From an e-mailer, “in the business.”
“George Bush let people die on rooftops in New Orleans because they were poor and because they were black.”
That’s Claire McCaskill speaking, Democratic nominee for the United States Senate in Missouri.
Time to donate to incumbent Jim Talent –who has done a great job in the Senate on Armed Services– especially as Bill Clinton will be arriving in town to help McCaskill today. What Clinton needs to do is deliver a double Sister Souljah moment, condemning McCaskill’s deep nuttery and his party’s lurch into high censorship mode vis-a-vis “The Path to 9/11”.
An excellent round-up on many of the Senate races is here at RealClearPolitics.
It is also the time to break out the checkbooks –actually, the Visa or Mastercard for an online contribution– to help out Tom Kean, Jr. in New Jersey and Michael Steele in Maryland as well as Talent. Each weekend I’ll try and highlight one incumbent and two challengers, and right now Kean and Steele are among the best opportunities to turn a blue seat red. Both come from Democratic machine states where there is building disgust with entrenched corruption. Both have built campaigns on national security and reform. Both deserve your support today, whether it is $50 or $2,000.
As you can see from the McCaskill insanity and the Democratic senators attempt to bully ABC, a Democratic majority in the Senate would be a disaster on many fronts. Give up dinner and a movie this weekend and help keep the Senate in responsible hands.
As for “The Path to 9/11,” I was traveling yesterday –to Dallas, to prepare to get relief to Texans certain to be depressed by tomorrow’s Longhorn thumping delivered by the Buckeyes– and so missed the chance to talk to Mark Steyn about the thought police’s attack on ABC. But Jed Babbin did raise the subject with Mark. The transcript is here. Key excerpt:
[ABC} supposedly spent years working on it to get it absolutely right, to get the absolute truth, and then they’re frantically staying up late the night before it broadcasts snipping out ten minutes here and there, because Bill Clinton and Sandy Berger and various other Clintton apparatchiks object to this or that line here and there. I mean, that makes them look pathetic, it makes ABC, I think, look ridiculous, in fact, because there’s hundreds of these tapes out there. People are going to know exactly what lines were cut and what weren’t cut, and I don’t even think it works for the Democratic Party, because it reminds people that in fact, when…if you’re of a conspiratorial bent about 9/11, and a lot of people are, the only guy who’s actually been discovered to be destroying evidence is old Sandy Pants himself, Sandy Berger.
Insatpundit links to a speculation that ABC cooked up the controversy to raise ratings. After a three hour interview with Cyrus Nowrasteh, I can guarantee that isn’t the case.
ABC risks builidng themselves a wing in the broadcast hall of shame, and earning a chapter in every media studies text for the next few decades about independent news networks caving to political pressure. (I wonder what Jay Rosen will write about this lefty bit of “rollback.”) While it was just Berger and Albright complaining that they’d been ready for their close-up and it had all gone awry, ABC could be seen to be reviewing a scene or two for fairness to a particular person or two. With the Senate’s Democrats now campaigning on a platform of shuttering networks that don’t deliver the official Clinton version of history, the network faces a John Peter Zenger moment.
As does the electorate. McCaskill’s outburst and the Senate Democrats’ diktat to ABC outline what a return to Democratic majority in the upper chamber means. (One more foreshadowing: Patrick Leahy’s incoherent but certainly obstructive response to the president’s appeal to the Congress to move quickly on national security legislation necessitated by court decisions.)
So dig deep for Talent, Kean and Steele.
UPDATE: Scottish Right has a round of key links. (And a fine, fine castle.)
i didn’t think such a reprehensible action was possible in the era of robust First Amendment protections.
Every time I think the Democrats have hit bottom, they dig a new basement.
I suspect the extreme reaction of the Senate Democrats is based on the sudden recogntion that the fall campaign will be waged on the single issue of which party is serious about national security. The president’s demand for action on key fronts yesterday has clearly thrown the Dems into disarray as they realize that the American electorate will not reward more fecklessness on the part of Democrats. Now arrives a major television event that exposes the specifics of Democrtaic-era “stewardship” of national security, and they are in a frenzy to do whatever it takes to keep that memory down the memory hole.
The trouble for them is that they more they struggle the more attention they call to the very record they wish to have remain obscure and distant.
Mr. Atos and Major Mike both post on the controversy. And the estimable D.J.Drummond goes where I won’t –into the comments.
The first portion of the transcript of my interview with “The Path to 9/11” writer/producer Cyrus Nowrasteh is posted. More will be added as it becomes available.
HH: Cyrus Nowrasteh, there’s controversy surrounding this film which will be showing in Canada, New Zealand, and Australia, as well as the British Broadcast System, and all around the world. The controversy concerns whether or not edits were made. I have a preview copy, as do 900 other people. It’s not like I’m special. Is what I have what others will see on Sunday night?
CN: You know, I’m not sure yet. But as I understand it, there will be some minor changes.
HH: Are those changes of concern to you?
CN: You know, changes are always of concern, but I think I can live with these.
HH: There is a UPI and an AP story today saying that Sandy Berger and Madeleine Albright and others are all upset with this. They’re not singled out for any particular abuse. Condi Rice comes in for some as well. Why the hue and cry?
CN: Boy, that’s a good question. You know, I don’t even know if these people have seen the movie. This all started at the National Press Club screening in Washington, D.C., the evening of August 23rd. There was a Q & A afterwards. Governor Thomas Keane, who was chairman of the 9/11 Commission, and a senior consultant and credited as co-executive producer on the movie, myself and executive producer Mark Platt conducted a Q & A. We only showed night one. You can’t invite people to a 7:30PM screening, and show them a five hour movie. However, in their gift bags, as they left, was a DVD of night 2. In the Q & A, Richard Ben-Veniste, and some of his staffers, felt that the movie misrepresented some of these people. And they questioned well, why didn’t you show this, or why didn’t you show that? And Governor Keane, myself and Mark Platt responded. And what was wonderful, really, was a number of other people in the audience got up and just talked about how powerful they thought the film was, how much they liked it, how impressed they were, and most important to me, Mary Fetchett, the mother of a victim who died in the first plane that went into the towers, got up and thanked us for doing the movie.
HH: Can you tell us where the edits have been made? In what scenes?
CN: You know, I haven’t seen the edits, yet. I think there’s been a lot of concentration on this big sequence involving an attempted capture of bin Laden, and there’s just been a lot of discussion about Lewinsky stuff in the movie. I don’t know. You know, I think that the heartbeat of this movie is there. I think people