Wow. Is this really the best they can scrounge up?

President George W. Bush today announced his intention to nominate one individual and designate one individual to serve in his Administration: The President intends to nominate Timothy D. Adams, of Virginia, to be Under Secretary of the Treasury (International Affairs). Mr. Adams recently served as Policy Advisor for the Bush-Cheney 2004 campaign. He previously served as Chief of Staff at the Department of the Treasury. Prior to joining the Administration, Mr. Adams served as Policy Director for the Bush-Cheney 2000 campaign. Earlier in his career, he co-founded and served as Managing Director of The G7 Group, a Washington, D.C. based consulting firm. Mr. Adams also served as Deputy Associate Director of the Office of Policy Development at the White House during President George H. W. Bush's Administration. He received his bachelor's degree and two master's degrees from the University of Kentucky. The President intends to designate Arnold I Havens, of Virginia, to be the Acting Deputy Secretary of the Treasury.

At least John Taylor had a PhD.

The Washington Post has a
good editorial today:

WHAT DOES Jon Stewart of "The Daily Show" have in common with the Bush administration? They're both unabashed about putting out fake news. The Bush administration's version consists of video news releases -- government-produced, government-funded spots packaged to look and sound like regular television reports, complete with fake news reporters signing off from Washington. These are intended to be, and often are, aired by local television stations without any indication that the government is behind them. The Government Accountability Office found this kind of phony news to be impermissible "covert propaganda." It warned the government last month that such prepackaged news stories must be accompanied by a "clear disclosure to the television viewing audience" of the government's involvement. The Bush administration is now instructing its officials to ignore the GAO -- which is where (in addition to the question of comedic content) the administration and Mr. Stewart diverge. He wants you to know his news is phony.

Although this administration apparently isn't the first to use video news releases, it seems more enamored of them than its predecessors. For example: A spot commissioned by the Transportation Security Administration lauds "another success" in the Bush administration's "drive to strengthen aviation security," which the "reporter" describes as "one of the most remarkable campaigns in aviation history."

It's humiliating that local news stations, however short-staffed and desperate for footage, would allow themselves to be used this way. Indeed, as the New York Times reported Sunday, some have even lopped off government attribution when it was included or pretended the government reporter was one of their own. Even so, it's disingenuous for administration officials to blame the stations, given that many releases are crafted precisely to disguise their government origin.

This technique is both illegal and unwise. As a legal matter, the prepackaged news releases run afoul of the prohibition on the use of government funds for domestic "propaganda." The administration's interpretation -- it's okay to hide the source as long as the spot is "purely informational" -- is untenable: Highlighting some "facts" and leaving out others can be even more persuasive than outright advocacy, which is why the administration chose this device. More important, this kind of propaganda masquerading as news is a deceitful way for a democratic government to do business; fake journalists paid by the government to deliver its version of news are as disturbing as real commentators paid by the government to tout its views. White House press secretary Scott McClellan defended the video news releases on Monday as "an informational tool to provide factual information to the American people." Nice sentiment, but why, exactly, wouldn't the administration want to let the people in on one of the most salient facts: who, really, is doing the talking?

Bush was finally asked about this practice at one of his rare press conferences:

Q Mr. President, earlier this year, you told us you wanted your administration to cease and desist on payments to journalists to promote your agenda. You cited the need for ethical concerns and the need for bright line between the press and the government. Your administration continue to make the use of video news releases, which is prepackaged news stories sent to television stations, fully aware that some -- or many of these stations will air them without any disclaimer that they are produced by the government. The Comptroller General of the United States, this week, said that raises ethical questions. Does it raise ethical questions about the use of government money to produce stories about the government that wind up being aired with no disclosure that they were produced by the government?

THE PRESIDENT: There is a Justice Department opinion that says these -- these pieces are within the law, so long as they're based upon facts, not advocacy. And I expect our agencies to adhere to that ruling, to that Justice Department opinion. This has been a longstanding practice of the federal government to use these types of videos. The Agricultural Department, as I understand it, has been using these videos for a long period of time. The Defense Department, other departments have been doing so. It's important that they be based on the guidelines set out by the Justice Department.

Now, I also -- I think it would be helpful if local stations then disclosed to their viewers that that's -- that this was based upon a factual report, and they chose to use it. But evidently, in some cases, that's not the case. So, anyway.

Q The administration could guarantee that's happening by including that language in the pre-packaged report.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I don't -- oh, you mean a disclosure, "I'm George W. Bush, and I" --

Q Well, some way to make sure it couldn't air without the disclosure that you believe is so vital.

THE PRESIDENT: You know, Ken, there's a procedure that we're going to follow, and the local stations ought to -- if there's a deep concern about that, ought to tell their viewers what they're watching.

Weak, weak stuff for the leader of the free world.

Meanwhile, Friends of the Earth has uncovered more deliberately misleading VNRs.

This is, to put it mildy, an embarrassing situation for the world's oldest democracy. I'm wondering where the so-called libertarians are on this one.

(thanks to dKos for the links)

For those of you interested in the Senate hearings on the legislation to update the FOIA being sponsored by Sens Cornyn and Leahy, they begin at 10:00AM EST today (Tuesday March 15) and can be heard via streaming audio at the CapitolHearings.org site that CSPAN runs for Senate hearings. Just scroll down to Judiciary -- Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security Subcommittee.

A highly unusual moment of insight from Dick Morris:

So why did the GOP not deliver the mortal blow when they could have easily done so? My guess is that the White House stopped them from doing so. Bush and Rove must have sent signals to lay off the cloture rule. Only an intervention of that order of magnitude would have been sufficiently effective to vitiate the carefully laid plans of the Republican majority.

But if the administration did intervene and stop the emasculation of the filibuster on judicial nominations, why did it do so? Why would the president voluntarily make it easier for Democrats to torpedo his judicial nominations?

President Bush and Karl Rove probably figured that they did not want the power to appoint judges without opposition from the Senate Democrats. They realized that without the filibuster there was nothing to stop them from nominating judges who would cling to a hard right-wing agenda on Roe v. Wade and other issues, permanently alienating much of the country and driving a stake into GOP efforts to reach out to independents and women.

Bush needs the filibuster so that he can nominate judges who will not drive a wedge into the politics of America. He needs an excuse to tell his far-right friends why he is not naming a new Clarence Thomas or William Rehnquist or Antonin Scalia to the court. Bush grasps that such an appointment would be a step that would shatter the unity he is achieving after his reelection. And he needs the filibuster to keep the loyalty of his base even as he disappoints their most earnest expectations.

Bush might submit a nominee who would trigger a filibuster when the Supreme Court vacancy comes. He might then be forced to name a more moderate alternative. Or he might circumvent the process entirely and name a nominee acceptable to all, as Bill Clinton did. But, in any case, Bush needs the filibuster. That’s why it is still on the rulebooks.

Right ... so worried about unity, that W. In any case, he's probably right about the Lucy holding a football strategy at work here.

UPDATE: James Joyner thinks Bush is a "true believer" who would like nothing better than to nominate another Scalia type. Actually, I think Scalia compares favorably to the latest crop of extremist nominees. There is one point to be made, in any case: Bush has pretty consistently pushed a maximalist, no-compromise negotiating strategy on judicial appointments, and gotten his way on the vast majority without having to resort to the "nuclear option." That's always his style, because he doesn't negotiate with himself. Or something.