via mal contends - A woman's right to choose is dead if John McCain is elected president.

But the Bush administration is fighting to inflict as much damage as possible on women prior to that sickening possibility of choice disappearing, including decreasing the availability of contraception.

From today's Washington Post:

The Department of Health and Human Services is reviewing a draft regulation that would deny federal funding to any hospital, clinic, health plan or other entity that does not accommodate employees who want to opt out of participating in care that runs counter to their personal convictions, including providing birth-control pills, IUDs and the Plan B emergency contraceptive.

Famed journalist I.F. Stone warned "All governments are run by liars and nothing they say should be believed."

Like in many other aspects of government, the Bush administration has veered to the extreme in its mendacity.

Guantánamo Bay holds only the worst of the worst, the administration repeatedly assured the American public after preventing examination of the evidence holding the accused.

Turns out the administration (as McClatchy news demonstrated in its America's prison for terrorists often held the wrong men in mid-June) is the worst of the worst in its commitment to bald-faced lying.

Wisconsin knows a lot about political reformers and we're always looking for a reformer to run for president. And John McCain, you ain't it!

Update II: Cap Times: Apply McCain Standard to McCain

Update: See also: McCain's Character Is Now Fair Game for Reporters and Blogs

Suppose that Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton were the Chair of the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee.

Suppose further that this hypothetical Committee Chair:

In Jonathan Weisman's page one, well-disguised hit piece on Barack Obama in today's Washington Post (GOP Doubts, Fears 'Post-Partisan' Obama), Weisman makes numerous references to Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold.

Writes Weisman: " ... In contrast, the American Conservative Union ranked (Obama) at 8 percent, the same figure awarded to Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Russell Feingold (D-Wis.), two unapologetic liberals. (italics mine)"

Why the suggestion that Feingold (and Boxer) have something for which they need be apologetic?

Was it Feingold's vote against the Iraq War? The discredited Patriot Act? The Bush tax cuts for the super-rich? Feingold's authorship of ethics reform? Feingold's fight for the Fourth Amendment?

Via MAL Contends - Several years ago I interviewed Noam Chomsky on his book Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media prior to his speaking engagement in Madison, Wisconsin.

It was the easiest interview that I have done. I asked two questions, one of which was “for example,” and received extensive and instructive responses.

“Thanks Noam,” I said at the end. All I really needed were a few quotes for a daily newspaper piece, but it was an engaging interview.