all.”

Goldberg has now formulated a unilateral disengagement plan from Sullivan, but not before issuing this parting shot: “Yes, it’s upsetting that Andrew Sullivan, a man of obvious intellectual gifts (and someone for whom I retain great personal fondness), has become an anti-Israel propagandist. But it’s not my job to counter everything he says….” That would be a full-time job, and it would not be in the best interests either of Golberg or of the Atlantic, but it is nice to have Goldberg’s testimony on the record from inside the asylum.

Via Repubclic.

I like this version of Steely Dan’s “Gaslighting Abbie” even better than the one on Two Against Nature. Ricky Lawson is an ultrafunky metronome in this one, Walter Becker squeezes out some nicely twisted licks, and the arrangement is more fully developed.

[Video]

One plush summer you come to me ripe and ready
And bad through and through
With that deep mystical soul synergy pumping steady
Between me and you
Lovin all the beautiful work weve done, cara mia
And its barely july
If we keep on boppin until labor day
Lil miz abbie - bye bye

What will it be - some soothing herb tea?
That might be just the thing
Lets say we spike it with deludin
Or else - maybe tonight a hand of solitaire

Chorus:
Flame is the game
The game we call gaslighting abbie
Its a luscious invention for three
One summer by the sea

With the long weekend thats comin up fast
Lets get busy
Theres just too much to do
That black mini looks just like the one shes been missin
Feels good on you
Theres a few items we need in town - allez-vous girl
Theres no time to waste
Such as fresh cable and fifteen watt bulbs
Couple dozen - its a big old place
Lets keep it light - well do a fright night
With blood and everything
Some punky laughter from the kitchen
And then - a nice relaxing hand of solitaire

Chorus

You can choose the music
Ill set up my gear
Later on well chill and watch the fireworks from here

How can you knock this mighty spitelock
Check out the work itself
A mix of elegance and function
Thats right - a tweak or two and then shes out of here

Chorus

On ABC last Wednesday, both World News and Nightline featured a report filed by correspondent Dan Harris in which he linked the activities of some American evangelical Christian pastors with anti-gay hatred and attempts by Uganda’s parliament at passing death penalty legislation to punish homosexuals in the African nation. Each of the reports focused on the extreme views of American pastor Scott Lively and Ugandan pastor Martin Ssempa, without including the views of more mainstream American evangelical leaders.

On World News, anchor Diane Sawyer teased: "Gay terror: Have some American evangelical ministers helped threaten the lives of homosexuals in Africa?" She later plugged the report again: "And still ahead on World News, a death threat for gays. It happened after American evangelicals delivered a potent message."

In the version of the report that ran on Nightline, Harris made a point of mentioning Pastor Rick Warren as being a "one-time friend" of Pastor  Ssempa. And, though Harris’s reference to Pastor Warren as a "one-time friend" perhaps implies a falling out between the two men, the ABC correspondent could have more directly informed viewers that Pastor Warren released a statement last October declaring that he had not associated with Pastor Ssempa since 2007.

Furthermore, last December, Pastor Warren released a video message for Christians in Uganda in which he attacked the proposed anti-gay law as legislation "I completely oppose and I vigorously condemn," as he went on to declare, "The potential law before your parliament is unjust, it’s extreme, and it’s un-Christian toward homosexuals, requiring death penalty even in some cases."

As Harris featured clips of one of the American evangelical pastors – who pushes the bizarre theory that Adolf Hitler and other German Nazi leaders were homosexuals – in the World News version of the story Harris made no distinction between this pastor’s views on homosexuals and other evangelical Christians who are more mainstream, while in the Nightline version of the story Harris only briefly alluded to him being extreme compared to other evangelicals as the ABC correspondent recounted to viewers that "At home, these views may be marginalized or even mocked."

And, while the World News version of the report dates the conference that included American evangelical speakers as having taken place "last March," the Nightline version of the report did not specify the date, thus giving a greater impression that some of the hysterical anti-gay protesters shown might have been stirred up immediately after a more recent presence of the American pastors. Substitute host Martin Bashir introduced the report by informing viewers that "a group of American evangelicals traveled to a far away land – a place where homosexuality is already a crime – to speak out against it," adding that "Since that seminar, anti-gay fervor has continued to ferment. Now, if a controversial bill passes, your homosexuality may cost you your life."

Harris left the impression that the anti-gay protests and anger shown were part of an immediate "aftermath" of the conference:

DAN HARRIS: We went to Uganda to investigate what has happened in the aftermath of that conference. This:

UNIDENTIFIED MALE PROTESTER SHOUTING: Homosexuality has been prohibited here in Uganda! We don’t want it!

HARRIS: An extraordinary wave of homophobia, which even includes a bill that would put some gays and lesbians to death.

Harris then linked the featured anti-gay Ugandan Pastor Ssempa to Pastor Warren, and even left the impression that the American pastors who took part in the March 2009 seminar had actually helped co-host the conference rather than just appearing as featured speakers as he recounted that Pastor Ssempa "helped host" the conference "with" the American pastors. Harris: "The bill is supported by one of the country’s most popular pastors, Martin Ssempa, who helped host that conference with the American evangelicals, and is a one-time friend of the American megachurch pastor Rick Warren."

After clips of Pastor Ssempa were shown in which he expressed his anti-gay views, the ABC correspondent relayed that American Christians have been blamed for some of the events in Uganda. Harris: "Critics say this extreme anti-gay fervor is in part the result of a concerted campaign by American Christians to export our culture wars to Africa, a campaign that reached a crescendo at that conference we told you about."

While Harris eventually informed viewers that the three American pastors who took part in the conference last year had voiced their opposition to the proposed law, the ABC correspondent never gave other more mainstream American evangelical leaders the chance to weigh in on whether they would dissent from some of the extreme rhetoric allegedly featured at the seminar event of March 2009.

The World News version of the report did not mention Pastor Warren, showed an abridged account of the extreme views of the pastors featured, and informed the audience that the American pastors at the conference had voiced opposition to the death penalty proposal in Uganda, but also did not include the views of mainstream American evangelical Christians at all. Harris concluded the report: "In the meantime, gay Ugandans, including those whose anguished faces we see, and those we cannot, say they cannot believe American Christians traveled all this way here to make their already harrowing existence so much more terrifying. Dan Harris, ABC News, Kampala, Uganda."

Below are complete transcripts of the relevant reports from the Wednesday March 10, Nightline and the same day’s World News on ABC:

#From the March 10 Nightline:

MARTIN BASHIR: A group of American evangelicals traveled to a far away land – a place where homosexuality is already a crime – to speak out against it. Since that seminar, anti-gay fervor has continued to ferment. Now, if a controversial bill passes, your homosexuality may cost you your life, as Dan Harris reports for our series "Faith Matters."

PASTOR SCOTT LIVELY: The gay movement is an evil institution that’s goal, the goal of the gay movement is to defeat the marriage-based society.

DAN HARRIS: This is the American evangelical Scott Lively speaking at an event called the "Seminar on Exposing the Homosexual Agenda," half a world away in the African country of Uganda.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE PROTESTER IN UGANDA: We say no to homosexuals, we don’t allow homosexuals!

HARRIS: We went to Uganda to investigate what has happened in the aftermath of that conference. This:

UNIDENTIFIED MALE PROTESTER IN UGANDA: Homosexuality has been prohibited here in Uganda! We don’t want it!

HARRIS: An extraordinary wave of homophobia, which even includes a bill that would put some gays and lesbians to death. The bill is supported by one of the country’s most popular pastors, Martin Ssempa, who helped host that conference with the American evangelicals-

PASTOR MARTIN SSEMPA, MAKERERE COMMUNITY CHURCH: Africa is united against sodomy!

HARRIS: -and is a one-time friend of the American mega church pastor Rick Warren.

SSEMPA: I’m going to give evidence on what homosexuals do.

HARRIS: We found Ssempa whipping up support for the bill by showing his followers extraordinarily graphic gay pornography.

SSEMPA: This is the-

(AUDIENCE EXPESSES NEGATIVE REACTION TO SLIDE SHOW)

SSEMPA: In Africa, sodomy is an abomination and taboo and an evil!

HARRIS: Does all this fit in your mind with the spirit of Christianity, which is to help the oppressed?

SSEMPA: Very much. Very, very much. We need to know what are they doing in their bedroom? And you cannot make comments out of ignorance. The problem is, the absence of shock. You know, you look at the same thing – Dan, you’re not shocked.

HARRIS: You could play porn between men and women and shock people, too, but it’s not done very frequently.

SSEMPA CLIP #1: Sir, anal activity, anything having to do with eating of poop, heterosexuals do not eat poop.

SSEMPA CLIP #2: In same way, if you have sex with a dog, sex with a cow, that’s evil.

SSEMPA, IN FRONT OF AUDIENCE: They start off by touching each other’s genitals and smelling each other.

HARRIS: Critics say this extreme anti-gay fervor is in part the result of a concerted campaign by American Christians to export our culture wars to Africa, a campaign that reached a crescendo at that conference we told you about.

LIVELY: Even though probably the majority of homosexuals are not oriented toward young people, there’s a significant number of them are.

LIVELY CLIP #2: And that they, when they see a child that’s from a broken home, it’s like they have a flashing neon sign over their head.

HARRIS: The star attractions at the event? Three American Christians, including Scott Lively.

LIVELY: I’m not going to sit back and let them attempt to overthrow Christian civilization. That’s really what it comes down to.

HARRIS: Lively is the author of a book called "The Pink Swastika," in which he argues that Nazism was actually a gay movement.

LIVELY: A large number of Hitler’s inner circle were homosexual and Hitler himself was a homosexual.

HARRIS: The vast majority of Holocaust scholars would violently disagree with you.

LIVELY: Oh, I don’t think so. I don’t think that-

HARRIS: That the Nazi movement was largely a homosexual movement.

LIVELY: Well, the book, it’s 400 pages of documentation.

HARRIS: At home, these views may be marginalized or even mocked, but the hundreds of Ugandan teachers, cops and politicians at the conference took them quite seriously. Months later, a bill was introduced called the "Anti-Homosexuality Bill of 2009," which calls for death by hanging for gay and lesbian serial offenders, and also prison time for anyone, including parents, who fail to hand over someone they know is gay or lesbian to the police.

HARRIS: This bill says if you get married while gay or lesbian to another gay or lesbian, you’re going to prison for the rest of your life. Do you agree with that?

SSEMPA: I agree with that in my country.

HARRIS: You do?

SSEMPA: In my country.

HARRIS: You think that’s a fair punishment? Life in prison to get married?

SSEMPA: Sir, I think that what we do not understand here is, A, in Africa, sodomy is an abomination. It’s an abomination to our culture, to our God, and when you do bring sodomy, you practice sodomy, you bring a curse on the nation.

HARRIS: There’s a common theory that the people who have the biggest problems with gays and lesbians have themselves struggled with homosexual urges.

SSEMPA: No, no, no, no, no, no, no.

HARRIS: Have you ever?

SSEMPA: That means everybody who fights terrorism is themselves a terrorist. (LAUGHS)

HARRIS: Are you comparing homosexuality to terrorism?

SSEMPA: It is sexual terrorism.

HARRIS: Do you ever worry that you’re whipping up hatred in a way that could end up being violent?

SSEMPA: I don’t worry about whipping up hatred. Actually, what I worry is that people, like you, who seem to hear what I’m saying, but they don’t seem to understand. I worry that networks of televisions are controlled by homosexuals.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN ON STAGE: No to sodomy.

CLIP OF AUDIENCE: No to sodomy!

HARRIS: Even though backers of the bill now insist they only want to execute homosexual pedophiles, governments all over the world are up in arms. President Obama denounced the bill as odious, and the American evangelicals who spoke at that event in Uganda are now rushing to distance themselves from the bill. They claim they had no idea it was coming and deny any responsibility for it. You said before that you had no idea that your time in Uganda would be followed by such a draconian tough law. But you did say on your Web site, I believe, either you said or you quoted somebody as saying-

LIVELY: A nuclear bomb.

HARRIS: Yes, that it was like a nuclear bomb.

LIVELY: Well, and it was, and I’m proud of that. And I hope the nuclear bomb spreads across the whole world against the gay movement, against this attempt to overthrow family-based society and replace it with sexual anarchy. That doesn’t mean I hate homosexuals. It doesn’t mean that I want anybody to be thrown in jail.

HARRIS: But Uganda is a country where local newspapers out purported "homos" and where those who dare to come out of the closet are so scared they have to hold news conferences wearing masks. Did you ever think at any point that perhaps, given the history of this country, that you might be saying things that would have an unpleasant outcome?

LIVELY: Do you think that these people did not already have an opinion against homosexuality, a strong opinion? It’s incredibly racist. It’s the colonial mindset all over again.

HARRIS: An argument echoed by the main proponents of the bill in Uganda.

SSEMPA: It’s offensive to me. It’s offensive to me that every time a black man does something good, you have to say that a white man told us to do it. That’s really offensive to me.

HARRIS: But the outrage in the West may mean that the bill gets either watered down or killed. The Ugandan parliament will be holding hearings on it later this month. As for Scott Lively, he says if they drop the death penalty, he will actually endorse the bill.

LIVELY: These are good Christians, better Christians in Uganda than there are here in this country. They care about each other. And the reason that this law is in place, the reason that they, I think that they’re pushing so hard on this is that they don’t want to see happen to their country what’s happened over here.

HARRIS: For Nightline this is Dan Harris in Kampala, Uganda.

BASHIR: One extreme in this ongoing and sensitive debate. Our thanks to Dan Harris.

#From the March 10 World News :

DIANE SAWYER, IN OPENING TEASER: Gay terror: Have some American evangelical ministers helped threaten the lives of homosexuals in Africa?

…

SAWYER, BEFORE COMMERCIAL BREAK: And still ahead on World News, a death threat for gays. It happened after American evangelicals delivered a potent message.

…

SAWYER: And now we dig more deeply into a flashpoint issue. We heard that some evangelical Christians from this country traveled to Uganda to preach an anti-gay message there. And now, gays in that country are looking at the possibility of a law that could invoke the death penalty. Is there a connection? Dan Harris traveled to Uganda.

DAN HARRIS: To be gay in Uganda already meant living in constant fear. It’s a place where newspapers out purported "homos," and gay activists are forced to hold news conferences wearing masks. Then into this tinderbox walked American evangelical Scott Lively.

PASTOR SCOTT LIVELY: The gay movement is an evil institution that’s goal, the goal of the gay movement is to defeat the marriage-based society.

DAN HARRIS: Lively is one of several American Christians who spoke last March at a three-day event called the "Seminar on Exposing the Homosexual Agenda," warning Ugandans that gays target their children.

LIVELY: When they see a child that’s from a broken home, it’s like they have a flashing neon sign over their head.

HARRIS: We went to Uganda to investigate what has happened in the aftermath, an extraordinary wave of homophobia.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE PROTESTER IN UGANDA: Homosexuality, here in Uganda, we don’t want it!

HARRIS: The Ugandan parliament is now considering an anti-homosexuality bill, which calls for death by hanging for some gays and lesbians and prison for anyone, including parents, who doesn’t hand gays over to police.

PASTOR MARTIN SSEMPA: In Africa, sodomy is an abomination!

HARRIS: We found one of the bill’s main backers, the American-educated Pastor Martin Ssempa, whipping up support by showing gay pornography. Does all this fit in your mind with the spirit of Christianity, which is to help the oppressed?

SSEMPA: Very much. Very, very much. We need to know what are they doing in their bedroom?

HARRIS: You could play porn between men and women and shock people, too.

HARRIS: His response to that is so graphic, we won’t broadcast it here. A few gay Ugandans were brave enough to go on camera to tell us that the American Christians have made their lives much more dangerous.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE UGANDAN: Sometimes I come back home and just sob, I cry.

HARRIS: Even though Scott Lively and at least one of his fellow American Christians met with members of the Ugandan parliament while they were here last year, they now say they had nothing to do with, and do not support, the bill that would put gays to death. You said before that you had no idea that your time in Uganda would be followed by such a draconian, tough law, but you did say on your Web site, I believe, either you said or you quoted somebody saying-

LIVELY: A nuclear bomb.

HARRIS: Yes, that it was like a nuclear bomb.

LIVELY: And it was, and I’m proud of that, and I hope the nuclear bomb spreads across the whole world against the gay movement, against this attempt to overthrow family-based society and replace it with sexual anarchy. That doesn’t mean I hate homosexuals. That doesn’t mean that I want anybody to be thrown in jail.

HARRIS: He says it’s racist to think a handful of Americans could convince so many Ugandans to consider such a tough bill. Martin Ssempa agrees.

SSEMPA: It’s offensive to me. It’s offensive to me that every time a black man does something good, you have to say that a white man told us to do it.

HARRIS: There’s a common theory that the people who have the biggest problems with gays and lesbians have themselves struggled with homosexual urges.

SSEMPA: No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.

HARRIS: Have you ever?

SSEMPA: That means everybody who fights terrorism is themselves a terrorist. (LAUGHS)

HARRIS: Are you comparing homosexuality to terrorism?

SSEMPA: It is sexual terrorism.

HARRIS: In the meantime, gay Ugandans, including those whose anguished faces we see, and those we cannot, say they cannot believe American Christians traveled all this way here to make their already harrowing existence so much more terrifying. Dan Harris, ABC News, Kampala, Uganda.

Leftist law professor David Cole got the Washington Post to publish a piece with the juvenile title (in the print edition): “We don’t have to listen to Dick Cheney ever again (Thanks, Liz!).” Consider this a wish fulfillment dream.

No one ever had to listen to Dick Cheney, an ex-vice president with an approval rating that seemed to be approaching single figures. But the public does listen to him because it thinks he’s making sense on the issues he has chosen to talk about — fighting terrorism and keeping American safe.

This isn’t going to change just because his daughter’s organization produced a video that offended some sensibilities, including mine. The public will continue to listen to Dick Cheney, and I’m pretty sure that Prof. Cole will sneak a peek at Cheney’s future comments. For that matter, there’s no reason to think the public won’t listen to Liz Cheney.

One of the pleasures of being a conservative is to observe the left’s obsession with figures like Cheney and Justice Scalia (recall how lefty lawyers keep calling for a Supreme Court nominee who can match wits with Scalia). The obsession stems from the fact that, In their particular spheres, Cheney and Scalia are able to speak with a strength and clarity that the likes of Prof. Cole can only fantasize about.

The left is convinced that somewhere out there is a champion who can articulate their visions with the same kind of strength and clarity. In light of the nature of these visions, consider this a wish fulfillment dream.

That dream helps explain Barack Obama’s initial appeal to the left. But so far, he’s only been able to speak with strength and clarity on the campaign trail, not in the realm of policy. In that realm, his supporters find him “nuanced” and the rest of us find him muddled or worse.

Either way, Obama hasn’t been the one they’ve been waiting for.

My friend Ray Hartwell, a frequent flier, has been talking with fellow passengers to discover what they think about airline security issues in the aftermath of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab’s Christmas Day attempt to blow up Northwest Flight 253. His findings, contained in a Washington Times op-ed, suggest that the American flier views these matters more sensibly than the likes of John Brennan and Janet Napolitano.

As Ray concedes, this isn’t surprising, but it’s good to know.

The Associated Press seems to have two unwritten rules on how and when to write stories about leftist controversies and setbacks:

Rule Number 1 — Do little or nothing with the story until you can figure out a way to make center-right critics or victors look like the bad guys.

Rule Number 2 — If you’re thinking about covering the story any other way, refer to Rule Number 1.

On Thursday, the 1851 Center for Constitutional Law in Columbus, Ohio, which describes itself as "an independent legal center dedicated to protecting the constitutional rights of Ohioans from government abuse," announced a significant legal victory for Buckeye State residents interested in clean elections:

The 1851 Center for Constitutional Law achieved victory in its state RICO action against the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). ACORN has agreed to settle the case and will cease all Ohio activity as a result. In its settlement with the 1851 Center, ACORN agreed to surrender all of its Ohio business licenses by June 1, 2010. Further, the organization cannot support or enable any individual or organization that seeks to engage in the same type of activity.

That seems like a pretty clear-cut result, doesn’t it? Not if you’re the Associated Press’s JoAnne Viviano, whose brief item on Saturday followed the rules above, fabricated a supposed loophole in the settlement, and gave an unnamed spokesman an open mic to despicably play the race card:

Isn’t that nifty? The news isn’t that ACORN agreed to leave and not come back in any current or alternative form. No-no-no. The real news to Ms. Viviano is that racist meanies like those at the 1851 Center would fight ACORN or any of its successors if the far-left activists and accused racketeers reneged on their agreement.

This isn’t journalism; it’s character assassination by anonymous attribution.

Though far from perfect, the coverage by the Columbus Dispatch’s James Nash was more measured — and accurate:

ACORN is out of Ohio’s elections
In legal settlement, group agrees not to return to state

ACORN, the liberal group notorious for allegedly trying to inflate voter rolls through fraudulent practices, has seen its last election in Ohio.

The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now will permanently surrender its Ohio business license by June1 as part of a legal settlement with the conservative Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions, both sides said yesterday.

ACORN was active in Ohio in the 2006 and 2008 elections, working to register thousands of low-income people to vote and get them to the polls. The group’s efforts were marred by irregularities, including one case in which ACORN workers allegedly induced a Cleveland man to register to vote 72 times, offering cigarettes as an incentive.

The Buckeye Institute’s 1851 Center for Constitutional Law teamed with two Warren County residents to sue ACORN in Warren County Common Pleas Court just before the 2008 election. The residents alleged that their rights were abridged by thousands of fraudulent voter registrations, each representing "a potential illegal vote that has the capacity to dilute (legitimate) votes."

The case was moved to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.

Yesterday’s settlement is mostly confidential, said Maurice A. Thompson, the conservative group’s attorney.

"They will surrender their business license by June 1 and cease to operate in Ohio and cease to support or enable other groups to do what they do," Thompson said.

… After the 2008 election, in which some credited or blamed ACORN for the election of Barack Obama as president, ACORN has dialed back its political activity across the country.

ACORN continues to deny any wrongdoing in Ohio …

The Occam’s Razor explanation for ACORN’s surrender would seem to be that the 1851 Center’s RICO evidence was strong, and that national exposure of it would do serious damage.

The most obvious weakness in Nash’s report is that he never explained why "ACORN has dialed back its political activity." We can thank James O’Keefe, Hannah Giles, and Andrew Breitbart’s BigGovernment.com for that.

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

While conservatives like Mark Levin went to the radio barricades to protest the unconstitutionality of House Rules Committee chair Louise Slaughter just passing over the need for a House vote on the Senate health care bill, the networks stayed quiet last week. It did come up on Thursday night’s Countdown on MSNBC.

Lawrence O’Donnell called it the "self-executing rule." I can practically hear Levin yelling "That’s right! You liberals will be cutting your own throats with it!" Washington Post blogger Ezra Klein was warming up to the Slaughter solution, suggesting "consistent innovation" is what makes liberalism special:

O`DONNELL: Now, Ezra, let`s jump back to the self-executing rule in the House because you and I aren`t going to get a chance to talk about this kind of parliamentary stuff much longer, I don`t think.

KLEIN: You`re going to miss this, aren`t you?

O`DONNELL: I am. Now, let`s just leave the Senate parliamentarian aside, who can ruin this dream for everyone. But if they were to try to do this in the House, is there precedent for it? Have they ever before had a rule in the House that indicated the bill you`re voting on will become law only if this other piece of the bill you`re voting on at the same time becomes law? It`s hard to even describe and I can`t think of a single precedent for it.

KLEIN: I can`t think of one. So, you got me stumped, which is not to say it doesn`t mean, is it`s only to say I can`t think of it.

But, you know, the one thing that I would say about House and Senate and congressional processes that it is a process of consistent innovation. That it`s never been done until it`s been done. And all sorts of things are invented at the time.

Reconciliation had never been used to increase the deficit before Bush did it for the tax cuts. You can go on and on down the line where, you know, in response to differing circumstances and our politics changes, they figure out a way to do things and then it becomes a norm in the future from that. So, that they haven`t done, it doesn`t mean they won`t.

O`DONNELL: Ezra, my own conservative approach to this is: I win a lot money on bets, betting on things that have never happened before in the Congress. I lose once in a while. But you mostly win.

If the TARP bank bailout was a “crap sandwich,” the Democrats’ Student Loan Nationalization plan wrapped inside the latest version of the health care takeover is a Big Government Burrito.

The House Democrats’ 2,309-page reconciliation bill headed for House Budget Committee markup tomorrow has just been posted this evening and you can download the whole PDF file right here.

Or you can read it on Scribd thanks to the Senate Republicans.

The markup hearing will start at 3pm Eastern and will be broadcast on CSPAN – watch online right here.

Michael O’Brien of The Hill points out that “the bill is a procedural step, it DOES NOT make the substantive changes yet to the Senate’s bill.” These recommendations were first proposed in October by the House Ways and Means and Education and Labor Committees (so the public option is still in here).

Philip Klein reminds us that GOP Rep. Paul Ryan warned last week of the Dems’ strategy ramming this “shell” HC Bill through committee tomorrow. The budget committee approves the shell, sends it to the rules committee, then strips out the language and stuffs the actual reconciliation changes into the burrito, Klein explains. Klein lays it all out here.

Once the bill gets approved (likely Monday), Democrats will send this phantom bill over to the Rules Committee, where it will be stripped, and then they’ll insert in all of the actual changes that they’ve negotiated.

Why all of the theatrics?

Well, under the reconciliation rules in last year’s budget, any reconciliation bill would have to have been submitted to the Budget Committee by October 15, 2009. It just so happens that earlier versions of health care legislation cleared the Ways and Means and Education and Labor Committees last year. So Democrats just dusted that legislation off, and are using that as the vehicle to begin the reconciliation process. That’s why, for instance, if you look through the 2,309 page bill that was released Sunday night, you’ll find a public option, which leadership has indicated would not actually be in the final bill. (Interestingly, the student loan bill is also tacked on at the end.)

Just a “simple up or down vote,” remember?

In other words: What you see below is the tortilla shell fake-out.

More here: “House Democrats on Sunday night set into motion what they hope will be the final steps on healthcare reform. The House Budget Committee on Sunday evening released text that will serve as the base legislation for the changes the House will seek to the Senate bill this week. Specifically, the Budget committee released a 2,309-page effort that had been previously recommended to the Education and Labor Committee and Ways and Means Committee last year. The measure posted online does not include the substantive changes to the Senate healthcare bill that House Democrats will seek. Those changes will be offered during the markups in the Budget and Rules committees, which the budget panel hopes to begin on Monday afternoon. The House is expected to approve the Senate’s healthcare bill along with the package of changes. The Senate would then be expected to approve the package of changes under budget reconciliation rules.”

A small taste for you — the table of contents:

To provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 202 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2010.

SUBDIVISION C—PUBLIC HEALTH AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT
Title I—Community Health Centers
Title II—Workforce
Subtitle A—Primary care workforce
Subtitle B—Nursing workforce
Subtitle C—Public Health Workforce
Subtitle D—Adapting workforce to evolving health system needs
Title III—Prevention and Wellness
Title IV—Quality and Surveillance
Title V—Other provisions
Subtitle A—Drug discount for rural and other hospitals
Subtitle B—School-Based health clinics
Subtitle C—National medical device registry
Subtitle D—Grants for comprehensive programs To provide education to nurses
and create a pipeline to nursing
Subtitle E—States failing To adhere to certain employment obligations

The student loan nationalization add-on (part of the kiddie human shield strategy I diagnosed last week) starts on page 2098:

DIVISION III—HOUSE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR: INVESTING IN EDUCATION

Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. Table of contents.
Sec. 3. References.
TITLE I—INVESTING IN STUDENTS AND FAMILIES
Subtitle A—Increasing College Access and Completion
Sec. 101. Federal Pell Grants.
Sec. 102. College Access and Completion Innovation Fund.
Sec. 103. Investment in historically Black colleges and universities and other
minority-serving institutions.
Sec. 104. Investment in cooperative education.
Sec. 105. Loan forgiveness for servicemembers activated for duty.
Sec. 106. Veterans Educational Equity Supplemental Grant Program.
Subtitle B—Student Financial Aid Form Simplification
Sec. 121. General effective date.
Sec. 122. Treatment of assets in need analysis.
Sec. 123. Changes to total income; aid eligibility.
TITLE II—STUDENT LOAN REFORM
Subtitle A—Stafford Loan Reform
Sec. 201. Federal Family Education Loan appropriations.
Sec. 202. Scope and duration of Federal loan insurance program.
Sec. 203. Applicable interest rates.
Sec. 204. Federal payments to reduce student interest costs.
Sec. 205. Federal PLUS Loans.
Sec. 206. Federal Consolidation Loan.
Sec. 207. Unsubsidized Stafford loans for middle-income borrowers.
Sec. 208. Loan repayment for civil legal assistance attorneys.
Sec. 209. Special allowances.
Sec. 210. Revised special allowance calculation.
Sec. 211. Origination of Direct Loans at institutions located outside the United
States.
Sec. 212. Agreements with institutions.
Sec. 213. Terms and conditions of loans.
Sec. 214. Contracts.
Sec. 215. Interest rates.
Subtitle B—Perkins Loan Reform
Sec. 221. Federal Direct Perkins Loans terms and conditions.
Sec. 222. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 223. Allocation of funds.
Sec. 224. Federal Direct Perkins Loan allocation.
Sec. 225. Agreements with institutions of higher education.
Sec. 226. Student loan information by eligible institutions.
Sec. 227. Terms of loans.
Sec. 228. Distribution of assets from student loan funds.
Sec. 229. Implementation of non-title IV revenue requirement.
Sec. 230. Administrative expenses.
TITLE III—MODERNIZATION, RENOVATION, AND REPAIR
Subtitle A—Elementary and Secondary Education
Sec. 301. Definitions.
CHAPTER1—GRANTS FOR MODERNIZATION, RENOVATION, O REPAIR OF PUBLICSCHOOLFACILITIES
Sec. 311. Purpose.
Sec. 312. Allocation of funds.
Sec. 313. Allowable uses of funds.
Sec. 314. Priority projects.
CHAPTER2—SUPPLEMENTAL GRANTS FOR LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, AND ALABAMA
Sec. 321. Purpose.
Sec. 322. Allocation to local educational agencies.
Sec. 323. Allowable uses of funds.
CHAPTER3—GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 331. Impermissible uses of funds.
Sec. 332. Supplement, not supplant.
Sec. 333. Prohibition regarding State aid.
Sec. 334. Maintenance of effort.
Sec. 335. Special rule on contracting.
Sec. 336. Use of American iron, steel, and manufactured goods.
Sec. 337. Labor standards.
Sec. 338. Charter schools.
Sec. 339. Green schools.
Sec. 340. Reporting.
Sec. 341. Special rules.
Sec. 342. Promotion of employment experiences.
Sec. 343. Advisory Council on Green, High-Performing Public School Facilities.
Sec. 344. Education regarding projects.
Sec. 345. Availability of funds.
Subtitle B—Higher Education
Sec. 351. Federal assistance for community college modernization and construc-
tion.
TITLE IV—EARLY LEARNING CHALLENGE FUND
Sec. 401. Purpose.
Sec. 402. Programs authorized.
Sec. 403. Quality pathways grants.
Sec. 404. Development grants.
Sec. 405. Research and evaluation.
Sec. 406. Reporting requirements.
Sec. 407. Construction.
Sec. 408. Definitions.
Sec. 409. Availability of funds.
TITLE V—AMERICAN GRADUATION INITIATIVE
Sec. 501. Authorization and appropriation.
Sec. 502. Definitions; grant priority.
Sec. 503. Grants to eligible entities for community college reform.
Sec. 504. Grants to eligible States for community college programs.
Sec. 505. National activities.

Are you going to stand by and let Washington cram this thing down your throats?

Make your voices heard.

***

Why is this in a “health care reform” bill?!?!

P. 2227

SEC. 343. ADVISORY COUNCIL ON GREEN, HIGH-PERFORMING PUBLIC SCHOOL FACILITIES.

(c) CONSULTATION.—In carrying out its duties under subsection (b), the Advisory Council shall consult with the Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality and the heads of appropriate Federal agencies, including the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of Energy, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Secretary of Labor, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Administrator of the General Services Administration (through the Office of Federal High-Performance Green Buildings).