(Top) 

Tax cut battle lost, Democrats can't let up now
... Robert Kuttner, Boston Globe,  6/3/01

BUZZFLASH: WE ASKED MANY OF OUR READERS TO WRITE WOLF BLITZER AND YOU MIGHT SAY WOLF WAS BLITZED BY BUZZFLASH REGULARS. MANY OF YOU FORWARDED YOUR E-MAIL LETTERS TO US. WE WOULD LIKE TO SHARE ONE OF THOSE MESSAGES WITH YOU. 

JANET HESSERT, OF NORTH HOLLYWOOD, CALIFORNIA, SAYS IT BETTER THAN WE EVER COULD. (AND, HECK, BEING IN CALIFORNIA, SHE HAD TO PROBABLY WRITE IT IN THE DARK):

Dear Mr. Blitzer:

In the hopes that you (or a responsible member of your staff) are actually reading these emails and giving serious thought to this issue, I will answer you in some detail.

You ask "Are we (in the media) biased (toward the right wing)?" The answer is, sadly, an overwhelming "Yes!" I submit the following in evidence:

For over eight years, the media has pounced on every single hint of a potential scandal about President Clinton, his wife, his daughter, Vice President Gore, his wife, his children, their extended families, their current staff members, their former staff members, even their pets. 

Most of these "scandals" were simply a charge made by one or more Republicans, based on one or more facts taken completely out of context, which could, under certain circumstances, indicate criminal activity. 

However, the media NEVER took the simple step of determining whether those charges were valid. The media abandoned its duty to investigate stories before airing them, and instead endlessly repeated these unsupported allegations until those allegations became the truth in the minds of most viewers. When evidence later surfaced that these allegations were untrue, the media compounded its crime by refusing to admit its mistakes with equal vigor -- instead repeating the same irresponsible behavior as soon as the next Republican smear campaign was launched.

For example -- the RNC claimed that, in 1996, Gore made fundraising phone calls from his office that were a violation of the 1883 Pendleton Act. The Pendleton Act is designed to keep Federal employees from asking their subordinates for campaign contributions on Federal property. (It doesn't even mention phone calls, because there were no telephones in the White House in 1883.) Gore did not call any other Government employees from his office and ask for donations, nor did he call anyone who was also on Government property and ask for donations. He very clearly did not violate the 1883 Pendleton Act, as alleged. 

Gore was also accused of taking part in an illegal fundraising scam in the Hsi Lai Buddhist Temple. Gore, his staff, and the evidence all confirmed that Gore had no knowledge of John Huang and Maria Hsia's illegal activities. Witness -- including Don Knabe, a Republican Los Angeles county supervisor -- confirmed no fundraising occurred while Gore was present.

Gore was deposed, but he was never charged with any crime. 

Yet the media reported these accusation as if they were true -- and reported them endlessly, linking them to other "Clinton Administration scandals" that were just as baseless. After the initial feeding frenzy ended, the media continually referred to Gore as someone "tainted by fundraising scandals", until a huge number of Americans believed that Gore had violated the campaign finance laws somehow and gotten away with it. 

And the Republicans, who started the smear campaign in the first place, milked that media bred misconception for all it was worth. George W. Bush's main appeal to many voters was that he was going to "restore honor and dignity to the White House". In the First Presidential Debate, George W. Bush used these false scandals to further damage Gore's reputation:

'I think the thing that discouraged me about the vice president was uttering those famous words, "No controlling legal authority." I felt like there needed to be a better sense of responsibility of what was going on in the White House. I believe that -- I believe they've moved that sign, "The buck stops here" from the Oval Office desk to "The buck stops here" on the Lincoln bedroom. It's not good for the country and it's not right. We need to have a new look about how we conduct ourselves in office. There's a huge trust. I see it all the time when people come up to me and say, I don't want you to let me down again. And we can do better than the past administration has done. It's time for a fresh start. It's time for a new look. It's time for a fresh start after a season of cynicism. And so I don't know the man well, but I've been disappointed about how he and his administration have conducted the fundraising affairs. You know, going to a Buddhist temple and then claiming it wasn't a fundraiser isn't my view of responsibility.' http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2000a.html

The Moderator, Jim Lehrer, let this remark pass without pointing out the facts. 

The GOP played the media like a violin during the campaign, manufacturing a series of "Gore Lies" that the media rabidly parroted, and joyfully played shrink, wondering why Gore "needed" to lie like a rug. There was only one slight problem with the "Gore Lies" and the media's coverage of them -- all of the "Gore Lies" were later proven to be misquotes by the media, not lies by Gore. (Except one. Gore did not visit Texas with FEMA director James Witt on the day he said he did. He actually went with the assistant director of FEMA that day. And most people would not characterize that as a "lie", but as a "mistake".) 

The Annenberg 2000 Election Survey, released last month, found that "one of the most significant shifts in public opinion in the 2000 presidential campaign came in late September when perceptions of Democrat Al Gore's honesty dropped sharply".

Did the media even stop to consider the possible political motivations behind the GOP endlessly leaking reports that Clinton and Gore were under investigation for some new scandal -- no matter how many previous scandals had turned up nothing? Or did the media agree that destroying the American people's trust in their President and Vice President was a worthy goal? 

Personally, I would find it much easier to believe that the media is unbiased if it wasn't for all the obvious scandals connected to George W. Bush that the media has refused to cover, except in the most superficial way.

The worst of these is the Florida 2000 election. To me, one of the most shocking thing about the Florida election is the media's complete disinterest in exploring the endless "irregularities" that all favored Bush but hurt Gore. In fact, there is not one of the countless "irregularities" that aided Gore. That is just not statistically possible. 

I will list just three "irregularities" which favor Bush -- "irregularities" that, if they had taken place in a state where one of Gore's close relatives was Governor, and the Secretary of State was his state campaign co-chair, the media would still be reporting 24/7 about the obviously criminal nature of these "irregularities" and the campaign that benefitted from them:
A.) Most of Florida's counties did not check the overvotes to determine if there were any legal votes wrongly classified as overvotes -- something required by Florida law. Gore got 87% of these discarded overvotes. (According to the Washington Post, to this day, 1.58 million of Florida's votes have not been counted a second time.) 
B.) The Republican elections supervisors in Seminole and Martin county were found in a court of law to have manufactured absentee ballots for Republican voters (potentially as many as 5,000). Although this is a felony in Florida, neither supervisor has been charged with a crime. 
C.) The "bourgeois rioters" that beat up several people in the Miami Dade Courthouse in order to stop the recount there have all been identified by the Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, etc. They are all GOP Congressional aides or former GOP Congressional aides who were flown down to Florida, fed and housed at the expense of the Bush/Cheney campaign. After the riot, both Bush and Cheney called this group to congratulate them on a job well done. During the inauguration, they held a reunion with Katherine Harris, where they all got commemorative t-shirts and paperweights filled with chad.
None of these "bourgeois rioters" has ever been questioned by the police, let alone charged with a crime they were videotaped committing. For the record, according to the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, etc., those rioters are:
1. Tom Pyle, policy analyst, office of House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Tex.). 2. Garry Malphrus, majority chief counsel and staff director, House Judiciary subcommittee on criminal justice. 3. Rory Cooper, political division staff member at the National Republican Congressional Committee. 4. Kevin Smith, former House Republican conference analyst and more recently of Voter.com. 5. Steven Brophy, former aide to Sen. Fred D. Thompson (R-Tenn.), now working at the consulting firm KPMG. 6. Matt Schlapp, former chief of staff for Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.), now on the Bush campaign staff in Austin. 7. Roger Morse, aide to Rep. Van Hilleary (R-Tenn.). 8. Duane Gibson, aide to Chairman Don Young (R-Alaska) of the House Resources Committee. 9. Chuck Royal, legislative assistant to Rep. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.). 10. Layna McConkey, former legislative assistant to former Rep. Jim Ross Lightfoot (R-Iowa), now at Steelman Health Strategies. 

I could literally go on for days with more examples of Bush scandals the media has ignored -- Bush's alcohol abuse, his being AWOL during the Vietnam war, the bogus "energy crisis" in California that Bush ignores to the benefit of his major donors, the Bush family ties to the Nazi party and the Unification Church, the thousands and thousands of enraged Americans who protested Bush's inauguration and continue to protest his illegal administration daily but are ignored by the media... which prefers instead to waste countless hours on stories like "Gore's gained weight" or "Hillary Clinton got a hug from Strom Thurmond". 

And somehow, given all this, you still have to ask "Are we (in the media) biased (toward the right wing)"?

The only answer is: "Edward R. Murrow is spinning in his grave". 

Sincerely, Janet Hessert North Hollywood, CA
You can read the letter at http://www.buzzflash.com/BuzzScripts/Buzz.dll/sub3.

Congress gives self a raise despite crisis
 

http://www.arizonarepublic.com/westvalleyopinions/

Did you know that members of the U.S. House of Representatives voted on Oct. 26 to give themselves another round of raises? This time, our illustrious elected officials - by a vote of 374 for and 52 against - decided to increase their salaries by $12,105, raising their total pay and allowances to $157,105.

 Isn't it wonderful in this time of economic near-crisis, decades-high unemployment rates, massive and repeated corporate layoffs and downsizing and divisive uncertainty about who's working and who isn't, that the people we elect to lead us can give themselves a substantial raise nearly every year?

 In 1975, the annual congressional salary was $44,600. In 1990, it was $97,500. Beginning Jan. 1, 2002, that salary is $157,105. Does he mean 2002? Has your salary increased by 48 percent in the past decade? Has your salary even increased 13 percent since 1999? According to the U.S. Congress Disbursing Office's quarterly report, our congressmen can answer yes to all of the above.

 When was the last time you walked into your boss' office and told him how much more he was going to pay you next year?

 By the way, did you know that Arizona's maximum annual unemployment benefit is $5,330 ($205 per week for 26 weeks) and that that money is subject to both state and federal income taxes? Your elected leaders just voted to increase their pay by more than double that amount to a total annual salary of 29 times that amount.

 What does it say about elected officials who have no qualms about giving themselves a raise that is equal to or greater than what many of their constituents earn in an entire year?

 Please keep in mind that salaries and cost-of-living increases are separate from operating budgets, expense accounts, free financial privileges and a host of other monetary perks that go with the job.

 There's a reason why Congress was so offended by Eddie Murphy's movie The Distinguished Gentleman, which portrayed Congress as a thinly veiled cesspool of graft and financial opportunism. Perhaps the reason for our congressmen's indignation is that the film is actually more of a documentary than a comedy.

 To their credit, Mesa's Jeff Flake and Phoenix's John Shadegg both voted against the raise.

 The bill addresses the coming year's legislative branch budget of $2.97 billion for House, Senate and congressional agencies, which increases by 9 percent over the current year's budget. The congressional staff cost-of-living increase and the lawmakers' raise are above and beyond the $2.97 billion.

 What's really insulting is the incredulous stretch of reality that some of the representatives are using to justify their self-indulgent vote.

 Virginia Democrat James Moran said funding in the bill "will enable us to be better prepared to counter this new terrorist threat. Security and the need to preserve the ability of this institution to continue to function have been our paramount concern."

 Strangely enough, though, the details of the bill mention absolutely nothing about terrorism or national security. The bill's text dictates only how much more the representatives voted to pay themselves this year. Are we to believe that Moran and his colleagues are going to use their salaries to beef up their personal supply of anti-terrorism munitions?

 Moran - and anyone who supported or mirrored his vote - should be ashamed, if not publicly censured, for trying to cash in on this country's single greatest tragedy and his attempts to mask personal greed in the bleeding colors of American fear and sorrow at a time when anything containing the word "terrorism" is front-page news.

 Interestingly enough, none of the 54 who opposed the bill thought it important enough to speak out against the bill. Nary a contrary or admonishing word from Congress was heard.

 My column in September about congressional votes on fuel efficiency and fuel funding issues upset several representatives because they feel I didn't give them sufficient opportunity to "explain the intricacies" of their votes. I see no reason to allow politicians the chance to posture and double-speak on issues that are cut and dried, as are the congressional votes on them.

 Are you in favor of giving yourself a 14.5 percent raise: yes or no? There were 374 U.S. representatives who answered yes to that question in October. There is no "gray area" to be "clarified."

 It seems to me that the only people who should be given the opportunity to explain are the 54 politicians who voted no - if for no other reason than to let them explain where they think that money would be better spent.

http://www.arizonarepublic.com/westvalleyopinions/

Gary St. Lawrence is a professional writer and former investigative journalist. He can be reached at 4saint@home.com . The views expressed are those of the author.