Just out from Reuters, three months after it happened...

We, however, can tell you both when and why.

We, however, cannot tell you when the MSM became such miserable failures at their jobs, or why it is that some jerk with a blog who works for no salary in a smoky little office in Los Angeles seems to be able to report --- when it still actually matters --- on issues that effect both America and the entire world.

(If you feel sorry for us due to that snarky "no salary" comment above, feel free to make a donation here in order to immediately ease your pangs of guilt

The Washington Post, which recently donated $100,000 to President Bush's inaugural, was granted rare high-level access yesterday in the form of a coveted presidential interview. A spokesman insisted there was no connection, but one grizzled media observer, who requested anonymity so he could still submit op-eds to the paper, said: "Let's face it, the whole thing reeks."

The above was not actually written by us, but by The Post's Howard Kurtz last week in a WaPo article headlined "Influence Being Peddled!"

His piece, which followed-up a front-page article the previous day headlined "Big-Money Contributors Line Up for Inauguration" postulates how terrible it might look "if some blogger" led one of their items with just such a charge. So, Howard, consider it done.

[ed. Note: We've linked the MSNBC version of the original WaPo article above. It has a slightly different headline than the one in WaPo, but does not require a free sign-up to read. The Kurtz response in WaPo is unfortunately not posted on the MSNBC site.]

In regard to the Post's original page-one condemnation (explanation? apology? justification?) of the corporate glad-handing to the Bush Administration, which they themselves have done as well, Kurtz quotes from the pieces list of "well-heeled, favor-seeking supporters", and then says...

So what the hell exactly does The Washington Post thinks it's doing by contributing $100,000 to the Bush/Cheney inauguration?!

Kurtz admits "the appearance is awful", but to his credit, he tried to get some answers...

So we appreciate, in this case, his willingness to call his corporate bosses on the carpet, but it hardly gets WaPo off the hook for this appalling business practice.

If we accept the explanation at face value --- that this is merely to provide major advertisers with "free tickets to the balls" --- then we're led to wonder who these advertisers are for which WaPo is willing to float $100,000 worth of tickets for.

Are they willing to post a list of the companies that benefited from this corporate gift?

Shouldn't we have that knowledge when next we read a story in their paper which may concern or affect one of those advertisers?

Do they believe that explanation should assuage our concerns for their impartiality in the future when reporting on affairs in Bush administration?

Their front-pager from last week fails to touch --- beyond a cursory mention that a donation had been made --- on what it was that WaPo had hoped to gain from the donation.

That question seems particular key since, as the article admits, "Practically all the major donors have benefited from Bush administration policies."

And also, should we now take closer notice that the article was co-written by Jeffrey Birnbaum, whose impartiality is already in grave doubt due to his association with the Republican Fox "News" Channel as an official salaried "Fox News contributor"?

Unfortunately, we came across this item too late today to get comment or answers to the above questions from The Post. We'll be on the road for the next week or so, and therefore unable to properly follow up. But we do hope some of the other responsible media sources out there (Hello, RAW STORY?) might be able to push for a more palatable and detailed response to some of the above questions than the one offered in the Kurtz piece.

It should be noted that Kurtz points out that WaPo made similar donations to Clinton's inaugural in '93 and '97, along with Bush's in '01.

It should also be noted that we don't give a damn about that and would like such --- theoretically --- impartial media sources as WaPo to have both propriety and appearance of same no matter which Administration they have a duty to report on for the American people.

Their coverage of affairs in D.C. and beyond is already under deservedly close scrutiny by "the new media" folks like us. We have criticized and will continue to criticize them for their continuing failures to cover the news that Americans need to know about.

We'd recommend, however, that they not make it any easier for those on the Right (who already opportunistically, inaccurately and cynically label them as part of the "Liberal Media") or those on the Left (who already find their coverage sorely and criminally wanting) to tar them with the brush of bias in a media world where they are already rapidly sliding towards dinosaur status.

A $100,000 gift to the Bush Administration, re-gifted as another $100,000 gift to major corporate allies and partners, does not bode well for a deceleration of The Washington Post's unfortunate descent towards irrelevance in a swiftly changing media landscape.

"When Franklin Delano Roosevelt was inaugurated...during a time of war as you know...he had a very modest inauguration and a very tiny party where chicken salad was served. And that was when we were winning a war..." --- Judy Bachrach, Vanity Fair contributing editor manages to slip the truth onto Fox "News".

We have a feeling one of their guest bookers is about to fired.

Oliver Willis has the entire tale of the tape.

(Thanks BRAD BLOG commenters Nana and Toni for the tip!)

UPDATE: Thanks to all of those who have linked to the following photo essay.

Late last night, I was remembering having watched the scenes of protesters during the first inaugural parade in Fahrenheit 9/11. As I watched those scenes I had thought to myself, "I can't believe I had no idea that such protests had even occurred that day!" And I had watched virtually all of the "wall-to-wall coverage" of the inaugural back in 2001!

The Mainstream Media failed us then, and I have since learned well how they are failing us now.

It would be a travesty for people to remain similarly unaware of the hundreds of thousands who spoke out yesterday against a failed President who had to cheat to "win" and whose claims of having received a "mandate" are as arrogantly fallacious as having claimed to have been "a uniter, not a divider". So, though it took quite a while very late at night to collect the following, I was girded in the process by remembering the importance for all of us now to "Be the Media". It must be done.

To that end, you too must do your part. The wingnut cabal preys on ignorance. Don't allow that to happen. Pass the link to these photos around. Hitting the "Send it to someone!" button is a convenient way to do your part. Don't be fooled. It's up to nobody but us at this point. - BF

As we alluded to a day or so ago, Sun Myung Moon, owner of Republican "Newspaper" The Washington Times, spiritual head of the Unification Church and self-proclaimed Messiah, reportedly glad-handed some $250,000 to the Bush Inaugural Committee disguised as a donation from a company called "The Washington Television Center".

With all of the recent criticism of the Bush Administration throwing a $50 million inaugural during a time of war, it seems that the White House organ, The Washington Times, has now ridden late to the defense of their friends in the Administration by employing some fuzzy math about the "price" of the inaugural.

They've fallen back on the old "Clinton did it" routine notable as the defense employed for all indefensible Bush and/or Republican actions. They had to lie to do it.

RAW STORY has the story from Salon.com.

By the way, according to Ken Bode, that $250,000 from Moon --- the price of an inaugural lunch ticket with Bush/Cheney --- could have fully armored 10 Humvee's in Iraq. $50 Million could have fully armored 2000 of them. (Not to mention the $10 - $20 million spent on security today and the cost of giving everyone in DC a federal holiday.)

Nine Democratic House Judiciary Committee members (Conyers, Nadler, Scott, Lofgren, Jackson Lee, Meehan, Waters, Wexler, Schiff) have just requested that the committee "hold hearings and investigate the vital issue of protecting our citizens right to vote".

The text of their letter (without footnotes) to the Republican chair of the committee is as follows...

Well, now we get a whole new story about what was "wrong" with the Exit Polls on November 2nd.

As you may recall, the original explanation for the disparity between the Exit Poll results and the Final Results was attributed to the theory that pollsters oversampled female voters. The results at the time, were therefore re-weighted to reflect that theory.

But today, according to CNN's report on a new "internal review" by the Exit Polling Consortium, we find that it was actually due to the fact that "more Kerry supporters participated in the survey than Bush voters".

In other words, had only more voters told the Exit Pollsters they had voted for Bush, the Exit Polls would have matched the Final Results.

In other words, there continues to be no explanation for the Exit Polls not matching the Final Results.

Quoting from CNN's report on the report:

Could it be that Kerry voters were more likely to paricipate in the exit poll because there were more Kerry voters than Bush voters? The report, apparently, would like you to not believe that could be the case.

In other words, there continues to be no explanation for the Exit Polls not matching the Final Results.

But lest we determine that there is any reason to be skeptical of CNN's analysis of the report, let's take a look at this graf:

That, of course, is true.

Unless you look at actual evidence which shows they are lying. (While you're there, please notice in the two CNN.com screenshots how the Male/Female support for Bush/Kerry changed from one screenshot to the next posted just an hour and twenty minutes later with only 57 new respondents added to a poll of 2,020 respondents. Please also note that the percentage of Male vs. Female respondents stayed consistent over both screenshots at 47%/53%.)

But such unexplained phenomon simply didn't occur according to CNN, so it must be beside the point.

So if the problem was not oversampling of Female voters, what exactly was the problem that leads the consortium to instruct us that the Exit Polls were wrong but the Final Results were right?

CNN's report on the report seems to indicate that there is no reason. Above and beyond the fact that more Kerry voters said they voted for Kerry than Bush voters who said they voted for Bush.

And apparently this occurred --- by a complete freak of nature --- in 26 of 30 states polled:

Clear on all of this yet?

If not, CNN has neatly identified a few more helpful factors to look at:

Well, I'm glad that's all settled.

UPDATE: MSNBC continues the whitewash, declaring "Exit polls say Bush won fair and square: Report on surveys finds system worked, even with errors". Though their article similarly gives no explanation for what happened...other than saying it happened. Sometimes a headline is enough to sell the messaage apparently.

...All for a good cause, however.

So until further notice, consider this just a plain old open thread tonight.

Chat away. Though play nice, or I will pull this car over right now...

(P.S. Didja notice how the boys on the right are coming positively unhinged lately? Seems they'd be in a better mood with their man being re-coronated in a few days...but maybe that's just me. Discuss.)

And speaking of Inaugurals...Behold ye which Messiah it is that hath granted President Genius a cool $250,000 in order to help purchase his balls (as if he hadn't already done that via his ownership of the official White House organ The Washington Times "newspaper"):

Speaking for all Americans, I couldn't be prouder.

Not that we condone this sort of thing...but...since we're rather busy for the moment...and...since this exchange includes quite a bit of educational and historical material...and...since it's always nice to see an arrogant wingnut put into his proper place (back under the bridge with the rest of the trolls)...We elevate the following BRAD BLOG comments exchange (smackdown) to full-fledged blog item.

In our recent article introducing Velvet Revolution to the world, commenter "des" made the notable point that many of the revolutionaries who fought for America's freedom from King George (the original one), were ordinary working-class folk who had set aside their simple lives to take up the fight against corruption and oppression.

That notion did not sit well with commenter/Freeper/wingnut/historical-revisionist "Paul" who opined:

Never mind that neither the concept, nor word "communism" (small "c") even existed until the French Revolution of 1830. A fair number of years after said Founding Fathers would have "rejected" such a concept in Paul's World o' Make-Believe History. Or that the Communist (capital "C") Party didn't come into existence until several years later (under "Paul's" brilliant oratorical logic, we'd also have to conclude that both the Founder Fathers and the Pilgrims similarly "rejected cell phones")... It was the great American, and BRAD BLOG staple "Winter Patriot" who gave our confused and brain-addled and washed friend "Paul" the humiliating historical spanking that he so self-righteously deserves...

(Brief pause while the applause dies down...)

And so, another Freeper is sent back to his cave with tail between his legs. Though he will no doubt return to "fight" another day towards yet another ignominious defeat at the hands of the educated and not-easily-cowed.

Until then, dear friends, we leave you with the sage words from whence our friend "Winter Patriot" takes his apt pseudonym (as posted at the top of his fine blog):

Thank you to all the Winter Patriots out there in Bradville and beyond. You do indeed have our love and thanks for your brave and unshrinking service to your country in this time when the sun seems too-often darkened and the chill winds of winter sweep across the fruited plains.

Fight on Winter Patriots...

(So I'm a little late with this news. Sue me. I'm busy...)

While Washington Post broke the news that the hunt for WMD's ended not with a bang, but without even a whimper a month ago, without our Government even informing us (they certainly had no trouble telling us that there was WMD in Iraq, and thousands of dead bodies later...well, don't get me started), it seems that our "Christian" "President" Bush has "no regrets":

From ABC News:

So with no WMD's, and no regrets, what do we have? According to WaPo again, we have nothing but trouble...

No doubt, the minority of Americans who voted for Bush couldn't be prouder of this tremendous body of accomplishments.

Or as Chris in Paris, of AMERICAblog said --- from whom the above link was gleaned --- "Mission Accomplished, George".

To be fair, Dubya's not the only genius in the administration...

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."
-- Dick Cheney, Speech to VFW National Convention, 8/26/2002

...And before you wingnuts start copying and pasting your Clinton quotes about Saddam, Iraq and WMD's, allow me to cut that yawn off at the pass by reminding you that Clinton, while he may have believed WMD's in Iraq, was damned smart enough not to go to war over it.

...And before you same wingnuts start explaining to me why somehow it was all worth it anyway, please save your breath, your fingers and my bandwidth, and go tell it to the families of the 1,364 (at least) dead American Troops. Perhaps it would be more of a comfort to them than to me.

Though somehow I doubt it.

We're moved beyond words, frankly.

Activist Doris "Granny D" Haddock, best known for her cross-country walk for Campaign Finance Reform speaks out today with extraordinary eloquence about "Our Velvet Revolution".

(A RealPlayer slideshow of some of her heroic efforts over the last several years is available here.)

She will be participating in several of the upcoming Counter-Inaugural events in DC, and her 95th birthday will be four days later. Her statement, published by Democracy Week today, are meant as her 95th birthday remarks.

Having seen and done as much as she has in her lifetime, only a fool would disregard her wisdom.

And so, on velvet revolutions and the freedoms and pursuit of happiness, we'll quote just a few of her words from her beautiful piece:

Wow...

Dennis Burke of Democracy Week, who joined Granny D on her walk, follows up her article on the Democracy Week blog with a piece on our Velvet Revolution featuring a short interview with yours truly.

Despite our frequently self-promotional flair here on The BRAD BLOG!!! we assure you it is but a satirical literary device. Of sorts. And in fact even we find ourselves a bit too modest to quote somebody quoting us...At least this evening.

So a link to Burke's fine coverage on how VR came about and a bit on what we hope to accomplish will have to suffice.

We thank both Democracy Week and the inimitable Granny D for both the coverage and the inspirational words of wisdom.

The Velvet Revolution continues...

Yes, we love Congressman Tom Feeney (R-FL)! And hope the rest of the world can learn to love him as much as we do!

But they can't love him if they don't know him!

So to help, we'd encourage BRAD BLOG readers who may be familiar with many of the interesting facets of the Republican Congressman's life to share some of that interesting information on the Wikipedia page devoted to educating millions about Mr. Feeney!

The Wikipedia, for those who don't know, is a public domain encyclopedia of sorts, where you --- dear, BRAD BLOG readers --- can add information on the life and accomplishments of patriotic Americans such as Mr. Feeney, so that citizens and school-children the world over may learn about one of the wonderful and impressive elected officials we have in our country!

Speaking of "elected" --- here's a fun fact you may wish to add to the Wikipedia on Mr. Feeney --- did you know that Mr. Feeney just "won" "re-election" on November 2nd to the United States Congress without a single vote being cast for him?!

That's right! He won a prestigous post in the United States Congress without ever even appearing on the ballot! He even gets to sit on the U.S. House Judiciary Committee!

How did he do it?! Due to the wonderfully streamlined ballot system in the State of Florida --- as helpfully legislated by (guess who?!) Tom Feeney who served for years in the Florida State legislature before become its House Speaker! --- a candidate who runs unopposed in his or her district won't even appear on the ballot!

According to Section 101.151 of the Florida Statues, "...the names of unopposed candidates shall not appear on the general election ballot. Each unopposed candidate shall be deemed to have voted for himself or herself."

Isn't that wonderful?!

This convenience saves time for the busy American Florida voter, and keeps election officials from having to decipher any of that messy handwriting that --- in other, less sunshiney states --- might end up as a write-in vote against such an unopposed candidate!

That small annoyance won't be happening in Florida anytime soon! Hoo-ray for Mr. Feeney!

But don't worry, even though he was running against nobody, Mr. Feeney was able to raise (and spend nearly all of!) $928,127 to finance his 2004 campaign! All of it from individuals and businesses and political action committees who were simply interested in seeing the finest legislator for Florida's 24th Congressional district that money could buy!

You may even know the names of some of those contributing individuals and businesses! Names like Yang and O'Quinn and the like!

Winning a U.S. Congressional seat without even having a single vote cast for him, is just one of the many interesting facts about Congressman Tom Feeney from Florida that you --- devoted BRAD BLOG readers --- now know!

Why not share that knowledge --- and all the rest you may have learned --- with the world via the Wikipedia's Tom Feeney page right now?! You can even add links to your favorite sources and articles on Tom Feeney!

As it says on his website (Where you can still donate to his 2004 campaign!): "...It takes courage...It takes Tom Feeney!" It sure does! So let's all show that same kind of courage, and share what we know with the whole wide world!