Transcript excerpt from panel yesterday: Tucker Carlson on GOP and evangelicals

Transcript excerpt from panel yesterday, Tucker Carlson on GOP and evangelicals

 

Carlson on air

From the transcripts:

Copyright 2006 National Broadcasting Co. Inc.
All Rights Reserved
NBC News Transcripts

SHOW: The Chris Matthews Show Various Times NBC

October 8, 2006 Sunday

LENGTH: 3972 words

HEADLINE: Maureen Dowd of The New York Times, Andrew Sullivan of The New Republic and MSNBC’s Norah O’Donnell and Tucker Carlson discuss Foley scandal, war on Iraq, woman like Hillary Clinton as American president and their scoops and predictions

ANCHORS: CHRIS MATTHEWS

REPORTERS: TUCKER CARLSON, NORAH O’DONNELL

BODY: . . . [discussion of the Mark Foley scandal with high school pages]

Mr. SULLIVAN: This–and I think Norah’s right. The real theme here is abuse of power, and so it ties in with corruption, the pork, the abuse of our troops in Iraq who have not been given the support they need or even a war plan to succeed.

MATTHEWS: OK, so everyone agrees here that this story, emblematic of whatever…

Mr. SULLIVAN: Just emblematic of abuse.

CARLSON: It goes deeper than that though. The deep truth is that the elites in the Republican Party have pure contempt for the evangelicals who put their party in power. Everybody in… [emphasis added]

MATTHEWS: How do you know that? How do you know that?

CARLSON: Because I know them. Because I grew up with them. Because I live with them. They live on my street. Because I live in Washington, and I know that everybody in our world has contempt for the evangelicals. And the evangelicals know that, and they’re beginning to learn that their own leaders sort of look askance at them and don’t share their values.

MATTHEWS: So this gay marriage issue and other issues related to the gay lifestyle are simply tools to get elected?

CARLSON: That’s exactly right. It’s pandering to the base in the most cynical way, and the base is beginning to figure it out. (Unintelligible).

MATTHEWS: OK. Where are you…

Mr. SULLIVAN: The right is right to be mad about this. They have been duped by these people, and now they’re venting and they have every right to vent.

 

[further discussion on other issues]

 

Tucker Carlson says it aloud: The Republican elite has contempt for the evangelicals

Tucker Carlson says it aloud. The Republican elite has contempt for the evangelicals.

Tucker Carlson

The Sunday morning talk shows today, October 8, 2006, included some refreshingly frank or realistic discourse, for a rarity.

Probably most attention tomorrow will be devoted to Bob Woodward narrating how Vice President Cheney used the bullshit word and hung up on him. Possibly some attention will go to the congressional tin ear from Illinois, GOP Congressman Ray LaHood, talking about the Foley scandal: “The real disservice was done to the speaker.”

 

Mark Foley

But for my money, the real jaw dropper this morning was Tucker Carlson finally saying publicly what millions of us have known for years: “The Republican elite has contempt for the evangelicals.”



Carlson opening up on air

The commentary centered around the Mark Foley scandal and attendant ironies–that a member of Congress who for years ostentatiously paraded his concern for children and for youth has solicited, also for years, the sexual attentions of teenagers, and not just any teenagers, but teenaged pages specifically under the protection of Congress. Furthermore, all signs indicate that the entire top GOP leadership of Congress, even while campaigning aggressively in some bogus morality posture, either covered up for Foley or at best deliberately avoided knowing enough of his activities to do anything about them.

 

To call this hypocrisy is just an insult to hypocrites.

 

As I have said before, this is not hypocrisy. It is deliberate imposture. It is analogous to the current White House policy of pouring gasoline on the flames in geopolitics, under the guise of fighting terrorism, when as it well knows, its policies ignite terrorism, from which it profits. In the ratios of the Miller Analogy Test, Mark Foley is to protecting children what George W. Bush is to protecting Americans. If they really wanted less terrorism, they would eliminate cluster bombs and land mines.

 

But of all the commentators on all three major television networks, none to my knowledge has made the basic connection, until today. Carlson made the basic, direct statement that for years has needed making. “Everybody in our world has contempt for the evangelicals,” he continued under questioning. When asked, “How do you know?” in response to his initial claim about the GOP, he gave the unequivocal answer: “Because I see them.” As Carlson said, he works with them, meaning members of the power elite or the opinion makers. He has moved among them for years. “They live on my street.”

Following up the statements that “The Republican elite has contempt for the evangelicals,” and “Everybody in our world has contempt for the evangelicals,” he continued, “and everybody knows that. The evangelicals are beginning to figure it out.”

 

What came home for this viewer is that on a more modest scale I have seen the same thing. Certainly not all Republican women, or all women who sometimes vote Republican, feel the same way on social issues. And some of the most rock-ribbed longtime Republican women voters, at least those of my acquaintance, who also tend to be economically well off or affluent, are exactly the individuals most dismissive of the party line on social issues. They let the men talk, but if a woman or girl they care about or to whom they are related wants an abortion, they are highly unlikely to let the men stand in the way. Or even to let the men know, if that’s the way to play it.

As for the public pronouncements of their party, and the most prominent of their professional religious spokesmen, they roll their eyes. I have seen them do it. You do not get more eye-rolling about the Reverend Mr. Pat Robertson or about the unreverend Ralph Reed anywhere than in the nearest lunch of Republican women at the local country club, and the only people who seem not to know it are the people whose faithful votes keep the corporate hogs in office. So the GOP agenda accomplishes its real objectives such as keeping plaintiffs out of court, letting insurance companies off the hook on large claims, raiding or undermining pension funds, bailing out the top management of mismanaged industries, and preventing any progressive taxation whatever for billionaires.

Meanwhile, the rare genuine voter of rightwing conscience who gets into office, like GOP Congressman Ron Paul of Texas, could not be more sidelined if he were a high schooler trying to play in the NFL. I have said it before. The only real purpose regarding abortion for this administration is to splinter what would otherwise have been moral opposition to its policies, domestic and foreign.

Ron Paul

There could have been a clue to the nature of the faith typically espoused by the likes of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. One clue could have been Cheney, come to think of it. But the broad clue could have been the policies of this White House and of the top crust of this administration. Look at current policies and practices and try to find the gospels in there anywhere. Try to find the New Testament in a takeover attempt on a historic scale, in careers of relentless self advancement and relentless exploitation of others, lying, bullying, bragging, whining, bribery and corruption. A little reading, the merest reminder or thought of comparative religion, would have gotten the idea across.

Instead, ironically, it took a Mark Foley to clarify the disconnect.

If this had happened on stage or in film, in the words of Shakespeare, it would be condemned as most improbable fiction.

 

Note: The post above was re-posted after being deleted by the system.

Update on Mark Foley, hobnobbing with Grover Norquist at the 2012 Republican convention, here.

Foley, Norquist at convention

Even the claims of show biz endorsements for ABC 9/11 miniseries are false

Even claims of show biz endorsements for the exploitative ABC miniseries are wrong

Regarding the challenged ABC miniseries on events before 9/11*, right-wing commentator Hugh Hewitt sends around this graf:

“An exclamation point on this event is the fact that Oliver Stone will endorse the project this week. Not known for his conservative leanings, he loves the project. Perhaps this and the fact that the production company that made Al Gore’s movie, “An Inconvenient Truth” are endorsing it would underline just how far out or touch and scared the Clinton Admin is about the revelation of the facts as portrayed in this project. Is it just that Clinton is continuing to re-define his legacy? Or is it his fears for this election cycle and 2008? Or both?”

The really splashy claim here? –Oliver Stone loves it!

Hugh Hewitt

So far, that claim is rebuffed, at least by anyone available for comment.

Lawrence Bender Productions, via Bender, distances self from any notion that Stone endorsed the miniseries.

Participant Productions–which also made Fast Food Nation among other credits–sends the following, in response to emailed questions.

“Dear Margie,

Thank you for contacting Participant Productions. I am not aware of any such endorsement from our company regarding the ABC miniseries set to air this coming week. For confirmation on this matter, please contact our PR firm at . . .”

A remarkable claim by Hewitt, all in all.

Source, unstated. Thesis, unlikely. Evidence, nonexistent.

 

*Link inserted.

George Soros on Israel and Lebanon, Boston Globe

Boston Globe
August 31, 2006
By George Soros

The failure of Israel to subdue Hezbollah demonstrates the many weaknesses of the war-on-terror concept. One of those weaknesses is that even if the targets are terrorists, the victims are often innocent civilians, and their suffering reinforces the terrorist cause.

In response to Hezbollah’s attacks, Israel was justified in attacking Hezbollah to protect itself against the threat of missiles on its border. However, Israel should have taken greater care to minimize collateral damage. The civilian casualties and material damage inflicted on Lebanon inflamed Muslims and world opinion against Israel and converted Hezbollah from aggressors to heroes of resistance for many. Weakening Lebanon has also made it more difficult to rein in Hezbollah.

Another weakness of the war-on-terror concept is that it relies on military action and rules out political approaches. Israel previously withdrew from Lebanon and then from Gaza unilaterally, rather than negotiating political settlements with the Lebanese government and the Palestinian authority. The strengthening of Hezbollah and Hamas was a direct consequence of that approach. The war-on-terror concept stands in the way of recognizing this fact because it separates “us” from “them” and denies that our actions help shape their behavior.
 
A third weakness is that the war-on-terror concept lumps together different political movements that use terrorist tactics. It fails to distinguish between Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Qaeda or the Sunni insurrection and the Mahdi militia in Iraq. Yet all these terrorist manifestations, being different, require different responses. Neither Hamas nor Hezbollah can be treated merely as targets in the war on terror because they have deep roots in their societies; yet there are profound differences between them.

Looking back, it is easy to see where Israeli policy went wrong. When Mahmoud Abbas was elected president of the Palestinian Authority, Israel should have gone out of its way to strengthen him and his reformist team. When Israel withdrew from Gaza, the former head of the World Bank, James Wolfensohn, negotiated a six-point plan on behalf of the Quartet for the Middle East (Russia, the United States, the European Union and the United Nations). It included opening crossings between Gaza and the West Bank, an airport and seaport in Gaza, opening the border with Egypt, and transferring the greenhouses abandoned by Israeli settlers into Arab hands.

None of the six points was implemented. This contributed to Hamas

Neocon points on high crimes and misdemeanors

I. The first several paragraphs of this lengthy disquisition, providing some etymology and colonial American background on high crimes and misdemeanors, argue that the Founders left the phrase grave but broad intentionally. The phrase was intended to be a real check on the powers of the Executive, without being so elastic as to give Congress a parliamentary ability to remove a president at any time for narrow political motives. This general characterization is valid as far as it goes.

 

Note, however, that this article, written with William J. Clinton in mind, emphasizes offenses besides treason or bribery, since the GOP Congress was not accusing him of those. George W. Bush may not be limited to the purview of the high crimes and misdemeanors phrase. Taking the least of the offenses first

Today

Here, young readers, are the first few grafs of a Washington Post article that ran on December 2, 2003. Gov. Howard Dean of Vermont was making rapid headway toward the Democratic presidential nomination:

 

Offshore Tax Havens

Offshore tax havens

Map of tax haven hot spots

The gutsy Senate investigation into offshore tax havens has produced explosive material. Too bad there wasn’t more of an explosion in the big media outlets. On August 1, the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations released its 370-page report with an equally thick stack of primary documents, in conjunction with a five-hour hearing and often dramatic testimony recorded by four or five television cameras. CNN chose that day to spend its air time on Fidel’s “ceding power,” running repetitive footage of sweaty Miamians honking their automobile horns and saying deleterious things about Castro.

Wonder which network offshores its assets in the Caymans.

Cayman Islands beach

Because someone has to do so, this blog recaps some of the pertinent numbers (page numbers in parentheses):

  • The Subcommittee report begins, “Offshore tax havens and secrecy jurisdictions today harbor trillions of dollars in assets.” (1)
  • “Experts estimate that Americans now have more than $1 trillion in assets offshore and illegally evade between $40 and $70 billion in U.S. taxes each year through the use of offshore tax schemes.” (1)
  • “In 2000, Enron Corporation established over 441 offshore entities in the Cayman Islands.” (2)
  • “A 2004 report found that U.S. multinational corporations are increasingly attributing their profits to offshore jurisdictions, allocating $150 billion in 2002 profits to 18 offshore jurisdictions, for example, up from $88 billion just three years earlier.” (2)
  • “The British Virgin Islands is a group of islands in the Caribbean and an overseas territory of the United Kingdom. It has licensed 11 banks, 90 trust companies, and 90 registered agents. The British Virgin Islands has over 500,000 registered offshore corporations, apparently the most of any offshore jurisdiction.” (15)
  • “The Isle of Man . . . is home to 171 offshore service providers, including banks, trust companies, and company formation agents. Together these firms managed about $57 billion in bank deposits, $12 billion in collective investment schemes, $33 billion in life insurance funds, and $11 billion in non-life insurance funds.” (15)
  • “In early 1990, John Staddon, Chris Donegan, and Rajan Puri moved from UBS to European American Investment Group (“Euram”). Euram is a financial services provider with offices in six cities, including New York, London, and Vienna. It was founded in 1999 by professionals from UBS, Deutsche Bank, and McKinsey. Euram employs ninety full-time staff working in areas including securities brokerage, investment advising, and wealth management.” (61)
  • “The paper portfolio was “created” by having two Isle of Man companies with no apparent assets exchange contracts with each other. Under these contracts, Jackstones, which owned no stock, would “sell” stock to Barnville in exchange for cash that Barnville did not have, and Barnville would “loan” the stock, which it had not received, back to Jackstones in exchange for the payment of cash collateral, which Jackstones did not have. Because these transactions were undertaken simultaneously, the two obligations to pay each other equal amounts of cash and stock would be offset. No stock ever changed hands, and no money ever changed hands.” (63)
  • ‘The records show that Barnville was incorporated . . . with one share of stock each subscribed to by Paul Moore on behalf of Claycroft Limited and Paul Moore on behalf of Dalecroft Limited. Annual returns . . . show that . . . its authorized capital was 2,000 British pounds (of which 2 pounds had been paid in).” (69)
  • “As of September 24, 2001, HSBC estimated that its total fees on the transaction would be $8,890,000.” (104)
  • “Quellos’ total compensation for the Saban POINT trade was $53,909,930 . . .” (112)
  • “The following case history shows how, over a thirteen-year period from 1992 to 2005, two U.S. citizens, Sam and Charles Wyly, guided by an armada of attorneys, brokers, and other professionals, transferred at least $190 million in stock options and warrants to a complex array of 58 offshore trusts and shell corporations.” (113)
  • “Section six shows how about $85 million in untaxed dollars were used to acquire U.S. real estate and build houses for use by Wyly family members. It also shows how untaxed dollars were used to finance real estate loans that supplied millions of offshore dollars to Wyly family members for their personal use in the United States.” (118)
  • “In provisions that became effective in 2002, the Patriot Act explicitly required U.S. banks and securities firms that open a private account with at least $1 million for a non-U.S. person to “ascertain the identity of the nominal and beneficial owners” of the accounts.” (118)

An eye-opener, all around, and a window onto the cowardly maneuvers employed by people who don’t need the money in the first place to deny tax dollars that pay for–among other things–federal courts, where their high-priced legal help can argue before judges that they shouldn’t have to pay those taxes.

Cayman courts find hedge funds

Hedge fund regulation and the Senate Banking Committee

It is sad to reflect that if slavery were by some hideous quirk made legal again, undoubtedly a certain number of individuals in the U.S. would be willing to sell themselves into it. This morning, the Senate Banking Committee held a hearing on regulating what in the world of finance is known as hedge funds.

To start with, there is more than one definition of hedge funds. Broadly, however, they are gigantically capitalized entities for high-risk investment. They are in some ways the riskiest form of investment, and they don’t deal in small amounts of money. And as Sen. Richard Shelby, head of the Banking Committee, and Christopher Cox, head of the SEC, both stated, hedge fund growth in this country (which, with Great Britain, is home to most hedge funds) has been enormous and startling over the past few years. Cox testified that the amount of capital under management in hedge funds has grown to approximately $1.2 TRILLION. Cox also stated that hedge funds account for “about 30% of all U.S. equity trading volume.”

Shelby pointed out that “wealthy investors and large institutions” attracted by hedge funds include “pension funds and universities.” There is room for concern here, especially since a U.S. Appeals Court recently struck down some federal attempts to bring hedge funds somewhat more under SEC regulation.

Sen. Paul Sarbanes (D-Maryland), excellent and lucid as usual, raised three concerns: 1) whether the standards for an “accredited investor” (currently anyone with over a million, including your house) are too low; 2) potential conflicts of interest in managers of hedge funds and mutual funds; and 3) the impact on financial markets of hedge fund strategies on a large scale, including short-selling.

Sarbanes also brought up a concern voiced by the AFL-CIO, about worker pension funds. There seems to be a move currently to allow more pension funds in hedge funds, a scary prospect for millions of workers counting on pensions to support them in retirement.

Sarbanes also asked about what might happen in a market shock — a “run on the bank,” in which large numbers of hedge fund investors withdrew from their hedge fund at the same time. Basically, to the question, “what would you do?” the answer was — something along the lines of, we’re looking at that.

Three witnesses appeared before the Committee — the head of the SEC; the head of the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Reuben Jeffery III; and the head of — No, not the head of Treasury but an undersecretary in Treasury named Randal K. Quarles. Quarles’ answers were not reassuring.

Nobody mentioned that one sizeable hedge fund is operated by the president’s youngest brother, Marvin P. Bush. But then, nobody needed to mention it.

Quarles, BTW, is one of the new breed of Bush appointees, much like an undersecretary from State, John Hillen, whom I heard “testify” to Congress last week, on the administration’s support for a new sale of F-16s to Pakistan. Yes, that’s right, little friends. Just at the juncture when the Pakistanis are bringing out new developments along the nuclear line, the White House wants them to get more F-16s. Hillen and Quarles struck this viewer much as less senior, white male versions of Condoleezza Rice, except perhaps a tad less philosophical and independent — future First Family employees, basically.

Back to the top: one question is why the federal government, or some of the most august names on Wall Street, should be aggrandizing hedge funds in the first place. Just because some people want high-risk opportunities, does that mean the rest of us have to provide them — and pay to regulate them, and provide the courts in which they try to avoid regulation, and pay Congress to try to control them?

You’d think that people so eager for a good risk would be particularly able to stomach NOT getting what they want. Shd be a real shot in the arm, one would think.

I read years ago that a “risk” is one thing; a “gamble” another. But it seems to be BushCo’s broad strategy to maximize gambling rather than genuine risk. Perhaps that’s just another way of saying that they tend to privatize gain (for the few) while socializing penalty/payment (for the overwhelming majority).

More timely as time passes: Andrew Thomas’s Aviation Insecurity

Almost five years after September 11, 2001, the book titled Aviation Insecurity, by security analyst Andrew Thomas, published by Prometheus Books in 2003, is only becoming more timely.

 

Some books do not wear well over time, but this one does. Virtually every passing month further corroborates the discussion and analysis by Thomas of U.S. lack of aviation security before September 11 and now.

 

Reading successive chapters about the culture of compromise at the FAA, the actions of the White House and Congress to bail out the airlines immediately after September 11, and the creation of new layers of bureaucracy under the guise of security is like watching time lapse photography in motion. Especially now, while we watch the Middle East go up in flames and even commentators chastise the president for  supposedly not knowing it would happen, we see with the clarity of hindsight how thoroughly the airlines influenced governmental processes that were supposed to work for the public interest. The result is that our federal agencies, in spite of the courageous work of many lower personnel, are tainted and compromised by the aviation industry they were supposed to monitor and regulate. As one commentator said succinctly,