• |
Victimized by horror (Chris Matthews)
When you get on an airplane, there's tremendous scrutiny of people. From the selected passengers to those who buy one-way trips at the last minute, you have to take you shoes off, your bags gets thoroughly checked all while getting firsked.
Not so at at New York's Penn Station. During the rush hour, thousands and thousands of people rush down escalators every night, every rush hour — just like in London. On the railways, no one's checking your bag, no one's scanning you and no one's even watching you. All kinds of baggage could be taken aboard.
That's a big vulnerability when you're up against a highly sophisticated group like Al-Qaida — rumored to be responsible for the attacks. They knew what they were doing; the timed rush-hour blitz all occurred in a matter of minutes — a strategic move alongside the British-hosted G8 summit and after just winning the 2012 Olympic bid. All this comes together at the perfect time with a national and international audience as these fireworks go off.
We feel terribly victimized by these kinds of horrors — and we are. In any objective way, by any objective standard, we're the victims. But politically in the world, people root for the third world against the big first world — and it isn't so simple in terms of world opinion.
• |
The White House spin cycle (David Shuster)
I don't know if things are getting better or worse in Iraq. But I do know, from a close friend who works at the White House, that the Bush administration is now panicked over the erosion of public support for the occupation. One can see that by reviewing the President's radio address and looking at the comments made recently by other administration officials.
First, the president's radio address: On Saturday President Bush defended the war in Iraq saying, "We went to war because we were attacked." Huh? In September 2003, the President himself stated, "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11th attacks." (For the record, the 9/11 Commission is on the side of the Sept. 2003 President Bush — The commission found there was "no collaborative relationship between Iraq and Al-Qaeda.")
On Sunday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said criticism of the handling of the war isn't justified because "The administration, I think, has said to the American people that it is a generational commitment to Iraq." What? That was said... but it came from Senators pouring cold water on the administration's optimistic pre-war predictions. What were those predictions? Vice President Cheney (March 16, 2003) said, "My belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators... I think it will go relatively quickly... in weeks rather than months." Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld on Feb. 7, 2003 said, "It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months." Former Budget director Mitch Daniels (March 28, 2003) stated, "The United States is committed to helping Iraq recover from the conflict, but Iraq will not require sustained aid."
Iraq will not require sustained aid? Hmmm. Today, Congress voted to send the Pentagon another $45 billion for operations in Iraq. That brings the total amount appropriated so far, for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, to $322.40 billion.
The administration seems to think that by shifting the justification for the war or changing what administration officials said 3 years ago, the president's poll numbers will magically turn around. The pretzel shaped logic of this strategy is mind-boggling. And one begins to wonder if the gang that helped President Bush win a 2nd term has been stuffed into a closet.
The math on this is simple. If the war was going well, the public would support the occupation of Iraq, regardless of whatever reasons the administration gave for the invasion. The problem is, according to republican Senator Chuck Hagel, "The White House is completely disconnected from reality. It's like they're just making it up as they go along."
And now, the public is tired of this deadly trip through fantasyland — a place where White House P.R. strategies seem to matter more than holding anybody accountable for the war's mistakes and mismanagement.
Questions/comments: DShuster@msnbc.com
• June 15, 2005 |
“Far between sundown's finish and midnight's broken toll”
(Greg Ebben, Hardball Associate Producer)
An excerpt from Greg's essay on racial relations progress in America:
...The prejudice and outright racism that stemmed from the emancipation of the slaves was bitterly tough for African-Americans, which lasted for decades and still remains in some pockets of our country. It took years for blacks to be able to vote, eat in the same restaurants as whites, sit anywhere on the bus, and attend certain schools. And lynchings, most prevalent in the South, were just another incredible hurdle to climb over. If you have ever seen one of the black and white photographs of a young black man hanging from a tree by a homemade noose, don't look at the dead body -- look into the eyes of the white faces of those standing with pride under the dead man's feet. That's the real unfortunate story of it all.
The warped mindset that permeated whites in the South decades ago was even recalled by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in her interview last evening with Chris Matthews on "Hardball." She spoke about her grandfather when one day he thought he would be lynched in Alabama. "I remember as a kid the stories about lynchings," said Rice. "Everybody's family had at least one story in that regard. You know, my grandfather, who ran away from home at 13 because he'd gotten into an altercation with a white man over something that happened with his sister, and he was pretty sure that if he hung around, that's what was going to happen." Words from our very own Secretary of State, a black woman from Alabama. Look how far we've come even with some road yet to travel...
• |
The latest at Ground Zero (David Shuster)
I was planning to blog today about a recent trip I took to New York and the latest news we've uncovered in the Twin Tower v. Freedom Tower debate. However, that blog can wait. Some of the 9-11 families are now starting to weigh in. And they are offering their opinions in dramatic and heartfelt fashion.
On Sunday, there was an Op-Ed in The New York Times by . It was one of the most articulate and compelling columns I've ever read. And since it only appeared in metro editions of the paper (papers delivered in the city's 5 boroughs) most of the country missed it. You will be glad you didn't... Here is an excerpt and link to the full article:
Build It AgainBy GREG MANNINGPublished in the New York Times: June 12, 2005 The need to move the Freedom Tower set off a wave of dissatisfaction with the plans for ground zero that I hope builds until it sweeps away not just the tower, but also the "Reflecting Absence" memorial and the surrounding sloped-roof skyscrapers. Why? Because the current plans for ground zero are flawed. They have nothing to do with 9/11. They recall a tragedy that occurred in the sky by focusing our memories on a hole in the ground. After three years spent seeking alternatives, the most appropriate way to commemorate the tragedy at the World Trade Center is, as Donald Trump suggests, to rebuild it.I say this as someone who, along with my wife, Lauren, worked in the twin towers. I was with Euro Brokers on the 84th floor of the south tower, and Lauren was a partner at Cantor Fitzgerald on the 105th floor of the north tower. I was late that morning, so I was not there when the second jet tore through our trading floor. But Lauren was engulfed by the fireball that blew out the lobby of the north tower after the first plane hit. She managed to run outside, where a bond salesman helped extinguish the flames and start her on her grim battle to survive her burns.When my wife and I visit or pass by the site today, we may gape at the emptiness but our gaze is drawn upward. We imagine things as they were, the dead and the injured still living and working above. Many bereft families view the footprints as the sacred repose of their loved ones, yet with the greatest tenderness and love for those lost and injured, we suggest that to return to the sacred space, we need to return to the sky.
Email DShuster@msnbc.com
• |
Hot stars, cool politicians, and lack of AC (Alex Dresner,Hardball Intern)
Red carpet events in the nation’s capital are often an odd mix of Washington politics and Hollywood glitz. But it has proven to be a potent combination for Rock the Vote in their efforts to boost youth turnout, and on the night of their 15th anniversary reception and dinner it was no exception. Along for the ride with David Shuster and members of the Hardball production team, I was eagerly awaiting the arrival of the VIPs. However, the blistering heat outside the National Building Museum was too much to bear.
Often people don’t realize how much preparation goes into shooting the red carpet. The 30 seconds you see on your T.V. screen is many hours in the making, of setting up camera equipment and waiting, prepping the correspondent and waiting…. and waiting…. and waiting. With the Black Eyed Peas expected to attend, this was just thebeginning. The Peas were fashionably late, with their tour bus, a statement of grandeur and opulence, appearing long after the dinner was scheduled to start. Not only were they late in arriving but they delayed the dinner further for the sake of their comfort.
Despite this, there were red carpet moments that made the long wait and the nagging heat seem worth it. From American Idol’s Randy Jackson not knowing where he is registered to vote, to seductive songstress, Mya, revealing she did not know whom she was presenting an award to. The irony kept me thoroughly entertained. Here were two stars coming out to support an organization that aims to quell voter apathy, and yet their comments highlighted just how disinterested they really were. While talking may be their downfall, Hollywood stars provide an important element in the underlying success of Rock the Vote, acting as the bridge between Nintendo playing, Tostito eating Joe Schmo and politics. In 2004, with the help of big names such as P.Diddy and Justin Timberlake, Rock the Vote was able to register 1.4 million young voters.
Inside, attendees were treated to burgers, beans and potato salad, which looked as unappealing as the $5,000, $10,000 or $15,000 price tag for a table. Among those honored at the dinner were former President Clinton, Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Barack Obama (D-IL), and the Black Eyed Peas. For an aspiring politician such as myself, I anxiously awaiting the presentation of the Rock the Nation awards, given ‘to individuals who demonstrate the very essence of what it means to effectively work towards changing the world’. McCain who was honored “for his work on campaign finance reform” captivated the audience with his humor (“Just call me Funk Master McCain”), proving what a threat he could be in 2008. It seemed like the entire building shook in response to Obama’s acceptance for “forming a multiracial coalition in winning his [Senate] seat.” The freshman Senator presented himself in a fashion becoming of a future whip or long-time senior member. As I listened to both speeches, I could not help but think that I was watching two future Presidents - the feeling was incredibly energizing.
Following dinner, the party moved to Dream nightclub for the after-party hosted by the Black Eyed Peas. An animated performance by singer Nikka Costa going into the early hours of the morning was a fitting end to an experience this intern will never forget. Yet, on this night, Rock the Vote was the real winner demonstrating just how successful their formula of politics and Hollywood can be.
Email alexdresner@hotmail.com
• |
Questions/comments for the next blogcast: DShuster@MSNBC.com
• June 9, 2005 |
Brain degeneration at the Dept. of Agriculture (David Shuster)
Since this is the time of year when so many of us head to barbecues, I want to alert you to a story you need to know. Our federal government is putting all of us at risk of mad cow disease. And the incompetence and erratic approach of the Department of Agriculture has become so bizarre that one begins to wonder if some officials at that agency are deliberately trying to get fired.
First, a refresher: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy or BSE is an infectious disease in cattle that causes their brains to degenerate. Animals with the disease will often stagger and become hopelessly agitated before they die, thus the name “mad cow.” The disease is usually fatal to people who eat infected beef. And since the proteins that cause the disease can survive temperatures hot enough to melt lead... turning a hamburger into a hockey puck (while killing off other potential problems) will not make BSE meat safe to eat.
At the moment, there appears to be an ... and American researchers are incredibly nervous that we may be on the verge of a deadly mad cow outbreak here in the United States. That’s what makes the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s approach so troubling.
As it stands, the U.S. Department of Agriculture refuses to even consider the main recommendations put forward by the World Health Organization that have stopped mad cow disease across Europe. What are these recommendations? The first is testing. The other is to stop the practice of feeding cow blood, tissue, and slaughterhouse waste to other cows.
I can hear some of you now: “Come on, Shuster, that feeding practice is so grotesque it couldn’t possibly be happening in the United States.”
Actually, it is happening a lot. Sure, there are some livestock producers who don’t give their animals the kind of feed that contains cow blood or waste. But many livestock producers do.
And the fact is, much of the commercially produced calf feed available today contains the very stuff that could spread mad cow disease throughout our food chain.
What is the Department of Agriculture doing about this? Nothing. As I said, the Department of Agriculture refuses to even consider stronger regulations that would put an end to this disgusting practice. But it gets even worse. The department is doing everything it can to assure the public that our food chain “is safe.” Thus, we have a ridiculous pep rally like the one on Thursday at the University of Minnesota. Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns will, as his press release says, “hold a roundtable discussion regarding the safety of North American beef...” Those invited to participate include USDA officials, producers, packers, and others.
Who are the others? Groups that don’t want more testing and don’t want the government passing regulations that would make calf feed cleaner and thus slightly more expensive. In fact, consumer groups, organic livestock companies, and beef producers who oppose allowing cows to eat cow blood and slaughterhouse waste will not be allowed to participate.
The irony is that if the Department of Agriculture really cared about the U.S. meat industry, the department would add a little pain now to prevent the industry from being decimated down the road when an outbreak occurs and nobody wants to buy U.S. meat. But once again, it’s all about short-term profits and paying back your political contributors. And consumers are left holding the bag... or in this case, mourning the deaths of loved ones who could die suddenly from the human form of BSE.
Did I mention that American scientists are tracking a mysterious spike in the U.S. of the human form of BSE, known as Creutzfeldt Jakob disease?
I apologize if this blog about cows eating slaughterhouse waste has made you lose your appetite. But, tell that to your congressman or senator. Maybe they will have better luck getting explanations from the government officials who are supposed to be responsible. My calls today to the Department of Agriculture were not returned.
Questions/comments: DShuster@MSNBC.com
for a special mad cow section on MSNBC.com.
• June 8, 2005 |
This bloody and costly war (guest blog from Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor, The Nation)
The last 12 months in politics
I’d have to say the most significant story of the last 12 months is Iraq. (Although Bush getting elected despite being a disastrous president was a pretty big story.) The U.S. is now fighting a bloody guerrilla insurgency in one of the most conflict-ridden and dangerous parts of the world. Nearly 1,700 American men and women have been killed, thousands more maimed, and over 100,000 Iraqi civilians have perished. And the more we find out how we got to this point the more it becomes clear that the entire enterprise was premised on a fraud. (Thanks to Chris for using Hardball to help clarify how bogus some of the reasons for this bloody and costly war really were.) Now, with the release last month of the stunning, profoundly important Downing Street Memo— which details a secret July 23, 2002 briefing for Prime Minister Tony Blair by the head of British Intelligence— we now have incontrovertible evidence that this administration misled the nation into war, fixing facts and intelligence to suit their plans.
The big story this year
As for the big story in the next 12 months—still going to be Iraq. More lives lost, more money spent. A military stretched to the breaking point, with recruitment becoming more and more difficult.
The story at home will be an uptick in what we’re already seeing: Americans who believe that their country shouldn’t have gone to war in the first place—that the war was not worth the cost in U.S. lives and dollars. (Already 57 percent of voters.) We’ll see bipartisan support
for a withdrawal plan. And more Republicans who supported the war joining North Carolina Republican Rep. Walter Jones, who now says that the U.S. went to war “with no justification... If we were given misinformation intentionally by people in this administration, to commit the authority to send boys, and in some instances girls, to go into Iraq, that is wrong. Congress must be told the truth.”
A personal note to Chris and the Hardball staff on the anniversary
Chris, thanks for the sparring scars and congratulations on Hardball’s 8th anniversary.
Kudos for dueling with that famously disloyal Democrat Zell Miller and for keeping those neocon hawks on the Hardball hotseat—answering for what they’ve done to the country and world. The MSNBC lineup needs someone who will keep on asking rapid-fire, hard-charging questions. And who is almost as entertaining as Darrell Hammond :)
Congrats also to the mighty Tammy Haddad and savvy Dominic Bellone for keeping Hardball on target (and under control, on most days!) in these last few years.
has been The Nation’s editor since 1995. She is the co-editor of "Taking Back America—And Taking Down The Radical Right."
• June 7, 2005 |
The year in politics and why the Senate compromise was a big deal (guest blog from Hilary Rosen)
It has been a wild 12 months in politics. And Hardball stayed ahead of the game at every turn. The life and death stories of the war were some of the best on TV. We saw great coverage on an enormous (and enormously disappointing) election book-ended by the recent stories on the identity of Deep Throat. Tucked in between is what I am going to discuss— a Congressional action that received a good bit of media coverage but few understood its significance better than Chris Matthews.
When it comes to the future of the Republican Party and its Congressional majority, few stories will be as important as the deal that broke the nuclear threat to end the filibuster. Americans across the country started to read the tea leaves of the right wing agenda during the Terry Schiavo case. And they didn’t like what they saw. But the Republican leadership in the Congress was already the captive of the right wing and reaffirmed their pledge after the last election.
It took five moderate Republicans and a few “maverick” Republicans to stand up to their leadership and rebel against the right wing’s capture. And instead of getting a snarky “I told you so” from the Democrats, they actually got a few Democrats to join them in their independence.
Some have said this event means little— the deal won’t hold— bad judges were approved- there was never a test vote, etc. But I think that’s wrong. The right wing so-called religious zealots may claim credit for the results of the last election, but this break from their agenda foretells the outcome of votes on many of the social issues they are hoping that Congress will push their way. And by their actions, are challenging the conventional leadership of their president and their party. They may not like abortion but don’t think that every political decision should be guided by it. They may not want to see same sex marriages any time soon but in a time of war and terrorism, they don’t believe it is the biggest threat to our nation and they don’t want to see discrimination embedded into our Constitution. They don’t like assisted suicide but they don’t want their life decisions to be made by someone outside of their family. In short, they are standing up for a great swath of the electorate who just don’t want to see these issues politicized.
I would, of course, like to see those Republicans go even further on these issues. In fact, I’d also like to see them become Democrats. But that won’t likely happen. For now, I will relish the moment in May when shock and awe opened the mouths of the right wing and their allies in the Republican leadership as they were undercut in their zealotry by their own compatriots.
Happy Anniversary Hardball!
Hilary Rosen is a frequent Hardball guest and a commentator on politics, the media and the entertainment industry. She is the former Chairman and CEO of the Recording Industry Association of America and is currently a consultant in the media and technology industry and a Democratic Activist.
E-mail Hardblogger@MSNBC.com.
• |
Howard Fineman guest blogs (Newsweek's chief political correspondent, senior editor and deputy Washington bureau chief)
On the future
Now, the big questions for the next few years are: How long can we afford to stay? Are we really any safer as a result of having gone there in the first place? Or was Bush's original decision, which voters weren't prepared to repudiate last fall, a serious blunder at best?
On Hardball
As for Hardball, Chris Matthews is a patriot and I'm proud to say, a friend. This is a country defined by, and sustained by, public debate. Chris is the best in the business of asking tough questions and prompting discussion in a way that requires people— including young people— to pay attention. It's a public service to make public life compelling. He does it every night, and has been doing it for years. I'm honored to take part.
Stay tuned to Hardblogger for more guest blogs commemorating the past year in politics and the 8th anniversary of Hard8all!
• June 6, 2005 |
Will we still be occupying Iraq on Hardball's 16th anniversary? (Bob Shrum, Democratic Party political consultant)
Thankfully, “Hardball” has now been on the air longer than George Bush will be in office— and Chris Matthews has been more right about more issues in one week than this president was in his entire first term. Chris isn’t politically predictable: unbelievably, he actually voted for Bush in 2000. But he’s lively, witty, and he’s a walking encyclopedia of American politics (I mean Matthews, not Bush.) Chris can be a tough interrogator, but at the right moment, he also knows how to play hardball with a changeup and a soft touch.
Sadly— and I feel the sadness acutely— the most significant political story of the past 12 months is that, by the margin of a football stadium in Ohio, George Bush was re-elected. We are learning again every day that small margins, or even a loss that really wasn’t, as in the 2000 Presidential election, can make for big differences in the course and character of the country.
The next year will see surprising Democratic gains in the midterm election and the predictable demise of the Bush effort to privatize Social Security. But the most significant and dangerous development will be a continued insurgency in Iraq, with America bogged down in an occupation with a so-called “strategy” that is only more of the same and with no major new contributions from our allies to the so-called “coalition.” We will hear more and more of the rhetoric of redemption from administration apologists, a new level of equivocation from many Democrats who doubt the policy but fear the politics of opposing it outright, and proposals from nationally prominent elected officials to set a date certain for withdrawal. Popular support for withdrawal, largely but not exclusively among Democrats and independents will mount as more and more Americans ask: Can we really accept an administration and its neocons proclaiming one turning point after another when each one only seems to lead us farther down the road of more fighting, more loss of life, higher costs and no exit in sight? A Marine Corps official now says that we have eight years left of a 10-year war— by which time the architects of that war, co-Presidents Bush and Cheney, who manipulated the intelligence to justify the conflict will be long gone from office. To put it in terms of “Hardball,” someone’s going to ask a pretty basic question: Do we want to see the American occupation of Iraq still in place on Hardball’s 16th anniversary?
Bob Shrum is a Democratic political strategist. He was a campaign consultant in the 2004 John Kerry presidential campaign. Since 1985, he has developed media campaigns for 26 winning U.S Senate campaigns, eight winning gubernatorial campaigns, and mayoral races in a host of cities. He is a senior fellow at the New York University, affiliated with the Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public Service.
