The DeLay-Abramoff Money Trail The U.S. Family Network, a public advocacy group that operated in the 1990s with close ties to Rep. Tom DeLay and claimed to be a nationwide grass-roots organization, was funded almost entirely by corporations linked to embattled lobbyist Jack Abramoff, according to tax records and former associates of the group.
posted by Postroad
on Dec 31, 2005 -
33 comments
Breeders are winning. "Conservative, religiously minded Americans are putting far more of their genes into the future than their liberal, secular counterparts." (WaPo link,
bugmenot says try fedup@mailinator.com and
fedup if you don't care to register. Definition of genetic fitness
here.)
posted by jfuller
on Sep 6, 2004 -
77 comments
Dear Mary, your father, recently said he would support adding anti-gay prejudice to the US Constitution, making you and millions of other Americans second-class citizens. As an open lesbian who has worked for years as a public advocate for gay civil rights, you are in a unique position to defend yourself and your community in this dire hour.
You're right, this is very personal.
posted by alms
on Feb 24, 2004 -
12 comments
ABC's blog "The Note" suspends operations, citing lack of resources needed for war coverage, the blog's humorous style not being "the right national tonic," and this shocker: "We suspect that the amount of strictly political news — the kind of stuff that is the meat and starch of The Note — is likely to dramatically decrease in the coming days."
GUH? Aren't blogs now more important than ever? Aren't
politics now more important than ever? What message is being sent by the mainstream media here? (Via the indispensable
Lloyd Grove of the Washington Post.)
posted by PrinceValium
on Mar 11, 2003 -
10 comments
Al Gore Tells All! Okay, maybe not all, but he does give his first extended interview since the 2000 election to Liza Mundy of the Washington Post. Mundy discussed the interview further in a
live forum earlier today. Required reading for political junkies. [via
Tapped]
posted by boltman
on Nov 18, 2002 -
32 comments
Administration Says It Can Attack Iraq without Congressional Approval Not a new story, per se, but this Post article lays out pretty well the arguments behind the administration's case, one being simply Bush's role as commander-in-chief. It's strange how closely this issue reflects earlier attempts by the administration to avoid Congressional and/or public scrutiny (Cheney's Enron meetings, for example). Why this aversion, and why fight so hard? And I have a sneaking fear that Bush will seek Congressional approval only after invading, and he will bully votes by claiming that reps have a patriotic duty to support a president in a time of war.
posted by risenc
on Aug 26, 2002 -
65 comments
The Washington Post follows an agenda. There truly exists a bias in the press and here's an example. Metatalk had a thread on there being so many NYT links, perhaps this helps explain why. Many many more examples of the Post's biases can be found at SpinSanity and other such sites but this one comes from "next door" in Baltimore.
!Only MetaFilter is trustworthy!( P.S. Looking for an example of "liberal bias?" This isn't it.)
posted by nofundy
on Aug 19, 2002 -
28 comments
House likely to approve homeland security bill that erodes labor protections "But the Senate, which likely takes up the matter next week, so far has pursued a much different course. On Thursday, the Democratic-led Senate Governmental Affairs Committee crafted legislation that would protect all current civil service protections and make it more difficult for the president to move workers out of unions. Bush and other Republicans said the measure would give the president less authority than he has now."
The House seems to be so much more conservative and extremist than the Senate. Heck they're
still working on trying to ban selected types of abortion procedures even when there's a strong chance it won't pass constitutional muster and the Senate isn't likely to support them.
Is it your perception that the House is more conservative? If so, why do you think that's true?
posted by Red58
on Jul 26, 2002 -
19 comments
Systemic problems lead to catastrophic failures. More money for the "war on terror" or more government power from the Patriot Act cannot make up for incompetence, poor policy directives and bungling. How many more of these must we see before everyone agrees that a thorough investigation leading to proper reforms is the only remedy?
posted by nofundy
on Jun 19, 2002 -
4 comments
In the desert on the U.S.-Mexico border,
charity becomes political protest as humanitarian groups seek to put hundreds of gallons of water in the form of "watering stations" -- a few gallons of water and a blue flag -- on federal, military, private, and Indian lands.
posted by sudama
on Jun 11, 2001 -
3 comments
McCain considering whether to leave GOP Self-explanatory. Not exactly breaking news, considering that the National Journal reported the same (a tidbit also reported on the Web's
Orvetti.com). It is, however, the first time I've seen the "rampant speculation," as journalists like to put it, make for a headline article in a major newspaper. McCain advocate William Kristol may be the person to watch here, since he increasingly seems to advocate a sort-of Teddy Roosevelt-like ideology. Oh, intrigue. Goodie.
posted by raysmj
on Jun 1, 2001 -
33 comments
What You See May Not Be . . . A memo, telling lobbyists to "dress down" as "real workers" for GOP photo op, provides rare window into a common practice on Capitol Hill. Both Republicans and Democrats go to great lengths to assemble average Americans who can convey the appropriate political message, and when they can't find any, they simply trade in their white collars for hard hats themselves
posted by frednorman
on Mar 9, 2001 -
6 comments
