Mojo - April 2008

ACLU Calls for Independent Counsel After Torture Admissions; Will Anyone Pay Attention?

| Mon Apr. 14, 2008 4:09 PM EDT

gitmo-press.jpg I don't quite understand how the media let out a collective yawn when it heard the news that top Bush Administration officials (Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Powell, Ashcroft, Tenet) personally signed off on "enhanced interrogation techniques" that included pushing, slapping, sleep deprivation, waterboarding, and other tactics. Waterboarding is torture, remember?

I'm further confused by the fact that the media remained passive after President Bush admitted that he knew and approved of what his principals were doing. This should have been huge news — the tactics the Administration's top officials approved probably violated the Geneva Conventions, after all — and yet this was less important than "Dog Finds Way to Owner's Funeral"?

Advertise on MotherJones.com

Why the "Bitter" Controversy Is So Stupid

| Mon Apr. 14, 2008 3:40 PM EDT

Let's be clear: if Barack Obama really believes the things he said in California last week, he's wrong. People "cling" to gun rights, religion, and anti-trade sentiment because those are things they believe in, not because they're bitter or angry. I suspect Obama knows as much, although his tortured and politically foolish phrasing and word choice might suggest otherwise. But there is more at stake here than what the mainstream media likes to refer to as a "gaffe." Because like every other manufactured controversy that's based on something someone said rather than something someone did (like, say, torture people), there's a double standard at work here.

The truth is that the right wing pronounces and the media repeats, with regularity, stupid, stereotypical slurs about large parts of American society, and no one blinks an eye. Trial lawyers, academics in their ivory towers, job-stealing illegal immigrants (with leprosy!), effete wine-drinking liberals, suburban soccer moms, granola-crunching environmentalists, and just about anyone within spitting range of "San Francisco values," are totally in-bounds for any sort of mockery the Limbaughs and Hannitys of the world can cook up. But god forbid someone slur "Middle America."

Posted Without Comment, as They Say

| Mon Apr. 14, 2008 3:27 PM EDT

From the GOP's Northern Kentucky's 4th Congressional District Lincoln Day Dinner:

"I'm going to tell you something: That boy's finger does not need to be on the button," [Congressman Geoff] Davis said. "He could not make a decision in that simulation that related to a nuclear threat to this country."

I'll give you one guess who Davis was talking about. More ugliness here.

McCain Keeps Riding the No-Talk Express on Rod Parsley

| Mon Apr. 14, 2008 1:39 PM EDT

From John McCain's speech to the Associated Press' annual meeting on Monday:

Long ago in my career, I made a decision to be as accessible to the press as the press would prefer me to be....I believe in giving great access to the press....I much prefer long back and forths, where reporters have multiple follow ups and I have an opportunity to explain my views in greater detail...I think reporters are better able to meet their first responsibility of ensuring an informed citizenry if they are allowed to press a candidate for more than a gotcha quote or a comment on whatever the cable driven news environment has decided is the process story of the day....[T]he responsibility of an informed citizenry is as much my responsibility as it is yours. I don't believe in deceiving voters about my positions, my beliefs or how I would govern this country were I to have the extraordinary privilege of serving as President. I want voters to know and understand my positions.

So how come McCain's campaign has refused to address questions about his connection to Rod Parsley, the megachurch pastor who has called for the eradication of Islam? I've called his campaign a dozen or so times to ask for a comment on McCain's relationship with this fundamentalist leader--McCain campaigned with Parsley, accepted his endorsement, and called him a "spiritual guide"--yet no one at McCain HQ would respond. As far as I can tell, McCain has not given a straight answer to the question: will you renounce the support of a person who calls Islam a "false religion" and urges its destruction? His alliance with Parsley is one position McCain does not seem eager to explain.

Richardson Explains How Obama and Clinton Woo

| Mon Apr. 14, 2008 1:06 PM EDT

richardson_headshot.jpg This whole article is worth reading because it has Bill Richardson's personal thoughts on the Clinton and Obama campaign's attempts to court his endorsement. But this passage is particularly interesting:

Their manner of courtship -- one wooing, the other arm-twisting -- seemed to reflect the candidates' different personalities and campaign styles, he said.
Obama preferred the soft sell, calling Richardson every three days or so -- "dialing the phone himself, no operator" -- for long discussions about policy and campaign issues. The two developed a bantering relationship, building on the camaraderie they shared off-camera during debates, when they would roll their eyes at some of their rivals' statements.
Clinton was more persistent and tactical. There were eight or more phone calls a day, Richardson said: "Bill calling, Hillary calling, friends of mine that were in the Clinton administration, Clinton operatives, Clinton Hispanic operatives, New Mexico Clinton Hispanic operatives."
Some callers, who suggested Richardson had an obligation to back Clinton, did more harm than good. "I think the Clintons have a feeling of entitlement . . . that the presidency was theirs," Richardson said, and the persistent lobbying from "Washington establishment types" convinced him of a need for some fresher faces on the scene.

The Clinton campaign must be pulling out its collective hair — a persistent, efficient, and professional full-court press got bested by one dude picking up the phone himself and calling once every few days.

That sense of entitlement that Richardson describes must have been awfully strong. Or maybe it was this.

Happy Tax Day to The Richest One Percent!

| Mon Apr. 14, 2008 12:20 PM EDT

money.jpg

As many of you scramble to get your taxes done before tomorrow's deadline, Citizens for Tax Justice, a Washington-based advocacy group, has released a new report showing just how much love the Bush administration has shown to the richest one percent of Americans... literally at the expense of the rest of us. Not that we didn't already know this, of course, but somehow seeing it all laid out in black and white brings it home all the more clearly.

According to the report, in 2010, when all of the Bush tax cuts will finally have taken effect, the richest one percent of American families—those earning $1.6 million annually—will receive, on average, a $92,000 tax cut. As a share of the population, these families will account for an estimated 53 percent of all tax relief, while the poorest 60 percent will be on the receiving end of just 12-15 percent of tax cuts.

Just what does it take to belong to the richest one percent? Money, of course, and lots of it. According to the report:

In 2008 the best-off one percent will have an estimated average income of almost $1.5 million each. Just to get into this elite group requires an income greater than $462,000. If all of that came from wages, then for single people it would take an average wage of $224 an hour to make it into the top one percent, and $722 an hour to become an average member.
For two-earner couples with both spouses working full time, it would take an average wage for each spouse of $112 an hour to get into the top one percent and $361 an hour each to be an average member of the top one percent.

Advertise on MotherJones.com

IRS Scrutiny of Major Corporations at 20-Year Low

| Mon Apr. 14, 2008 11:12 AM EDT

According to a new report of the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, the I.R.S. has seen "a historic collapse in audits," particularly of major corporations, which are being examined less frequently now than at any point in the last 20 years.

In my 2006 interview with tax reporter and author David Cay Johnston, we discussed the I.R.S.'s decreasing ability to bust up the tax dodges of corporations and the superrich. (We also discussed how the tax code is rigged to favor the wealthy and bilk the poor.)

An excerpt, after the jump.

An Explosion in Shiraz

| Mon Apr. 14, 2008 10:31 AM EDT

While Iranian officials were quick to portray an explosion at a Shiraz mosque Saturday that killed 12 people as an accident, analysts aren't so sure.

As the AFP reports:

Iran was on Monday investigating an explosion in a mosque in the southern city of Shiraz that killed 12 people and wounded more than 200, amid continued questions about what caused the blast.
Several Iranian officials have insisted the blast late on Saturday was the result of an accident, and not a bomb, but other sources raised the possibility the explosion was an attack by unidentified militants. [...]

On the "Bitter" Controversy, Obama Has Surprising Critics

| Mon Apr. 14, 2008 10:08 AM EDT

You may have heard about the latest flare-up in the presidential campaign, which basically involves Hillary Clinton and John McCain slamming Barack Obama for comments he made at a fundraiser in San Francisco:

"You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive Administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

First, Obama was slammed for the word "bitter" — the suggestion being that the word is condescending and pessimistic. After Obama argued back that, actually, people are pretty freakin' bitter because jobs are disappearing, housing is a mess, and the government doesn't seem to be helping everyday folks, Obama's critics changed their focus to the phrase "they cling to guns or religion."

Hillary Clinton trotted out former Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack, himself a former mayor of small town in the Midwest, who told the press:

Part of the Problem: Sen. Max Baucus

| Mon Apr. 14, 2008 9:54 AM EDT

max-baucus.jpg Montana Senator Max Baucus, head of the Senate Finance Committee, has rightfully been called "one of corporate America's favorite Democrats." It's no surprise, then, that he's all lobbied up.

Since 1996, one-fifth of U.S. Sen. Max Baucus' highest-paid staff members have left their jobs to become lobbyists, usually for industries regulated by the powerful committee that Baucus heads, a Missoulian State Bureau analysis shows.
Take Jeff Forbes, for example. In 2003, Forbes was Baucus' lead staffer on the Senate Finance Committee working extensively on the Medicare prescription drug bill. Baucus, then the top-ranking Democrat on the panel, was one of the bill's central architects.
In late November, just five days before the Senate took the final, key vote on the bill, Forbes quit. Six weeks later, he was registered to lobby for two drug companies and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), the lobby representing the nation's biggest prescription drug companies.
Those same companies got a multimillion-dollar windfall in the Medicare drug program, critics of the program contend, because the law forbids the government from negotiating with drug manufacturers for cheaper prices.

The Nation reported in 2007 that Baucus once asked 50 lobbyists to raise $100,000 each for his upcoming re-election campaign. If Barack Obama becomes the standard-bearer of his party, he's going to have to decide if, in his quest to cleanse the system in Washington, he wants to demand change from powerful members of his own party.