AWOL in Argentina

Four days after he'd vanished into thin air, South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford contacted people to let them know he was fine. He was hiking. After staying away for a few more days, Sanford returned to explain that he'd been visiting the woman with whom he's having an affair.

The media is focusing on the story's salacious elements (not only did he cheat, but he was cheating on Father's Day, etc.), and Sanford has held a news conference to admit to moral failings and to prostrate himself before the state's "people of faith." A South Carolina Republican appeared on CNN to publicly give Sanford the benefit of a doubt, because "life has its problems." Fair enough. We all fall down, and infidelity is not exactly a rare activity.

What's not being addressed, and what seems infinitely more significant to me, is that not only did Sanford up and disappear for nearly a week, but he up and disappeared out of the country. We're not talking Cancun or Toronto--he went to Argentina. Again, a state governor left the country (heck, left the continent) for a week without telling anyone where he was going or how he might be reached. He deserted his state, and he should step down.

I'll close with this, which might offer some insight into Sanford's mindset:

Heading to South Carolina from Georgia this morning, Sanford said: "I don't know how this thing got blown out of proportion." (LA Times).

Added: The entirety of the news conference shows that some reporters did ask Sanford about his disappearance (rather than focus explicitly on the affair).

Also, CNN's resident curmudgeon Jack Cafferty did a fine job airing views similar to my own. In fact, his featured question at the moment asks whether Sanford should be removed from office. Some of the comments are a hoot.

Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska): Guilty on Seven Counts

From Politico's breaking story:

Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) was convicted today on seven counts of failing to report more than $250,000 in improper gifts he received from 1999 to 2006, a stunning blow to a political career that has lasted more than 40 years and marked Alaska’s entire history as a part of the United States.

He's scheduled to be sentenced on 25 February.

The GOP can't be thrilled with the conviction coming eight days before 04 November--it's going to dominate the news cycle for a while, but Senator Stevens himself actually requested that the trial occur before election day.

What might make folks queasy is that the Stevens verdict could further poison the current toxic atmosphere (what with its echoes of the Abramoff-fueled 2006). Even so, any large-scale political fallout is unlikely; people won't run away from Senator McCain or their local Republican candidates because of Stevens's guilt.

But do prepare for a barrage of blog posts detailing Governor Palin's relationship with Ted Stevens--you know it's going to happen.

Another McCain Aid Lobbied for Freddie Mac--Until This Month

Yesterday, the New York Times published a story exposing top McCain aid Rick Davis as a former “advocate” for Fannie and Freddie, for which he received nearly $2,000,000 dollars. Today Bloomberg reveals that the head of Senator McCain’s transition team, William Timmons, Sr, is the “founder and chairman of Timmons & Co,” a lobbying firm that has “earned more than a quarter of a million dollars this year representing Freddie Mac, one of the companies McCain blames for the nation's financial crisis [. . . .] Timmins & Co was registered to lobby for Freddie Mac from 2000 through this month, when the federal government took over both Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae."

The revelations about Davis and Timmons must be embarrassing for the McCain campaign considering the campaign has spent the past two weeks trying to link Senator Obama with two former Fannie and Freddie officials. Unfortunately for Senator McCain, said links have been proven to be tenuous at best. While it’s true that James Johnson raised a significant amount of money for Senator Obama and he worked on the Senator’s VP selection committee, it’s also true that Mr. Johnson, left the Obama VP search committee in early June. In contrast, Mr. Timmons’s relationship with Freddie Mac continued up until the moment the government took the institution over, and he’s a current member of Senator McCain’s team.

Isn’t it rather thought provoking that Senator McCain, who is running as a Washington reformer, has chosen Mr. Timmons to lead the White House transition team? Especially when it’s known that “Timmons is a longtime power in the Washington lobbying industry whose clients include the American Petroleum Institute and Chrysler LLC. Visitors to the company's Web site are told that ``Timmons and Company pioneered the concept and the industry standard for Washington representation' (Bloomberg).

No wonder Steve Schmidt threw a tantrum: this new information absolutely undermines, or even negates, the McCain campaign's message.

Andrew Sullivan on Sinclair

Have I mentioned lately that I (heart) Andrew Sullivan?

I don't know how I missed this, but Sullivan has deflated Sinclair properly (and then some). In referencing No Quarter's declaration that Larry Sinclair, he of warrants in Colorado and Delaware, is a political prisoner, Sullivan responds that "[t]his is beyond self-parody [. . . .] Sone of the Clintonites were just batshit I guess." Indeed. The currently popular analogies to the Gestapo, the SS, and Nazism in general are so wildly inappropriate, and so liberally applied, that one can only react with mouth agog. Do these people know anything about real fascism?

Of the National Press Club event itself, Sullivan offers,

Fun And Games At The National Press Club

18 Jun 2008 09:31 pm

Obama bottom-feeder Larry Sinclair got arrested. Dave Weigel's account is sad and hilarious in equal measure:

Sinclair was asked who funded the event (donors, over the internet), how he made his living (he's on disability), and whether Obama was "well hung" (I'm not going to dignify his answer here).

And the beat goes on.

Poor Sinclair.

When even Republicans consider you a "bottom feeder," things don't look too sparkling.

Aside: Okay, I recognize that the number of posts on Sinclair must indicate some kind of obsession, but, honestly, that's not the case. I will confess to being fascinated by how one person's unsupported allegations have attracted so much affirmation on one hand, and so much bile on the other--and no, he's no innocent player in any of this.

Sinclair's Not Exceptional: The NPC's History of Odd Events.

Statement Regarding National Press Club Business Policies
June 13, 2008
WASHINGTON, June 13 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Because of potential confusion over the business policies at the National Press Club, the Club issued the following statement Friday:

It is the policy of the National Press Club to rent rooms for news conferences. We do this for thousands of events per year and have been doing so for a century. By renting a room for an event, we are not promoting or condoning or agreeing with the issues or policy positions or people involved in these events. We believe in the ability of reporters to ask good questions and report news or not as they see fit from events that take place at our location. The National Press Club does sponsor some events that are held at the Club. These include our Luncheon Series and our Newsmakers, Forums and Book events. The events sponsored by the Club are clearly indicated on our website and signs. Events that are NOT sponsored by the Club are indicated on the website as well.

SOURCE National Press Club

There’s been a bit of howling about the NPC allowing Larry Sinclair to rent a room for his news conference. Many claim “nothing like this has happened before”; “The NPC location "legitimizes Sinclair's claims"; "This doesn’t hold true to the NPC’s stated purpose and ethical guidelines," The NPC is “whoring itself out,” etc. While I sympathize with such perspectives, we might recall that the NPC is a private organization that supports freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Is the Sinclair event's topic sleazy? Undoubtedly. Drug abuse, illicit gay sex, and murder aren't your everyday political story (at least, not all at once). But I ask you, is a “pubic service” performed by openly analyzing and then debunking the story via “good journalism”? Does this not fit with the NPC's established purpose and ethics then?

Additionally, let’s look briefly at some of the weirder events held at the NPC. Do you think the NPC went out of its way the legitimize the following items? And this is just a small sampling of the questionable stories, panels, and news conferences that have taken place at the NPC (there are loads more out there. Google away, and let me know what you can find. I’ll add it--I'm especially interested in adding political balance to this list).

08 April 2008. Ed Rubenstein, V DARE, on Immigration (nutshell: the whites are in trouble).
12 November, 2007. James Fox and Leslie Kean on UFOs and cover ups.
30 October, 2007. Ken Johnston on NASA Cover ups (ancient ruins on the moon!)
03 October, 2007. The Social Contract on Illegal Immigration (not-so-subtle racism)
25 September, 2006. Morgan Reynolds and Judy Wood on “9/11 was an inside job”
29 July, 2005. Dr. David Ray Griffin, on "the truth about 9/11"
25 October, 2004. Jim Fetzer on “The Strange Death of Paul Wellstone” (the Bush administration did it, apparently).
In 2005, Louis Farrakhan spoke at the NPC of government conspiracies.
David Duke, confirmed white supremicist, has spoken at The National Press Club. A recent example is found at the Anti-Defamation League website.

Enough of conspiracy theorists and racists—how about down and dirty scandal mongers? Okay.

Remember Anita Broaddick? She accused President Clinton of rape. Well, a panel on her story, called “Too Hot for a ‘Scandal-Weary’ New Media to Handle?,” was held at the NPC when the press and public ignored the story (New York Observer).

4 May, 2004. The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth were launched at a NPC news conference.

16 July, 2001. Peter Paul and Judicial Watch held a news conference at The National Press Club to accuse the Clintons of fraud.

Granted, that's all I collected in the past hour, but I think it's pretty clear that the NPC isn't striving to smear Obama. I don't agree that the NPC is unethical. In fact, I think they're doing the right thing in removing this story from the blogosphere (where it continues to fester and sow doubt and discord among many readers). The solution is to hand Sinclair's seamy, incomprehensible accusations over to people with the time, money, and resources to investigate and put it to rest once and for all.

So, pretty please, leave the NPC alone. They just provide a space. Let the reporters do their job.

Obama's "Fight the Smears" and Clinton's "Facthub"

By now you've heard about Barack Obama's site, Fight the Smears, which intends (obviously) to combat the plethora of rumors floating about the internet. It seems that Obama took his cue from Senator Clinton--remember her "facthub"?

Regardless of where the idea originated, it's a good one. And about time that Obama gont one going (what in blazes took him so long? It also seems an ideal place to address Sinclair's allegations).

**Clinton's "Facthub" seems to be down at the moment; here's a write up on the site's purpose.

The Volokh Conspiracy on the "Whitey" Conspiracy

Just sharing:
By far, the best write up on the alleged tape of Michelle Obama raving about "whitey" appears at the Volokh Conspiracy. A blogger at Volokh, Jim Lindgren, heard the rumors generated by Larry Johnson, the largely incredible figure behind No Quarter, and decided to dig around a bit. After all, this tape, if it exists, can be pretty explosive stuff (or so we keep hearing from sites such as Hillbuzz). Anyway, armed with reason and employing old-fashioned gumshoe technology (e.g., he actually went somewhere--to Rainbow/Push Coalition HQ to ask questions), Mr. Lindgren provides enough evidence to undermine Johnson's claim. He remains ambivalent about a tape's authenticity--that is, whether a tape exists--Lindgren asserts "that the most common version of the story [. . .] is almost certainly false." His conclusion matches that of numerous other, albeit lazier, bloggers since the rumor appeared. Despite those bloggers' efforts, some readers just can't help but resist the call of reason:

1. dingbat Says:
   Thursday, June 5, 2008 at 11:53 pm[. . . .] I have read a number of stories which debunk the “whitey tape” existence. But, I have read lots of stories that support its existence. I give Larry Johnson quite a bit of credibility. Of course, if there is a tape, it need to come out before August, otherwise, I really dont care.

And there you have it. All these stories are questionable because they question Larry Johnson.

Folks, when Fox News and The National Review reject the story as a hoax, you have to pause and think a little bit.

Larry Sinclair Taken Apart by Opie and Anthony

Holy cow, and I thought he couldn't damage himself further. Sine-qua-Clair participated in a telephonic interview with Opie and Anthony. Bless 'em, they had at him and made him look a proper fool. You know his true believers just ain't gonna like this.

And he sounds like Fez (well, kind of).

Warning: not safe for work or children. Get your earbuds out, put down any foodstuffs or beverages, and prepare to hurt yourself laughing.

Larry Sinclair on The Opie and Anthony Show:

Part one
Part two
Part three

Each part lasts for approximately ten minutes.

Don't Worry--It's Gonna be All Whitey!

Yawn.

Chances are that you've heard about the alleged tape of Michelle Obama criticizing "whitey." I say "alleged" because no such tape has surfaced despite the fevered efforts of pro-Hillary and Conservative bloggers and msm journalists. Does it exist? I don't think so. But even if it did, what's up with the term "whitey"? Is it really racially insensitive? How disempowering, how demeaning is the word "whitey"?

Moreover, didn't we have this discussion about "whitey" a few years ago when the University of Northern Colorado's basketball team chose their official name--The Fighting Whites (or The Fighting Whities, which is more appealing to my shell-pink ear)? In spite of some vociferous (mock?) outrage, people loved it. Of course, the team chose its name in a deliberate attempt to focus on the use of ethnicity, and racist stereotypes, in sports. It's popularity, however, underscores the anodyne quality of the term. If people--white people--embraced rather than rejected "The Fighting Whites," how offensive could it be?

The only term I can think of that's more ridiculous is "honky." That one just makes me laugh. Like, what the hell does "honky" mean? What does it refer to? But both "whitey" and "honky" are terms from ages past, words you might hear in blaxploitation films (and "whitey" is used in Ossie Davis's fine Cotton Comes to Harlem), or in episodes of The Jeffersons. I'm thinking "whitey" is pretty much obsolete regarding common usage. In other words, it's not a word that Michelle Obama would throw out in public (or, I'm guessing, in private. As a highly educated woman, she's well equipped to find more articulate ways of expressing frustrations with people of a paler hue).

I am curious though; if people have encountered "whitey" in common parlance, do drop me a line and let me know.

*The Fighting Whites team members include Native Americans and Hispanics as well as Caucasians.

UPDATE:
Thanks to Factions, Fashions, and Fists, we know a bit more about the alleged "whitey" incident.
The accusers claim that the event took place at the Rainbow/Push Coalition Citizenship Education Conference in 2004. Here is the program.

1) It's been claimed that Obama appeared along with Louis Farrakhan's wife at a panel. The schedule includes no Farrakhan.

2) Michelle Obama is listed as a "special guest"at the Women's Luncheon. The other special guest is Ms. Shoshana Johnson, retired US Military. No Farrakhan appears on the schedule. Of course this doesn't mean that Mrs. Farrakhan wasn't in the audience, but her presence in the crowd, rather than as a guest alongside Mrs. Obama, does refocus the argument, don't you think?

3) The keynote speaker at the luncheon was Rev. Jesse Jackson, Sr.

4) The event was chaired by Chicago's ABC7.

Expect the story to readjust now: ABC7 (or The Powers That Be) will be accused of sitting on the tape to protect the Obamas. After all, it's a big conspiracy, isn't it?