|
This page lists the last ten items added to the database. "Latest Entries" will include both newly published material and newly discovered (or re-discovered) older items, especially research, statistics and reports on subjects of interest to the Left. Date shown is generally the date of publication. However, where publication dates are not known or irrelevant (such as a general website item or a historical document) the date shown is the date the item was entered into the database. If you are interested in only recently-published news and information, there are several sites which keep up with current news items in a "daily briefing" sort of format. My personal favorites are BuzzFlash, Democrats.com, MakeThemAccountable and the "Latest Breaking News" forum at DemocraticUnderground, but there are many more progressive websites available. 7/1/2003 | Type: Analysis | Format: Webpage The Washington Monthly's Nicholas Confessore explains how the GOP disciplined K Street: "[B]eginning with the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994, and accelerating in 2001, when George W. Bush became president, the GOP has made a determined effort to undermine the bipartisan complexion of K Street. [...] In 1995, DeLay famously compiled a list of the 400 largest PACs, along with the amounts and percentages of money they had recently given to each party. Lobbyists were invited into DeLay's office and shown their place in 'friendly' or 'unfriendly' columns. ('If you want to play in our revolution,' DeLay told The Washington Post, 'you have to live by our rules.') Another was to oust Democrats from trade associations, what DeLay and Norquist dubbed 'the K Street Strategy.' [...] [J]obs and campaign contributions are just the tip of the iceberg. Control a trade association, and you control the considerable resources at its disposal. ... To supplement PAC giving, which is limited by federal election laws, corporations vastly increased their advocacy budgets, with trade organizations spending millions of dollars in soft money on issue ad campaigns in congressional districts. And thanks to the growing number of associations whose executives are beholden to DeLay or Santorum, these campaigns are increasingly put in the service of GOP candidates and causes. Selling Washington 6/23/2005 | Type: Analysis | Format: Webpage The New York Review of Books article examining the "K Street Project" by Elizabeth Drew: "The Republican purge of K Street is a more thorough, ruthless, vindictive, and effective attack on Democratic lobbyists and other Democrats who represent businesses and other organizations than anything Washington has seen before. [...] Republican leaders also want to have like-minded people on K Street who can further their ideological goals by helping to formulate their legislative programs, get them passed, and generally circulate their ideas. When I suggested to Grover Norquist, the influential right-wing leader and the leading enforcer of the K Street Project outside Congress, that numerous Democrats on K Street were not particularly ideological and were happy to serve corporate interests, he replied, 'We don't want nonideological people on K Street, we want conservative activist Republicans on K Street.'" Ralph Nader and the Right 3/28/2001 | Type: Analysis | Format: Webpage Part two in TomPaine.com's 4 part excerpt from Trudy Lieberman's Slanting the Story: The Forces That Shape the News. "Ironically, the blueprint for the right wing's media strategy sprang from the Nader organizations, which skillfully used the press to build support for legislative changes they were seeking. "Ralph was enormously strategic in approaching the media and how to use it," recalled Michael Pertschuk, co-director of the Advocacy Institute, who worked for the key Senate Commerce committee when Nader was winning his legislative victories. "Ralph talked about the media as a resource, not an enemy or friend. Watching him was a learning experience in how issues were framed to shape the outcome." Courting the Press 4/9/2001 | Type: Analysis | Format: Webpage Part three in TomPaine.com's 4 part excerpt from Trudy Lieberman's Slanting the Story: The Forces That Shape the News. "While courting the press is common among all types of political organizations, few have done so with more diligence and �lan than the right-wing Manhattan Institute, which has strongly influenced New York City's political agenda. "You can't treat the job as a PR operation," says Larry Mone [president of the Institute]. "You invite the press in on a regular basis. You get a good author with something to say, and over time journalists' skepticism wears down, and you build a relationship -- mutual trust." Clubbing the Press 4/16/2001 | Type: Analysis | Format: Webpage Part four in TomPaine.com's 4 part excerpt from Trudy Lieberman's Slanting the Story: The Forces That Shape the News. "Right-wing foundations support four media monitoring organizations: Accuracy in Media, the Center for Media and Public Affairs, the Center for the Study of Popular Culture, and the Media Research Center. These organizations have the task of making sure that the media reflect conservative positions. These groups monitor what Americans see, hear, and read. They are quoted frequently and forcefully on a variety of topics." Black Holes of Power 3/28/2001 | Type: Analysis | Format: Webpage Part one in a four part series excerpting Trudy Lieberman's book Slanting the Story: The Forces That Shape the News "Conservative groups have learned to boil down their messages to fit the new model of soundbite journalism, leaving the details for the weighty studies and policy analyses disseminated in more elite venues." ACLU Analysis of the SAFE Act 6/16/2005 | Type: Analysis | Format: Webpage The bipartisan Security And Freedom Ensured (SAFE) Act (previously S. 1709 and H.R. 3352, now S. 737 and H.R.2715) is a measured, informed response that adds safeguards to key provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act that threaten fundamental American civil liberties. These safeguards, including enhanced judicial oversight for these provisions, are needed to prevent misuse of these intrusive powers. Surveillance powers amended by the SAFE Act include roving wiretaps in intelligence investigations, searches of library and other personal records, and “sneak and peek” warrants. The SAFE Act also adds nationwide search warrants and amendments to “national security letters” to the sunset provision to ensure meaningful review by 2005. ... Far from repealing any provision of the USA PATRIOT Act, the SAFE Act preserves PATRIOT Act surveillance powers while amending them to restore meaningful judicial and Congressional oversight. ACLU Analysis of Senate Intelligence Committee Patriot Act Reauthorization Bill 5/18/2005 | Type: Analysis | Format: Webpage The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence has announced plans to mark up, in a secret session closed to the press and public, legislation to reauthorize the expiring provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act. The bill that the Senate is planning to consider goes further, however, and significantly expands a number of Patriot Act powers. ... The Senate Intelligence Committee’s proposed legislation would exacerbate existing problems with Patriot Act powers, rather than correct them, and would further erode fundamental checks and balances that protect the privacy of ordinary Americans. Are the News Media Soft on Bush? 10/1/2003 | Type: Analysis | Format: Webpage An review of journalists' responses to the title question by Rachel Smolkin in the American Journalism Review: "Reporters have handled Bush gingerly, particularly after the September 11 terrorist attacks prompted a surge of patriotism. The administration skillfully capitalized on that sentiment, just as it excelled at controlling information, staying on message and limiting access to Bush from the nascent days of his presidency. Bush and his allies also have benefited in press coverage from having a weak opposition party. Democrats foundered after 9/11; then the discordant voices of 10 presidential candidates diluted attempts at a unified message. ... These factors softened the adversarial coverage that defined Bill Clinton's presidency--at least until July, when 16 words from Bush's January State of the Union address sparked the first sustained negative coverage of the president since the terrorist attacks." Mr. Bush Catches a Washington Break 5/6/2001 | Type: Commentary | Format: Webpage John F. Harris finally addresses the elephant in the room: "Are the national news media soft on Bush? The instinctive response of any reporter is to deny it. But my rebuttals lately have been wobbly. The truth is, this new president has done things with relative impunity that would have been huge uproars if they had occurred under Clinton. Take it from someone who made a living writing about those uproars." |