Editor and Publisher catches Scott McClellan in his web of duplicity on the issue of whether he blamed Newsweek for the Afghanistan riots:

At a White House press briefing Monday, Press Secretary Scott McClellan, pressed by reporters and with Afghan President Karzai in disagreement, retreated on claims that Newsweek’s retracted story on Koran abuse cost lives in Afghanistan.

He also claimed that he had never said it did, even though a check of transcripts disputes that. On May 16, for example, he said, “people have lost their lives.” On May 17, he said, “People did lose their lives,” and, “People lost their lives” due to the Newsweek report.

In the deal struck yesterday evening, negotiators agreed that two judicial nominees — William G. Myers and Henry Saad — “will be filibustered or withdrawn.”

Last night, Frist indicated he would abide by the agreement:

Mr. President, a lot has been said about the uniqueness of this body. And, indeed, our Senate is unique. And we all, as individuals and collectively as a body, have a role to play in ensuring its cherished nature remains intact.

And, indeed, as demonstrated by tonight’s agreement and by the ultimate implementation of that agreement, we have done just that.

But Congress Daily PM reports that Frist has other ideas for later in the week:

Senate Majority Leader Frist will file for cloture on President Bush’s nomination of William Myers to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals later this week, according to sources on and off Capitol Hill, wasting no time in testing the resolve of 14 Republican and Democratic senators who forced at least a temporary halt to the battle over Democratic filibusters of President Bush’s judicial picks.

That didn’t take long.

According to a new USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup poll just 33 percent of Americans approve of how George Bush is handling the Social Security issue. 59 percent disapprove. His approval rating is down 10 points since early February.

White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan was asked about the new numbers today. Here was his response:

[Y]ou’re seeing progress. And now this — I think the American people understand that on an issue like this that sometimes the legislative process is not going to move as fast as on other issues. But we are making steady progress on it…

Is it just me, or do these folks have a funny definition of progress?

The House will vote today on two bills related to stem cell funding. One bill would provide funding for embryonic stem cell research, the procedure which holds the greatest possibility for medical advancement due to the various types of cells it can generate. A second bill being offered by Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) would provide federal funds to research stem cells from umbilical cords, a procedure that can only reliably produce blood cells.

The umbilical bill is a canard, proffered by radical conservatives so that they can say they’re supporting something. As Roll Call reports, right-wingers hope the umbilical cord bill will “give cover to conservatives who oppose federal funding for embryonic research but are wary of getting on the wrong political side of the issue.”

The worst part of this whole debate is the deception and dishonesty being carried out by conservatives who want to claim umbilical stem cells are no different from embryonic stem cells. The Washington Post writes:

“Published studies have shown that [umbilical] cord blood stem cells have the capacity to change into other cell types, which give them the potential to treat . . . debilitating conditions such as spinal cord injury, Parkinson’s, diabetes and heart disease,” [Rep. Chris] Smith said in a recent statement.

But several researchers said that statement stretches the truth of what is known about umbilical cord cells… Umbilical and embryonic stem cells “are not in any way interchangeable,” said David Scadden, co-director of the Harvard Stem Cell Institute and chief of the Massachusetts General Hospital Center for Regenerative Medicine and Technology.

Even Bush acknowledged the difference in these two types of procedures when he announced his stem cell policy in August 2001:

You should also know that stem cells can be derived from sources other than embryos — from adult cells, from umbilical cords that are discarded after babies are born, from human placenta… However, most scientists, at least today, believe that research on embryonic stem cells offer the most promise because these cells have the potential to develop in all of the tissues in the body.

If Bush vetoes federal funding of embryonic stem cell research as he has pledged, he and other right-wingers should at least be honest with the facts and not provide false hope to an American public seeking true scientific progress.

Both financial services powerhouse Morgan Stanley and global energy powerhouse British Petroleum, two giants of their respective industries, recently “informed print publications that its ads must be automatically pulled from any edition containing ‘objectionable editorial coverage.’” In the case of British Petroleum, ad-accepting publications are now required to “inform BP in advance of any news text or visuals they plan to publish that directly mention the company, a competitor or the oil-and-energy industry.” These are not empty threats. As one veteran of the magazine industry put it, “magazines are not in the financial position today to buck rules from advertisers.”

The timing of their decisions is no coincidence. A recent settlement against Morgan Stanley has splayed the firm’s name over the front pages of finance papers. Just today, another top investment banker announced his departure, “adding to the exodus of executive departures that has plagued the firm over the last seven weeks.” Unlike Morgan Stanley, British Petroleum hasn’t had a large amount of press coverage lately but some issues on the horizon — like the House and Senate energy bills (and the undue influence of industry lobbyists) — have caught the attention of everyone in the energy industry. Corporations in general are suiting up to fight back against corporate oversight, particularly the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.

The power that these firms are trying to wield is an affront to free press, one of the democratic ideals that we should all hold in the highest esteem. If their actions don’t generate good news, then they should fix their company not the news.

Speaking at the press conference yesterday, Sen. Mike DeWine (R-OH) argued that the agreement allowed him to change his mind at any time if he didn’t like how the filibuster was being used. DeWine said:

[I]f an individual senator believes in the future that a filibuster is taking place under something that’s not extraordinary circumstances, we of course reserve the right to do what we could have done tomorrow which is to cast a yes vote for the constitutional option.

But that’s not what the agreement says. Section IIB provides: “In light of the spirit and continuing commitments made in this agreement, we commit to oppose the rules changes in the 109th Congress.” Section IIA makes clear that senators maintain their commitment to the agreement as long as they only filibuster in “extraordinary circumstances,” a determination to be based on their “own discretion and judgment.”

So DeWine can’t go nuclear simply because *he* decides the filibuster is being used in something other than “extraordinary circumstances.” Rather, based on the language of the agreement, the deal would only dissolve if senators filibuster without making a good faith determination — based on their “own discretion and judgment,” not DeWine’s discretion and judgment — that there were extraordinary circumstances.

“I don’t know a single business group involved in the judicial nominees,” said R. Bruce Josten, an executive vice president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. “Nada, none, zip.”

– Washington Post, May 24, 2005, page E10, article on how business groups question GOP’s focus.

VERSUS

“But he [Gray] persisted and managed to make headway [on judicial nominations] with groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.”

– Washington Post, May 24, 2005, page A15, article on the role of Boyden Gray in running and financing the fight to end the filibuster.