Eat The Press

Hello. My name is Jason and welcome to your liveblog of this weeks' Sunday Morning blather latherings. Our emanations today? The likely key topic of discussion will be the recent decision of the Obama administration to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed -- hereafter to be referred to by his media-ready short-hand handle, KSM -- in New York City, in one of our fine courts. This decision overjoys me! At last, the terrorism discussion is being passed into the hands of some citizens who may prove to be adults!

Of course, today, you should expect no end of mau-mauing of thise decision, from people who've screwed on their oh-so-serious faces and who speak with the distinct dialect of one who hails from a region where people routinely get the issues of the day all wrong. They'll talk about KSM as if he were some hypnotic criminal mastermind, sure to win converts from the city that's been triumphantly nodding their heads for the past few months to Jay Z's "Empire State Of Mind." And they'll say that a trial brings security risks, as if terrorist madmen have quashed their beef with us, for just existing. Mostly, you'll hear about how a trial in open court opens up the possibility we might lose the case, as if the only justice worth having is the kind they dole out in Iran.

They'll be so super serious about it, too! So much so, that next week, when they're all talking about Sarah Palin (a lady from Alaska who's apparently had it SUPER-HARD, and that someone really should give a fair shake to, maybe), you're going to wonder to yourself, "Self? Was last weeks outpouring of serious concern just a lot of grandstanding from vapid jerks who just wanted to vampirically politicize the issue? The answer will be yes.

For a long time, now, I've been itching for this nation to have the opportunity to place our raison d'etre in an open hearing alongside the nihilism of terrorism just to expose the latter's hollowness and remind the world that the American argument contains multitudes and is truly worthy of emulation. I was trying to categorize and codify the way in which having this trial is a virtue for our nation last night, when I came across this, from Spencer Ackerman, which puts the matter precisely the way I was going to, anyway:

What's an actual insult to the victims of 9/11 is the idea that America is not strong enough to withstand the blatherings of a mass murderer. For me, the prospect of KSM grandstanding at his trial falls into I-wish-a-motherfucker-would territory. I want to hear how KSM builds a case against America, because everyone will hear how laughably conspiratorial and clownish it is. Think of what a cathartic moment it will be when America sees the face of the man considered to be UBL's most efficient henchman and he delivers a pitiful harangue to a bank of cameras. No one will be emboldened to do anything but laugh. The only downside will be his inevitable discussion of how CIA operatives tortured him.

My hope for the KSM trial is that it does more than all this. It should forever shatter the pernicious myth that al-Qaeda is composed of supermen -- supermen against whom America has no choice but to alter its character and most precious laws in order to confront. I suspect we'll have an Eichmann-in-Jerusalem moment -- and sorry for the unfortunate Nazi/al-Qaeda analogy; al-Qaeda are not the Nazis; but I couldn't really think of any other parallel -- except instead of the banality of evil, we'll see the lunacy and vanity and self-absorption of it. That's because al-Qaeda's weltanshauung depends on a myth that holds America to be implacably determined to snuff out the glory of Islam. In reality, most Americans couldn't give a fuck about Islam and only started to know the first thing about it because of 9/11. But that America -- an America bearing no resemblance to the actual America -- will be what KSM seeks to counter-indict. It's farcical, and farcical in ways that can only benefit the real America.

Yeah, what he said. Anyway, you know the drill, feel free to send an email or leave a comment or join me on Twitter. And now, for this:

Fox News Sunday

Rudy Giuliani, who became some sort of terror expert after bumbling around lower Manhattan in a daze on September 11, 2001, is on today, to tell us all about how we're going to die as a result of our justice system. Rudy seems to think that it's unusual for criminals to be tried in the district where their crimes are committed, and that it's a tacit admission on the Obama administration's that the war on terror is over. What message is sending more troops to Afghanistan going to send? WHO KNOWS.

Rudy doesn't agree with Mayor Bloomberg either, except for the part about NYC being great and the police being awesome. Why can't these guys be tried in military tribunals, like other terrorists. The better question is why can't those terrorists be tried in open court, like KSM. The answer is the bad news side of this equation: KSM and his cohorts are not being tried in a tribunal because it's extremely likely they'll lose the case anyway. In the other terror cases, we apparently need to stack the deck to get convictions. Rudy basically thinks that having held trials before was a terrible mistake and that everything would have been fine if we hadn't done so, 9/11 wouldn't have happened? I guess?

Chris Wallace reminds Rudy of some things he said, years ago, some of which Amanda Terkel compiled:

In fact, former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani praised the prosecution of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers:

-- "'It should show that our legal system is the most mature legal system in the history of the world,' he [Giuliani] said, 'that it works well, that that is the place to seek vindication if you feel your rights have been violated.'" [The New York Times, 3/5/94]

-- "[M]any who were bruised by the traumatic event were certain that no verdict by a jury or punishment by a judge will exorcise the pain and terror that remain. ... Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani declared that the verdict 'demonstrates that New Yorkers won't meet violence with violence, but with a far greater weapon -- the law.'" [The New York Times, 3/5/94]

-- "I think it shows you put terrorism on one side, you put our legal system on the other, and our legal system comes out ahead," said Giuliani. [CBS Evening News, 3/5/94]

Even in the weeks after Sept. 11, Giuliani "framed the attacks in the language of crime, describing the hijackers as 'insane murderers' and calling for restoration of the 'rule of law.'"

What's happened since then? Well, Giuliani's become a weasel-faced git, for one thing, and a demagoguery-by-request fountain of blither for the GOP. But seriously, y'all? Terrorists done came to these shores and de-swaggered him, but good. No wonder he spent the whole 2008 campaign hiding in Florida. So, now, instead of his past principles, we get this coward-marm slurping out of his mouth.

"This choice is a better choice for the terrorists...we were wrong in 1993." Giuliani is prattling with a distinct whine of desperation, and even Chris Wallace is jumping at the taste of blood. "This seems to be an over concern with the rights of terrorists!" Yes! SO CONCERNED THAT THEY'LL SHOVE THEM IN FRONT OF NEW YORK JURY AND ASK: "Okay, please tell the court why they all should die, and why, exactly?"

Giuliani goes on to call the Nidal Hasan shootings a "terrorist attack" because of Hasan's business cards, which read "Son of Allah." WHAT A CONSIDERATE TERRORIST.

Anyway, Jack Reed is here to restore calm. Wallace asks him if this decision is just an attempt on the Obama administration to stick it to the Bush administration. Reed says, no, if anything, it follows upon the Bush administration's decision to try Moussavi in civilian court. Reed says, "What was a statesmans-like decision on the part of the Bush administration can't be a political decision from the Obama administration."

Reed counters Giuliani's contention that we are "granting KSM's wish" to be tried in NYC by pointing out that a military tribunal will reinforce the image that KSM has attempted to carve out for himself as a "holy warrior" -- the preference being to try him as a common thug. Reed doesn't think Giuliani's contention is correct. "When the foreman of that jury stands up and delivers the verdict, not empowered by religious fanaticism but by the Constitution, [KSM] will know he's lost, and I can't think of a better group of people to judge the guilt or innocence than the people who saw the Towers fall."

What's the upside to having it in New York? Reed says, "This is an opportunity to show we're better than they are." Reed points out that the risks that critics have brought up did not come into play in Alexandria, during the Moussavi trial.

Chris Blakely writes:

After watching his performance on FOX News Sunday this morning, one would be hard pressed to believe that Rudy Guiliani first rose to prominence as a federal prosecutor. For a man with an extensive legal background, Rudy is sure quick to trade the "rule of law" for personal aggrandizement. Let the campaign for governor of New York state begin!

Oh, right. It's an election year, isn't it?

Spencer Ackerman is a friend of mine and a reporter whose expertise and ecumenical fairness are resources I've come to trust. He's also demonstrated a hardcore willingness to get his body to where the news is happening -- whether its simply trooping out to an obscure but important Congressional hearing, or strapping on the body armor to head to FOB Salerno in Afghanistan.

Yesterday, Ackerman reported out a story about a teleconference between U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry and the National Security Council, an account predicated on the word of a single source, which subsequently came undone as new facts came to the fore.

The reason Ackerman will continue to be a trusted reporter, in my view, is because when you have to retract a story, you should do it like this:

My original source for the post stands by the account provided. The individual, a National Security Council staffer who spoke on condition of anonymity, has provided truthful and verified information on past stories, and so I trusted the source for this one. Elements of the account have been subsequently borne out: yesterday afternoon, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said that President Obama will ask his Afghanistan-Pakistan advisers to provide him with an exit strategy for the eight-year war, which is congruent with but not identical to my source's information that Obama has asked the team to derive timetables for troop withdrawal.

But there are greater problems with the post. For one, the source was not actually present for the video teleconference that is the post's central scene, and passed information to me second-hand. Furthermore, not only has the White House's Tommy Vietor denied, on the record, that Ambassador Karl Eikenberry participated in a video teleconference yesterday morning, but the other two individuals I named as being present for the meeting -- the inspector generals for Iraq and Afghanistan -- have, through representatives, denied being present. I cannot subsequently stand by this account.

From the start, the post should have a) more clearly indicated that my source wasn't present at the meeting; b) more clearly indicated that the account provided was single-sourced; and c) verified the information provided before publication. My enthusiasm for a hot story outpaced my professional judgment. For that I take full responsibility, retract the story and issue a full apology for its publication.

It's a pretty rare thing for a reporter to offer a thorough itemization of all the errors of a story and how they came about, let alone an admission that "enthusiasm for a hot story outpaced my professional judgment." Yet, this should be the standard.

Additionally, as far as I can tell, Ackerman returned to all of the venues where he distributed his original, and distributed the retraction, ensuring that it would have equal dissemination.

I'd also note that over at the Washington Independent, the original story remains, reformatted to appear with the original text struck through. This is a unique feature of online journalism. Rather than allowing a factual mistake to drop into the memory hole, it remains available for readers. More importantly, it remains a part of the writer's body of work. I've always admired this tradition. It breeds a certain amount of humility, and it reminds us that the richness of our experience is often most strongly derived from our mistakes.

RELATED:
A Retraction of My Eikenberry Post [The Washington Independent]

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

At some point in the future, Jon Stewart may again have to endure the hour-long waterboarding of the soul that is the Sean Hannity show. But he'll never have to watch Lou Dobbs on CNN again, so upside! Thursday night, the Daily Show host brought his audience up to speed on Dobbs's decision to depart, saying, "Nothing says honest and straightforward better than a surprise announcement that you're quitting for reasons you can't explain to do something you can't discuss."

So true! The only thing that differentiates Dobbs's "I quit" announcement from Sarah Palin's was that there were no woodland creatures squawking in the background. At least none that you could hear. Stewart would go on to make this obvious link.

Dobbs, of course, has some vague plans to wander the earth, kickin' mad science and "contributing positively to a better understanding of the great issues of our day."

Stewart responded: "So, in order to contribute positively to a better understanding of the issues of our day, you must leave your nightly television show, devoted to understanding the issues of our day. I actually agree with you on that one."

[WATCH]

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

OH NOES! What is Representative Tom Perriello (D-Va.) doing, allowing his spokesperson to say stuff like this, in the wake of his vote for the House health care reform bill:

Perriello spokeswoman Jessica Barba said Perriello met with and respected those who oppose the health care bill but ultimately made the decision he deemed best for his district. Perriello's 5th District stretches from Charlottesville to Danville.

"A lot of the political pundits and all the conventional wisdom is saying that this is going to cost him the election next year," she said. "He didn't come to Congress to get re-elected."

Perriello won his seat in the House after defeating the incumbent Republican Virgil Goode by a razor-thin, 727-vote margin. He's generally seen as one of the most -- if not the most -- vulnerable Democratic incumbents. Sam Stein reported on Monday that the National Republican Congressional Committee immediately went to work on Perriello, sending out 16 separate emails about his vote for the health care bill, the first of which came with the subject heading, "BREAKING: The end of Tom Perriello's political career." And his spokesperson's comment came amid an AstroTurf outpouring of protest from Americans for Prosperity.

It's almost as if Perriello has "convictions" that are more important to him than doing whatever he can to preserve his Congressional career. Inside the Beltway, this behavior is generally regarded as insane. If Perriello was a fighter pilot, he'd be grounded, according to Catch-22.

UPDATE: Apparently believing that it is a sufficient substitute for cogent political thought or maturity, the Danville TEA Party will "will close their "Fired Up for Freedom" rally by burning Rep. Tom Perriello and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in effigy in response to the passage of landmark healthcare legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives.

That's all going down this Saturday at 5:30pm in Blairs, VA, and will obviously solve our health care problems forever.

RELATED:
Principle over politics [Politico]

PREVIOUSLY, on the HUFFINGTON POST:
Dems Challenge Theme That Health Care Vote Makes Members Vulnerable

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

So, here's what's going on at your Washington Times. Confusion! Panic! Resignations! Clampdowns! This week, The Politico is not the most terrifying and sad place to work in Washington, DC. That's actually impressive!

-- Executive editor John Solomon is definitely gone! I guess it was a pretty clear sign when the Times took his parking space away, right? Well, yesterday, the paper, communicating through Don Meyer at Rubin Meyer Communications, said that Solomon's resignation was effective, uhm... six days ago. Naturally, this touched off newsroom panic.

Via Fishbowl DC:

One senior member of the newsroom suggested that it was time to look for a new job while a younger reporter told us, "we're in trouble without John. Solomon had the vision, heart and had begun to make the Times a real force in Washington news media."

-- Employees have been told to stop talking to the press. Which is too bad, because the drama is exquisite. Managing editor David Jones has been weeping over the loss of Solomon. Employees at the paper's field offices are "feeling isolated." White House bureau chief Matt Mosk is currently following the president on his trip to Asia. Are his colleagues lending comfort, during this time? Will there be a paper to return to, when the trip concludes? Will Matt Mosk, inspired by the majesty and the people of Asia, venture off on a voyage of personal discovery, seeking romance and adventure?

-- Where is the paper going from here? Days ago, published Jonathan Slevin told TPM, "We expect The Washington Times to continue to serve its readers and viewers for years to come." But, in the same report, anonymous sources gave TPM's Ben Frumin some worrisome news:

A former Times staffer also tells TPM that the newspaper may have lost immediate access to the stream of money that helps fund the Times. According to the source, the newspaper used a stream of additional investments from the parent company that owns the Times to keep its operation going. But one of the three executives fired on Sunday -- chairman Dong Moon Joo -- was apparently the one responsible for securing those additonal investments. It was his main function, our source says. Without additional cash infusions from the parent company run by Preston Moon, it's possible that the Times will have serious short-term cash problems, we're told.

So, maybe the Times staff spent the day yesterday playing murder mystery games, who knows?

-- Is Friend to Eat The Press and Washington Times society reporter Liz Glover going to just walk up into the office and seize control of the operations using only her boundless personal charisma? Let's hope so! In the meantime, however, Glover is hard at work, getting stood up by Carrie Prejean.

-- Another casualty: perennial anger-management candidate Lanny Davis has told the paper that he will no longer contribute his "Purple Nation" column.

In Davis' e-mail to Times editors, he thanked the staff of the paper, but said "In light of the announcement of John Solomon's resignation, I am no longer comfortable writing a column for the Washington Times. I began writing because John asked me to. And now with him gone, I cannot continue."

And that's the state of your Moonie newspaper! More news as circumstances develop.

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

The deficits! Your Beltway media is sore afraid of them! But like a family who goes to live in a haunted house only to refuse to move out once the ancient demons that reside in the tool shed reveal themselves and announce their intention to eat their children in allegiance to Satan, they don't do much to account for the grandiose failures in judgment they have made that have sped the way to wrack and ruin.

You don't hear anyone ever talking about "bending the cost curve" of the Afghanistan War. And the idea that the taxpayers, having invested billions propping up a coven of incompetent banks, should receive the same sort of return on investment as a Warren Buffet is treated as if it sprang from the skull of an alien being. In this way, they enable members of Congress, who never take responsibility for the decisions they make that pave the way to potential deficit crises, to go right on making the same sorts of decisions.

And now, via The Hill, comes this:

Senators from both parties on Tuesday put new pressure on Speaker Nancy Pelosi to turn the power to trim entitlement benefits over to an independent commission.

Seven members of the Senate Budget Committee threatened during a Tuesday hearing to withhold their support for critical legislation to raise the debt ceiling if the bill calling for the creation of a bipartisan fiscal reform commission were not attached. Six others had previously made such threats, bringing the total to 13 senators drawing a hard line on the committee legislation.

And here's what the commission would do:

Among its chief responsibilities would be closing the gap between tax revenue coming in and the larger cost of paying for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefits. The Government Accountability Office recently reported the gap is on pace to reach an "unsustainable" $63 trillion in 2083.

The panel would also have the power to craft legislation that would change the tax code and set limits on government spending.

The legislation would then be subject to an up-or-down vote; it could not be amended.

In other words, a group of senators have ginned up an idea to outsource their responsibility to some wondrous and new deficit-hawk commission in order to steal entitlement money to pay for their own foolish and profligate spending.

By doing so, they limit their exposure to bad or unpopular legislative decisions, preserving their career longevity while vesting enormous power in a body over whom the American people have no oversight. And to get their way, they'll threaten to basically blow up the government.

Oh, and why are "Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefits" in this commission's crosshairs? Well, why try to get our money back from Citigroup when the elderly and the poor have so much more they can give?

The supporters of this crapulence are, not surprisingly, serial crapulence supporters: Senators Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Mark Warner (D-Va.), Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), George Voinovich (R-Ohio) and Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.). They've gotten their talking points together, and are happy to repeat them robotically, for reporters:

You rarely do have the leverage to make a fundamental change," said Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.).

[...]

"There are rare moments in this institution when you can implement fundamental change," Bayh said during Tuesday's hearing. "This is one of them."

So does this make Nancy Pelosi, who has "scoffed" at the idea, some sort of debt-hugging monster who wants to destroy the future, for the children? No. She just understands that there's this thing called the legislative process that shouldn't be thrown in the dustbin for the sake of allowing a group of unelected idiots with blue ribbons pinned to their chests to decide funding priorities without any means of holding them accountable for their decisions.

Back in February, The Nation's William Greider warned about the Coming Of The Deficit Commission:

Governing elites in Washington and Wall Street have devised a fiendishly clever "grand bargain" they want President Obama to embrace in the name of "fiscal responsibility." The government, they argue, having spent billions on bailing out the banks, can recover its costs by looting the Social Security system. They are also targeting Medicare and Medicaid. The pitch sounds preposterous to millions of ordinary working people anxious about their economic security and worried about their retirement years. But an impressive armada is lined up to push the idea--Washington's leading think tanks, the prestige media, tax-exempt foundations, skillful propagandists posing as economic experts and a self-righteous billionaire spending his fortune to save the nation from the elderly.

These players are promoting a tricky way to whack Social Security benefits, but to do it behind closed doors so the public cannot see what's happening or figure out which politicians to blame. The essential transaction would amount to misappropriating the trillions in Social Security taxes that workers have paid to finance their retirement benefits. This swindle is portrayed as "fiscal reform." In fact, it's the political equivalent of bait-and-switch fraud.

It's easy to see why lawmakers would cotton to this idea. They made a bunch of stupid decisions, which ran up the deficit. At some point, they're going to have to do something that's potentially difficult or unpopular to fix their mistakes. This puts their precious seats and the flow of sweet, sweet special interest money at risk. So if someone could provide them with a behind-closed-doors cabal that would solve their problems at the expense of the poor and the old, these senators could simply shrug and say, "Sorry, y'all! This is all beyond my control!" And they'll get what they want by throwing a tantrum, and threatening to do something stupid: forcing the Federal government to default on its debt.

Matt Yglesias rightly calls out these lawmakers for their "egomania, self-righteousness, irresponsibility, and cowardice":

Why not throw it back at this crew? Tell the Irresponsible Threat Caucus that instead of asking for a commission, they should just start calling themselves a "budget commission" and then they can specify their own proposed set of tax hikes and Medicare cuts.

Note that Senators Gregg, Bayh, Voinovich, and Sessions didn't have these concerns about the budget when voting to give hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts to the children of multi-millionaires. And I continue to await congressional support for making the war in Afghanistan deficit neutral.

And by the way, this craven crew isn't above putting the health and welfare of the American people at risk, to get their way:

Conrad signaled that he may likewise have run out of patience with the status quo, suggesting that if Democratic leaders refuse to couple a vote on a bipartisan fiscal task force of some kind with the debt limit increase, he would seek to attach a commission proposal to other crucial legislation.

"There are other vehicles," Conrad said Tuesday, "including healthcare."

It gets harder, with each passing day, to continue to pretend that adults are running this country. But you'd never know this from reading about them in the traditional media!

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

Thanks to the Columbia Journalism Review, Eat The Press is proud to finally bring you an example of actual press being actually eaten. Oh, frabjous day!

I rather like the example set here in this video, where Chicago Tribune columnist Rick Morrissey, having been the author of an "unflattering assessment of Chicago Bulls center Joakim Noah" -- an assessment that ultimately proved to be incorrect -- sits down with the vindicated Noah and proceeds to eat his own words. By which I mean, he takes his story and literally gets his mastication on, while a joyful Noah looks on. Maybe sportswriter Rick Reilly should consider what wine will best wash down his many hysterically wrong predictions about the Denver Broncos!

WATCH:

Naturally, this is all sort of a good-spirited goof, but I rather like Noah's statement, "Finally, a reporter is taking some accountability for what he's doing." Imagine if this was the standard means by which journalistic accountability was enforced. Why, so many so-called Iraq War experts would be presently choking down the reams of paper upon which they got the war wrong, that there wouldn't be anyone available to get the War in Afghanistan wrong! And, naturally, the high fiber intake would make the alimentary canals of many columnists practically frictionless for life.

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

Here's a reminder of how now-resigned-from-CNN Lou Dobbs used to bellow on and on about his various persecution complexes, and as recently as August 14, blustered to his radio audience that "It's just killing the left... that they can't force CNN to fire me."

DOBBS: You know, it's just killing the left wing in this country that they can't force CNN to fire me. They're coming after me with everything they've got. I'm used to it. They've been doing it since...what would it be? I'm going to say 2000, 2001, 2002, when I started criticizing, in earnest, the Bush administration, and ultimately was blackballed by the Bush administration. The left wing, this time, is just as committed as the right wing used to be, coming after me for talking about free trade policies and they wanted to absolutely destroy me, and the National Association of Manufacturers dedicating entire websites to me because I was criticizing manufacturing policies -- or the lack of a manufacturing policy. This is just crazy stuff.

LISTEN:

Well, it was "just crazy stuff." But ultimately, the lion's share of "crazy stuff" -- the weird leprosy claims, the legitimizing of the "birther" movement, the weird "North American Union" conspiracy mongerings, the overheated anti-immigrant rhetoric -- was authored by Dobbs himself. And that's what brings pressure from quarters where rational thought is held in esteem.

So, while Lou Dobbs had a healthy coterie of detractors, as well as a vivid imagination that permitted him to think that enemies lurked in every shadow, it's important to remember that Dobbs himself is ultimately responsible for his own misfortunes. And CNN? Well, they aren't going to miss Lou Dobbs one little teensy bit.

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

If you thought that the filibuster was the only means by which senators could engage themselves in self-indulgent and pointless political warfare, think again! There's also the hold procedure, by which individual senators can obstruct an executive branch appointment just because they feel like it.

The most recent example is the case of Tom Shannon, a former Bush State Department appointee who has been appointed to serve as the Ambassador to Brazil by President Obama. For reasons that defy understanding, Senator George LeMieux (R-Fla.) has decided to place a hold on Shannon, because, as Dave Weigel reports, he needs to "discuss [his] concerns" and "fully vet him." This follows a long hold placed on Shannon by Jom DeMint (R-S.C.), who did so in order to show his displeasure with the administration's approach to Venezuela and Honduras.

Matt Yglesias weighs in:

Neither DeMint nor LeMieux invented the abuse of the hold procedure, but the Republican Party of the 111th congress has taken this to such new heights that it's about time the Senate take some responsibility and start organizing itself like a legislative body of an important country and not like a country club. The ability for one senator to delay confirmation of key executive branch personnel indefinitely for no real reason has never been a good idea. At times, this power has been abused to advance policy goals I believe in. Oftentimes it's used to advance bad policy goals. More recently, it just seems to be being used as a matter of principle--maximum feasible obstruction. It needs to be changed.

There's a certain amount of irony involved in LeMieux placing a hold on Shannon, since LeMieux is only in the Senate because Florida Governor Charlie Crist wanted to "place a hold" on that Senate seat.

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

It goes without saying that when the available facts accrue and weigh so heavily against a defendant, like the alleged Fort Hood killer Nidal Hasan, one can begin to think of the upcoming trial as something of an afterthought.

Yet, there's this thing called the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution that provides defendants -- even the unlikeable and the ultimately guilty -- with all sorts of inviolable rights, one of which is the right to legal representation. And so, the duty of defending Hasan in open court would have become someone's responsibility. That's just a fact.

And yet, it seems like we're obliged to endure the odd and illogical spectacle of people like CNN's Wolf Blitzer, mounting something of a shame campaign against Colonel John Galligan, who is presently engaged as Hasan's defense attorney.

BLITZER: They asked me, how could a retired U.S. military officer, a full colonel, go ahead and represent someone accused of mass murder? And I want you to explain to our viewers why you're doing this.

GALLIGAN: Wolf, I will tell you what I have told, consistently, anyone who's asked that same question, and that is, as a former military JAG officer, former military judge, former prosecutor, former defense counsel, and now currently actively involved in the civilian practice of criminal defense work, I fully appreciate the importance of ensuring that everybody has a fair trial. I think that's particularly important when it applies to anyone in uniform, officer or enlisted. Their profession is to defend us, we owe it to them as either fellow servicemembers or as U.S. citizens to ensure that they properly defend them. The rights that I'm asking be accorded to Major Hasan are the rights that service members live and die for.

Galligan went on to attest to his experience in the military justice system, and express confidence in the fact that at the end of the trial, observers would have no doubt that a "fair and impartial hearing" would be rendered. All of which should have been sufficient! But then Blitzer felt the need to beat his chest a little bit:

BLITZER: I'm sure he will get a much fairer hearing than those 13 Americans who were brutally gunned down the other day. I'm sure he will get all of the rights that are applied by the military code of justice.

Galligan retorted, "The difficulty that I have, of course, is when people end discussions with me with references like the one that you just made," adding, "We wanna make sure that everybody watching the process unfold feels comfortable and confident that it's going to be fair and just. The minute we try to isolate certain cases in the process and say, well we can make a judgment before the trial, or assumptions before the trial, I think it leads to the wrong result."

What I don't understand is this: Why is Wolf Blitzer trying to steal Nancy Grace's thunder? I thought howling about what monsters defense attorneys are was her schtick.

WATCH, via TPM

Anyway, if you don't like our criminal justice system, maybe move to Iran? KTHXBAI.

RELATED:
Wolf Blitzer Questions How Hasan's Lawyer Can Represent 'Someone Accused Of Mass Murder' [Talking Points Memo]
A Bad Moment Today at CNN [Josh Marshall]

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

Attendees of yesterday's Jewish Federations of North America's General Assembly meeting in Washington, DC were treated to an angry shouting match between Time Magazine's Joe Klein and The New Republic's Jamie Kirchick, after their disagreements on a panel discussion entitled "The Pro-Israel Lobby and the Media" spilled out into the hallway and devolved into some sort of profanity-laced session of yelling. The Reliable Sourcers have the pyrotechnics:

A heated debate between Time magazine's Joe Klein and the New Republic's Jamie Kirchick spilled off the dais Tuesday into a hallway confrontation where Klein called the younger pundit a "dishonest [expletive]" and a "[expletiving] propagandist."

Klein told us today he's not sure he uttered the "propagandist" bit -- heard by a few witnesses -- but stands by the "dishonest [expletive]" part.

"Absolutely. He's a [expletive]," Klein, 62, told us. "He's 25 years old, and he's one of those people who has opinions but no facts or experience."

Apparently, the two were only slightly more restrained whilst paneling:

People in the room say things heated up on the panel when Klein said he was dismayed that John McCain was swayed, he said, by Jewish neocons to support the war in Iraq, and cited his own experience with soldiers on the front line. Kirchick noted McCain's Vietnam experience -- and Klein said it wasn't the same, since McCain fought from the air. Kirchick lit into Klein, saying Klein was denigrating McCain's service and hard years in a POW camp. Klein argued back, saying he honors McCain's time as a prisoner -- but that the senator's experience doesn't relate to current troop experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Klein apparently attributes the spat to some broader set of circumstances involving the "desperation of a dying [media] industry." The Sourcers wonder if it's an "an old-pundit vs. new pundit thing." I tend to think that this is the sort of thing that happens any time you schedule a panel discussion on "The Pro-Israel Lobby." But maybe there's another explanation! The discussion in question took place at the Marriott Wardman Park in Washington, DC, where in previous adventures, our own Sam Stein witnessed Hillary Clinton flack Lanny Davis losing his mind completely, and where Stein encountered an angry mini-mob, bent on preventing his enjoyment of a Reuben sandwich. Maybe that hotel is located atop an ancient and angry burial ground, or something?

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

Elyse Siegel contributed to this story

Just over twenty years ago, the cable industry launched the Cable-Satellite Public Affairs Network -- better known as C-SPAN. Among the network's achievements was its live broadcasts of legislative proceedings, allowing viewers to take a look at the governing process, to see how legislative sausage gets made, check up on their legislators' performances and stay abreast of key debates and votes.

It was a remarkable achievement in terms of transparency. However, there was a dark side to it all. Now, every single Congresscritter had a camera in the room and an unseen audience, beyond the governing chamber, to play to. And naturally, over time, they all basically became a gaggle of preening, self-obsessed jackasses.

This all reached its apotheosis this past weekend when Arizona Representative John Shadegg dragged a live baby into the chamber in order to make a melodramatic point about health care reform. Shadegg's presentation had no substantive impact on the debate, but then, that was never his attention -- he did what he did in order to grab a little attention from the media, who love themselves a good, substance-free, provocative stunt.

But while having a baby at the podium was certainly extreme, the truth is that Congress has been moving in the direction of being a quasi-governmental performance art space for a long time now, where it's becoming more and more normal -- perhaps even obligatory -- for your elected representatives to build props, wear costumes and come armed with idiotic charts to make their point. Which is that they often don't have a point, at all. But the camera eye loves the antics.

With the invaluable assistance of Elyse Siegel, we bring you our favorite examples of Congressional theatrics. Vote for your favorites! And if you've got a favorite of your own, send along an email!

John Shadegg Wields A Baby

In this past weekend's health care debate, Arizona Republican John Shadegg bravely opened a new frontier by using a live baby as a visual aid to complain about health care reform. The infant, Maddie, was introduced as Shadegg's grand-daughter, which Shadegg quickly corrected, saying, "I wish this was my granddaughter." I wish most Congresspersons demonstrated Maddie's level of cognitive development, but no!

comments(0)

Rate This Performance

(Current Rank: loading...)

Appropriate and effective Total bonkers-sauce

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Now Make Your Own Top 5

And Share with Your Friends

Average rating: loading... out of 10

Current Top 5 Most Insane Congressional Theatrics

loading...

Share Your Top 5 Most Insane Congressional Theatrics

 | Become a fan

Picked These as the Top 5 Slides in the Slideshow

Share Your Top 5 Most Insane Congressional Theatrics

Users Who Voted on this Slide

loading...

loading...

HuffPost Community Top 5 Slides:

«»

 | Become a fan

Share Your Top 5 Most Insane Congressional Theatrics

 

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

UPDATE: Justin Elliot has more on the madness going on over at the Washington Times, where one of the Reverend Moon's sons has "gone rogue," and is just playing havoc:

Hyun-jin Preston Moon, the son of Unification Church leader Rev. Sun Myung Moon who controls the Washington Times, acted without his father's blessing in firing the top leadership of the newspaper over the weekend, a Unificationist and former Times staffer who is in contact with high church officials tells TPM.

Preston's reasons for carrying out the shakeup are not clear to the source, but "one thing that is clear is that he acted alone. This is not something the Reverend Moon wanted, ever."

What the Reverend Moon wants apparently includes this:

"The Washington Times has to take responsibility for people going to hell in America," he declared, referring to, among other sins, "homosexuality and lesbianism."

That's from a sermon the Reverend Moon gave that was titled, ""Western People Are Different From Eastern People," and was -- not surprisingly! -- "not entirely coherent." Anyway, read Elliot's piece on how everything's going totally bonkers over there.

----

Things are getting downright weird over at the Washington Times, where an ongoing executive shake-up has seen publisher Tom McDevitt, chief finance officer Keith Cooperrider and chairman Doug Joo leave their jobs, and mounting speculation that executive editor John Solomon -- who was brought on in 2008 to lend a new sheen of credibility to the frantic, scare-quotey newspaper -- is poised to quit as well.

Now, Ben Frumin at Talking Points Memo says armed guards are popping up all over the newsroom, as the paper prepares for the Rapture, or something:

TPM hears from current staffers in the newsroom there has been an increased security presence at the newspaper in recent days. On Sunday, when three executives were fired, armed guards were brought up to the third floor where management works, according to three newsroom sources.

Newsroom sources tell TPM that employees have been told the third floor is "closed."

Employees at first couldn't use the elevators for the three-story building. An additional guard has been spotted in the lobby, standing next to the regular security guard who is there during business hours. Sources aren't sure whether the guard remaining on site today is armed.

Over at Politico, Michael Calderone adds that "Solomon hasn't been in the office for several days, and it's unclear whether he'll return." So, maybe some sort of Manuel Zelaya thing is going on?

All of this weirdness has gone down hard on the heels of a decision made by the paper's owner, the Reverend Sun Myung Moon, to hand over control of his Unification Church to his three sons. TPM's Justin Elliot provides the essential speculation:

The Sunday firings of executives at the Washington Times and the possible exit of its top editor are apparently being driven more than previously known by last month's transfer of power of the Unification Church and associated business empire from Rev. Sun Myung Moon to his children.

A newsroom source familiar with church politics tells TPM that the root of the shakeup at the Washington Times is a feud between Hyung-jin Moon, 30, and Hyun-jin Moon, 40, also known as Preston, both U.S.-educated sons of church Father Rev. Sun Myung Moon. The church announced in early October -- in an exclusive given, notably, to the Associated Press not the Washington Times -- that day-to-day operations were being handed over to Preston, Hyung-jin, and a third son.

Wonkette very fittingly compared this transfer of power to William Shakespeare's King Lear, and if you're a fan of the Bard, you'll know that ended very badly for him, what with betrayal and madness and ranty tirades on storm-blasted heaths and whatnot. At any rate, I guess for the time being, Washington Times staffers should keep their heads down and refrain from making any sudden movements!

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

Earlier this week, Michigan Representative John Conyers told reporters that he'd like President Obama to start fashioning himself after a different model of politician if he wants to get health care reform passed:

"The president could take a few pages from Lyndon Johnson's book... and start knocking heads together," said Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.

Conyers, who spoke to reporters in Detroit, first came to Congress in 1965, the year Medicare and the Voting Rights Act both passed under the strong hand of Johnson, by then the president. Obama was not yet 4 years old.

Huh. You know, I thought that the whole knocking a heads was supposed to be a feature of tough Chicago-style politicians, and that Rahm Emanuel was going to be sending intransigent legislators fish-corpses through the mail! But Conyers is right. When it comes to swinging pipes, the White House basically manages to mewl their displeasure through well-placed, off-the-record quotes. And so you get laughable spectacles like this one, in the wake of Michael Bloomberg's narrow win in the New York City mayoral race:

"Maybe one of those Corzine trips could have been better spent in New York. Who knows?" remarked New York Rep. Anthony Weiner, who weighed his own run for mayor, referring to the White House's devout attention to the New Jersey contest.

"Maybe Anthony Weiner should have manned-up and run against Michael Bloomberg," shot back a White House official, who attributed the night's results across the board to anti-incumbent fervor.

GROW SOME BALLS, says the guy, hiding behind the cloak of anonymity! Viva Chicago!

That said, it bears mentioning that LBJ was, in many ways, a little unhinged:

Johnson lived to dominate, and he used crass behavior to bend people to his will. At 6-ft., 3-in. tall and 210 lbs., he liked to lean over people, spitting, swearing, belching, or laughing in their faces. Once, he even relieved himself on a Secret Serviceman who was shielding him from public view. When the man looked horrified, Johnson simply said, "That's all right, son. It's my prerogative." His favorite power ploy, however, seemed to be dragging people into the bathroom with him -- forcing them to continue their conversations with the president as he used the toilet.

You sort of get the feeling that Johnson would have waged his "War On Fox" in a much more entertaining and scatalogical manner! Still, I think that if you're looking for a Texas politician to model yourself on, a better example would be LBJ's mentor, Sam Rayburn.

RELATED:
Advice for Obama: 'Start knocking heads' on health [Real Clear Politics]

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

On last night's edition of the Rachel Maddow Show, the host dug into the curious case of Representative Pete Hoekstra, who's been courting cameras lately in the wake of the Fort Hood massacre, telling tales out of school. Chief among them are his account of the email habits of alleged Fort Hood murderer Nidal Hasan to a Yemen-based "radical cleric." Maddow asks the obvious question:

MADDOW: Why is it Pete Hoekstra who's taking it upon himself to tell the press that this radical cleric is having his email read by U.S. intelligence agencies? The FBI had not said publicly that this cleric had been emailing Hasan. The CIA, the NSA, the White House... nobody else had reported this cleric was e-mailing Hasan. This is just Pete Hoekstra letting us know -- and letting the radical cleric that is under surveillance know -- that he's under surveillance.

The Rachel Maddow Show attempted to find out why this was happening, and got the run-around from Hoekstra's office, and bad guesswork from the Republican side of the House Intelligence Committee. What they did find out is that Hoekstra "complained all weekend" that he was not being briefed on Fort Hood to his liking, then missed the briefing that was held because he left town of his own accord.

So, what's up with Hoekstra? The Nation's Christopher Hayes bottom-lined it thusly: "His reputation is of an epic grand-stander."

HAYES: There's been a lot of reporting on this over the years. Various intelligence issues that have come before the committee. This is a guy who, in 2006, called a press conference to great fanfare to announce the weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq. This is the same person who has accused the CIA of lying to him many times and turned around when Nancy Pelosi said the CIA hadn't told the truth about torture and interrogation techniques, said it was obviously absurd the CIA lied would ever lie to Congress. And now, he's turning around and saying the executive was withholding information. So, this is what he does, from his perch on the Intelligence Committee.

If you recall, Hoekstra is also the the guy who breached the security of a Congressional delegation's trip to Iraq by broadcasting its whereabouts and itinerary on Twitter. At the time, Congressional Quarterly remarked, "Nobody expected, though, that a lawmaker with such an extensive national security background would be the first to break the silence. And in such a big way." People should recalibrate their expectations!

WATCH:

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]