NFL To Rush Limbaugh: Drop Dead

It's not official but early returns of talk radio conservative mega voice Rush Limbaugh's bid to become part owner of the St. Louis Rams is all but dead before arrival. It seems the money earned by the mouth that roars is not good enough for one of the most exclusive clubs in America.

"I've said many times before we're all held to a high standard here, and I think divisive comments are not what the NFL is all about," Goodell said at a National Football League owners meeting in Boston Tuesday. "I would not want to see those comments coming from people who are in a responsible position in the NFL, absolutely not."

Indianapolis Colts owner Jim Irsay said, "I would not be in favor of voting for him."

DeMaurice Smith, the executive director of the NFL Players Association, reportedly expressed his personal reservations about Limbaugh's bid in a memo to players on the union's ruling executive committee, and urged players to express their views about the matter publicly. The union has no formal role in approval of an ownership bid.

Jets linebacker Bart Scott said Limbaugh "could offer me whatever he wanted. I wouldn't play for him.”

Poor Rush. The man is a jock freak. There's nothing on the planet he could wish more for than a piece of an NFL franchise. God knows his money is just as good as any put forth by past and present NFL owners -- gamblers (Art Rooney), swindlers (Gene Klein), do-nothing inheritors (Baron Hilton), self-made tycoons (Jerry Jones , H.L. Hunt and scads more) -- all with enormous egos just as Limbaugh.

Limbaugh himself has said his bid to join a group of investors led by Dave Checketts, chairman of hockey's St. Louis Blues, is driving liberals nuts. It makes me wonder if his offer is nothing more than perpetuating his own colossal ego.

Sale of the Rams is in the earliest stage of the process. Ownership is taking bids. Whoever they choose to select must be approved by three-fourths of the 32 NFL owners.

The case against Limbaugh drummed to death by our sports media is his perceived shoddy record on race relations, outrageous vocal divisiveness over all issues political, economical and societal and a high personal visibility detrimental to the NFL.

The race issue. I'm not going to rehash his bigoted statements of the past. About 70% of NFL players are black. One of them, Mathias Kiwanuka, a black defensive lineman of the Giants said, "I am not going to draw a conclusion from a person off of one comment, but when it is time after time after time and there's a consistent pattern of disrespect and just a complete misunderstanding of an entire culture that I am a part of, I can't respect him as a man."

The politics. There's good reason most NFL owners will remain mum on Limbaugh unless he is part of the ownership package being considered for approval. I would bet the cost of a Chargers' ticket in the top row of Qualcom Stadium that most share Rush's political views.

The hypocrisy. Al Sharpton (who once called a black New York City mayor the "n" word) and Jesse Jackson (who once called a white NYC mayor a "heine") both have made public protests about Limbaugh's bid for an NFL team on the grounds he is a racist.

Sports columnist Tim Sullivan of the San Diego Union-Tribune summed up Limbaugh's case best:

Given Limbaugh's record on the race front, the blowback was predictable. What's surprising is that such a divisive figure would have survived the scrutiny of a seasoned operator like Dave Checketts, the St. Louis Blues owner who is leading the hometown effort to buy the Rams.

There are at least four plausible explanations for this apparent oversight: 1) Checketts miscalculated the amount of uproar Limbaugh would cause; 2) Checketts' financing is so precarious that he cannot afford to be too particular about his partners; 3) Checketts has convinced himself that the only color that matters in the NFL is green; or 4) Limbaugh broadcasts what many NFL owners more quietly believe.

A Health Reform Snowe Job

The Senate Finance Committee finally voted 14-9 its sweeping health care bill out of committee Tuesday with the lone Republican Olympia Snowe of Maine on board. Whoopty doo. Now maybe we can get down to business and fix the system.

This bill is a massive subsidy to private insurance carriers who are not happy because it falls short of universal coverage which would mean more bucks in their pockets with little guarantees it would stop inflating premium prices and rising costs. All this to gain one frigging vote from a Republican who promises her support may not be there once the bill is reconciled with the Senate's other bill from its committee on health chaired by Chris Dodd of Connecticut.

Don't be surprised that the deal the Obama administration struck with the drug barons, American Medical Association and private insurance lobbies for support falls apart by the time a final version is hammered out in conference for a floor vote in both houses of Congress.

Folks, get ready for a bill Obama will sign that accomplishes some reform and regulation of insurance practices but fails to insure everyone including many small businesses and does little to control health care inflation.

Here's another morsel to digest. All tax increases in the final plan will go into effect immediately but the reform process will not kick in until 2013. That's the major reason the Congressional Budget Plan declared the Senate Finance Plan cobbled by Sen. Max Baucus is deficit neutral in 10 years. In plain English, that means taxing 10 years but spending only seven. Any bloke could make that work.

The good thing is the health care legislation can now pick up steam. Why all the fuss over the Democratic-controlled Senate's efforts to snare at least one Republican vote? An appearance of bipartisanship. Holy moly, the comic character cracked. Whoopty doo, I say sarcastically. Here's what Snowe said earlier today before the panel's vote, according to the New York Times:

“Is this bill all that I would want? Far from it. Is it all that it can be? No. But when history calls, history calls.”

“The mark before us produces some bipartisan landmark reforms,” Snowe said. “It bolsters what works in the system and engenders quality and competition.” Snowe praised provisions in the bill that would help small businesses, and said it was the government’s responsibility to make sure that insurance was affordable for individuals and families.

With suspense building in the room as it became clear that she would announce her stance, Snowe said she still had many reservations about the legislation.

“At the same time I have shared my Republicans’ concerns about vast governmental bureaucracies and governmental intrusions — that’s why I opposed the amendment for the so-called public option,” she said.

“I happen to think that the consequences of inaction dictate the urgency of Congress to take every opportunity to demonstrate its capacity to solve the monumental issues of our time,” she said moments later. ““There are many, many miles to go in this legislative journey.”

She also warned that she would want to see an updated cost analysis before she votes on a motion for the full Senate to take up the health care bill. “My vote today is my vote today,” she said. “It doesn’t forecast what my vote will be tomorrow.”

Meanwhile, the Washington Post reports lawmakers are reviving ideas that had been discarded, including a new approach to a government insurance plan that appears to be gaining support with party moderates.

One proposal attracting considerable attention originated with Sen. Thomas R. Carper (Del.) and would allow states to decide whether to create their own insurance plans or join forces to provide coverage in collaboration with neighboring states. Other Democrats want to take the state-based approach a step further, creating a national public plan that states could join. Carper, a moderate Democrat, said he is not sure he is prepared to go that far. "I'm just chewing on that one," he said.

Sen. Evan Bayh (Ind.), a moderate Democrat, was bullish on Carper's approach. "I think something like that is likely, and would probably pass muster with moderates," he said. Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), who opposes a public option, said he likes Carper's idea. "I think the states, as laboratories of democracy, probably can find ways to deal with this, and if they do make a mistake it's a smaller mistake to correct than at the federal level," Nelson said.

The legislation voted on today includes $463 billion in subsidies over the next decade and would result in 94% of Americans having insurance coverage, according to an estimate by the Congressional Budget Office.

Industry leaders and healthcare experts consider universal coverage as crucial to making other changes to the healthcare system -- such as restraining the cost of premiums and prohibiting insurers from denying coverage for preexisting medical conditions. Reports the Los Angeles Times:

"The larger the insurance pool, the better able you are to spread risk," said Peter Harbage, a healthcare consultant who has advised Democrats in Washington. "If you have universal coverage, you will have the most efficient system and best achieve affordable coverage."

Finally, if you don't think the lobbyists play a major role in fighting proposed healthcare legislation, read this from an article earlier this week in the New York Times.

In this debate, everyone, including the consumer, is out for themselves only and screw the rest of the people.

Charlie's Falling Angels

Charlie Rangel is a charming, engaging fellow. The kind of man you would enjoy having a beer. Most of the journalists who deal with him in Congress like him because he is forthright even when spinning a topic in his favor. A Korean war hero, Rangel's Harlem voters have elected him to 20 terms, vaunting him to a position of power and by seniority his Democratic comrades have selected him as chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, the second most powerful job in the House of Representatives. They write out tax codes.

Problem is, Charlie didn't pay his taxes in a timely fashion.

As so happens with many congressman who spend half their lives in the public arena, Rangel is master of his own universe. In his own mind. His personal bookkeeping of his financial affairs is sloppy, at best. His ethics are suspect. His influence of power is feared.

The House Ethics Committee is investigating Rangel's tangled financial affairs and possible violations of House ethics rules. This isn't exactly a Kangaroo Court.

The committee is controlled by the Democrats and three members have received campaign contributions from Rangel. Republicans lost a floor vote to strip Rangel of his chairmanship while the investigation drags on, now more than a year.

Charlie's well protected in this riff. His best buddy is House Speaker Nancy Pelosi who promised the most "open government" in history but refuses to demote Rangel from his perch as the guy who controls the government's purse strings.

Pelosi's problem is she doesn't have anyone to replace Rangel unless she drops down the seniority ladder which would ignite a vicious floor fight. Peter Stark, the San Francisco Bay Area congressman whose district snuggles next to Pelosi's, is second in line for the chairmanship. Stark's a maverick she doesn't trust.

With 40 years under his belt in Congress, Rangel is pulling no punches to save his chairmanship, let alone quitting in shame. He claims to have paid back taxes he owes and amended his Congressional financial and ethics statements to reflect their current status.

The advocacy group CREWS says Charlie is the most corrupt member of congress. Here's their account of the charges:

1) Rangel leased four rent-stabilized apartments at Lenox Terrace in New York City, three of which serve as his personal residence and the fourth of which was used as an office for his campaign and political action committees. In total, Rangel paid about $3,800 for the apartments, roughly $7,000 less than new tenants would pay. This means he may have violated New York housing law, the House gifts rule and campaign finance laws.

2) Beginning in 2005, Rangel solicited funds for the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service at the City College of New York using his official congressional letterhead. House rules prohibit the use of congressional letterhead for any mailing paid for with non-appropriated funds.

3) Rangel owns a beachfront villa on a Dominican Republic resort that rents for between $500 and $1,100 a night during tourist seasons. In total, Charlie failed to disclose $75,000 in rental income since 1988 when he purchased the villa. In 1990 the 10.5% mortgage interest was waived. By failing to include the rental income on his personal financial disclosure forms, Rangel may have violated the Ethics in Government Act and House rules. In addition, if when the interest was waived on his loan for the property Rangel received better terms than others similarly situated, the loan may have violated the House gifts rule. In September 2008, Rangel paid $10,800 in back taxes for his 2004, 2005 and 2006 returns related to the unreported rental income he earned from his Dominican Republic beach house.

4) Rangel helped preserve a tax loophole benefiting Nabors Industries at the same time he was soliciting donations to the Rangel Center from the company’s chief executive. If Rangel accepted a contribution to the Rangel Center in direct exchange for legislative assistance for Nabors Industries, he may have committed bribery, deprived his constituents of his honest services, and accepted an illegal gratuity.

5) Rangel repeatedly failed to disclose all of his assets and unearned income in clear violation of House rules. From 1978-2006, the lawmaker failed to report buying, owning or selling assets 28 times. According to the Sunlight Foundation, “Assets worth between $239,026 and $831,000 appear or disappear with no disclosure of when they were acquired, how long they were held, or when they were sold, as the operative House rules at the time required.” From 2002-2006, Rangel failed to report up to $1.3 million in outside income on his financial disclosure forms. On Aug. 12, 2009, Rangel filed an amendment to his 2007 personal financial disclosure form. The original report failed to disclose between $512,009 and $1.18 million in assets, including a checking account worth at least $250,000. If Rangel knowingly and willfully failed to disclose, or misrepresented, the true value of his personal assets on his financial disclosure forms, he would appear to be in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001.

6) Rangel stored his 1972 Mercedes in a House parking lot for several years. The car was covered by a tarp and did not have license plates. Its registration had expired in 2004 and the car did not display a current House parking permit. The space is valued at $290 per month, and must be reported to the IRS as imputed income. By storing an unlicensed vehicle in a House garage without a valid parking permit, Rangel violated House rules.

Charlie has coughed up $1 million in legal fees to fight the ethics charges.

Calls for his resignation as chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee have run the political spectrum from the Daily Kos, Detroit News, the Republican National Committee, CBS's network affiliate Channel 2 in New York City, The New York Daily News and Fox News Politics. Here's a snippet from Channel 2's website:

"Certainly money does make friends and influence people and perhaps make him a little bit more popular and at this particular moment that might help," said pundit Micheline Blum of Baruch College.

"Buying insurance, you know? Don't bite the hand that's feeding you. Clearly he sees himself as having a problem and he is contributing to members who might look favorably," added Doug Muzzio of Baruch.

Seems to me Charlie's dealings are pretty sleazy. Of course, they are only accusations. I'll wait for the Ethics Committee's verdict even though they are under the influence of his power brokerage prowess. To strip him of his chairmanship and then learn he is cleared or softly reprimanded seems too harsh for the 79-year-old grandfather whose only court he's in is in his own house. I would prefer for him to stand for re-election in his district and if he wins, then boot him out of his current chairmanship and reassign him to a lesser committee. That's less sanguine. The case against him is too politically charged and the nation in too much turmoil to change horses in the middle of the race.

As the wise old ballplayer said, "Nice guys finish last." I don't see Charlie falling that far. But he will fall. Even if he wins, his hands are dirty.

Who Nominated Obama?

After being bombarded with spin, stonewalling and lies, it doesn't take long for a journalist to become a cynic. Skepticism grows along with a thick skin and a demeanor where one needs to ask the tough questions. Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead. If not the journalist, then whom?

In my column yesterday questioning the merit of President Barack Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize after only nine months in office, I wrote that neither Obama nor the White House staff knew he had been nominated, "as far as we can tell."

At least one reader took offense, claiming I was a hack making a cheap shot and comparing me with Glenn Beck. Fine. My first reaction was putting me and Beck in the same sentence is an oxymoron.

The cynic in me made me do it. It's not as though I don't believe the White House surprise. Rather, I find it incredulous Obama's staff was clueless. Someone or group nominated the president. Word gets around, usually.

My suspicion -- and, yes, it comes from out of left field -- is it came from someone/group associated or on the fringe of Obama's presidential campaign committee. There's nothing wrong or sinister about that. I would like to know.

I could be wrong, but I don't think the Nobel committee releases the names of those who nominate candidates. But, that doesn't prevent the supporters to come forth on their own.

Why do I make a mini issue about this? It goes to motive and transparency. Let's assume it was the president's campaign people for the sake of argument. I say more power to them for they successfully extended their man to the most prestigious award on earth although I maintain it was a calculated gamble since Obama was only in office 13 days before the Feb. 1 filing deadline.

The problem I have is I can't conceive anyone or group totally independent from the political spectrum of the Obama advocacy family entering his name on a lark or sincere desire. These happenings don't occur in a vacuum.

The Nobel committee made the award on the precept Obama has changed world opinion for peace and climate change compared to what they considered the unilateral war-mongering Bush administration. Nobel judges hope the award will continue Obama's momentum to accomplish the goals he has set out to meet so far by his words.

In this context, the Obama nominators held a royal straight flush playing into that mind-set. If that nomination came from the Obama people, they deserve the chutzpah award of the century.

Just to set the record straight, my column yesterday was my way of honestly complimenting Obama for receiving the award. I'm happy he won and proud he is a fellow American and the award gives him the political stature, clout and momentum to achieve the goals he has set out to accomplish.

But I remain a cynic. We observed how he took seemingly forever to close the deal in the primaries before finally defeating Hillary Clinton for the nomination. As president, we are waiting for him to seal the deal on health care and climate change legislation. The list keeps on growing as the political process plays out its snails-pace path.

Obama is a Cy Young starting pitcher but as a closer he's still working in the minors.

Not So Noble Nobel Peace Prize

President Barack Obama being awarded the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize is akin to me winning a Pulitizer Prize in journalism. Neither one of us accomplished enough to earn it. The world's most prestigious award is diminished to the level of an Academy Award nominee finishing fifth.

Hey, Obama talks the talk but has failed so far to walk the walk. The Saturday Night Live spoof that he has accomplished nothing is closer to reality. It pains me to say that because I have been a faithful advocate and patient admirer for Obama since his keynote address to the Democratic National Convention in 2004.

"Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future. His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population," according to the Nobel committee award statement.

The White House press office claimed Obama had no knowledge he was nominated shortly before the Feb. 1 deadline less than two weeks after he was sworn into office.

Man, talk about the audacity of hope. But that is exactly what the Nobel committee bought into.

Americans, myself included, must understand the award is based on a world perspective that many of us, especially conservatives, fail to grasp. It is true that despite the esoteric volatile U.S. politics Obama is extremely popular outside our shores in foreign lands where the United Nations and global governance is cherished above all else.

It is only natural that Obama critics might think the Nobel Peace Prize is a slap in the face of the Bush Administration for its unilateral excursion into Iraq in 2002 and pullout of the Kyoto climate treaty. It certainly sounds that way from comments to reporters in Oslo by Nobel committee chairman Thorbjoern Jagland. From the Washington Post:

"We have not given the prize for what may happen in the future," Jagland said. "We are awarding Obama for what he has done in the past year. And we are hoping this may contribute a little bit for what he is trying to do."

Jagland specifically cited Obama's speech about Islam in Cairo last spring, as well as efforts to address nuclear proliferation and climate change and use established international bodies such as the United Nations to pursue his goals.

Say what? Those speeches were made after the Feb. 1 nomination deadline. One supposes the other 204 nominees sat on their hands or were bound and gagged during the selection process. Oh, and that slap and put down of George W. Bush's unilateral -- "You're with us or for the terrorists" -- approach.

The committee -- made up of luminaries selected by the Norwegian government -- noted a profound shift in U.S. policy and said Obama had "created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play."

Well, at least we know where the Nobel Peace Prize committee is coming from.

Obama is the third sitting president to win the award. Woodrow Wilson was awarded the prize in 1919, after helping to found the League of Nations and shaping the Treaty of Versailles; and Theodore Roosevelt was the recipient in 1906 for his work to negotiate an end to the Russo-Japanese war. Jimmy Carter won the award in 2002 two decades after his presidency.

In the U.S. the most stinging slam against the award comes from an online article by Wall Street Journal deputy editor Iain Martin as quoted in the Washington Post:

"Think about it, it's so post-modern: a leader can now win the peace prize for saying that he hopes to bring about peace at some point in the future. He doesn't actually have to do it, he just has to have aspirations. Brilliant."

In the Mideast, reaction was moderate.

"We believe he has been rewarded or judged based on good intentions towards peace but not on his achievement," said Ahmed Yousef, deputy foreign minister of Hamas, the Islamist group that runs Gaza and remains isolated by the United States because of its refusal to recognize Israel. "It was too early to award him. He has not done that much yet."

Danny Danon, a member of the Israeli Knesset from the ruling Likud Party who opposed U.S. efforts to freeze construction of Jewish settlements, also said Obama's record is thin. "This is the first time the award is given for wishful thinking," Danon said.

But Hagit Ofran, of Israel's dovish Peace Now movement, credited Obama for pushing Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to endorse creation of a Palestinian state and consider settlement curbs. "He is being respected for his belief and determination to get things going," she said. "It is not peace and it is not enough, but his rhetoric did change many things."

Back in the U.S., some of the things Obama has struggled with is pushing new health care reform and climate change legislation although he signed an economic stimulus program which so far has mixed results.

He banned torture but quickly learned closing Guantanamo Bay prison is unlikely to meet a self-imposed deadline next January. His mission to pull all combat troops out of Iraq was squelched when the Bush administration and Iraqi government signed a status agreement keeping our troops there until at least 2012. He's still deliberating over Afghanistan war strategy after announcing a new plan in March.

His efforts to make peace and a two-state accord between Israel and Palestine has received rebuffs from both sides.

Oh, that peace prize award. In his 1895 will, Alfred Nobel said it should be rewarded to "the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations and the abolition or reduction of standing armies and the formation and spreading of peace congresses."

Obama didn't ask for it, as far as we know. Now, he's saddled with it and the demands for him to produce results are even higher than a normal human being could possibly achieve. It was bad enough the full plate of problems he inherited from the Bush administration.

Now he has dessert thrust upon him by world opinion.

I'm still hopeful he can pull it off. Oops, there goes that damn audacity of hope thing again. I will continue rooting for Obama but sooner or later he must stand up and deliver. I agree with that Hamas spokesman. The Nobel committee should have waited until his second term before awarding him that $1.4 million prize.

The Big Con

Excuse me, but I have some reservations and a bunch of questions about the various healthcare reform bills both houses of Congress could vote on as early as this month.

The biggest concern I have is why we taxpayers are subsidizing the private carriers to insure us. The bills are aimed at guaranteeing growing private insurance profits without regard to improving our health. Oh, there are a few caveats thrown in to eliminate companies from dumping us because of pre-exiting conditions and a bunch of other measures to right a wrong by the privateers.

But I have seen nothing in the proposed bills to force the insurance companies to be more competitive in their implementation of premiums and copays. Although politically improbable, a Medicare-for-all program is the only fiscal solution to force competition. Stop the subsidies and invest the money in a single-payer or government-option system in which enrollment is voluntary.

I'm not buying Republican criticism that the government cannot run anything efficiently and point to the U.S. Postal Service and Amtrack as examples. They say Medicare is going broke and MediCaid is blowing states' budgets. True but fixable. These are two of the highest risk demographics susceptible to demands on keeping Americans alive and well. Adjust Medicare's $96 per month premiums for all to a cost based on the individual's income. That's a starter.

Unfortunately, MediCaid recipients must be paid by tax dollars if they qualify on the lowest rung of the income ladder. In California, that's about $10,000 a year for a single person. Missing that criteria, Californians in Medi-Cal must pay $540/mo for catastrophic coverage which dooms each and every one to death. Those were the figures the state notified me when I re-certified for Medi-Cal last month. Under the current system, the feds subsidize Health Net, my private carrier, 100% with minimal copays for drugs and none for medical costs.

If you listened with earnest the one-hour special comments on our health care system by Keith Olbermann on his MSNBC Countdown show Wednesday night, you heard a similar pitch for a one-system payer or Medicare-for-all as well as a plug for free medical clinics for the impoverished. For the most part, I was disappointed although his personal confrontation with the system involving his father was poignant.

There seems to be a universal assumption by liberals that every senior cherishes Medicare despite its warts. I belong to that group because without it I would be dead. But, I don't consider myself an idiot when I hear our president claim more than $500 billion can be saved from Medicare fraud and waste. If that is true, why didn't Medicare fix the problem years ago?

The proposed healthcare legislation received a double boost Wednesday when the Congressional Budget Office issued a report that the Senate Finance bill under chairman Max Baucus would meet the president's goal that any legislation be deficit neutral. At the same time an AP-GfK poll indicated rising approval ratings for healthcare legislation now split at 40-40 compared to 49% who opposed it last month.

The report, according to the New York Times, said 25 million of the 48 million uninsured -- about one-third of them illegal immigrants -- would not be covered although Americans under age 65 with insurance would increase from 83% to 94% in 10 years. Here's a partial analysis by The Times:

In its analysis of the Senate Finance Committee bill, the budget office said a proposed expansion of Medicaid would add $345 billion to federal spending over the next 10 years. State Medicaid spending would rise by $33 billion, as 14 million people would be added to the Medicaid rolls.

The other big federal cost would be subsidies totaling $461 billion over 10 years, to help low- and middle-income people buy insurance from private carriers.

The budget office said a proposed tax on high-cost insurance policies would raise $201 billion over 10 years. Penalties paid by people who go without insurance would total $4 billion over 10 years, far less than the $20 billion expected under Baucus’s original proposal. Employers who did not provide health benefits would pay $23 billion in penalties, down from the $27 billion previously estimated.

Baucus’s bill would create a Medicare commission, with power to make cutbacks in the program, unless blocked by subsequent legislative action. The budget office said the commission would save $22 billion over 10 years.

I have a premonition advanced by Chris Mathews of MSNBC's Hardball show that President Barack Obama will finally exert his muscle and arm-twist reluctant Democrats and a few Republican Senators to support the final bill as it comes out of a joint conference committee.

Public option or not, that bill looms as a boondoggle keeping the private insurance carriers in charge of our health system and that fact in itself produces a death rattle in the throats of the American public.

Here Comes The Clown

Shame on the established America media for giving so much air time to convicted former Congressman James Traficant who offers nothing but a populous sound bite and venom to his former colleagues.

Since his release from prison last month, Traficant has spent much of his time on the air waves pleading his innocence to a racketeering conviction and vendetta against the Justice Department and the Jewish lobby.

In the interviews he has threatened to re-enter politics and slay the dragons that exist in his mind. The man is a disgrace and the only oxygen he receives on his political death bed is his penchant for famous quotes such as Beam me up." For that reason, the media can't stay away from him. Whatever substance he offers is in the eye of the beholder.

Congress can ill afford yet another sham artist bullying his way with appeals to the "little guy."

On a recent appearance on MSNBC's Chris Mathews show, Traficant said "I still have Federales swarming around me. They won't admit that, but they're looking for every opportunity to send me back."

Over the course of their interview, Traficant decried spending and taxes, claimed to have spoken at Tea Party Rallies, and professed support for a "fair tax" and the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service. His zingers included the well-known "Beam me up" but a new one, "Stimulate this." He chastised Mathews for muddying his name by referring to him as "congressman."

Some highlights on a recent CNN morning show:

• On his incarceration in which he served much of his time at a medical facility in Rochester, Minn. "They said I had a medical problem," he told CNN's John Roberts, because "I wouldn't take the medication" saying he didn't trust prison officials.

• On whether he will run for Congress: "I am not sure at this point," he said, noting, "the only way I can get back at the justice department is to get back into Congress."

On observations by Mayor Jay Williams of Youngstown, Ohio, that Traficant "no longer represents who we are," Traficant said he had yet to meet the mayor, adding in a list of his own accomplishments, "Those three bridges he crosses when he goes to work? I built them."

Traficant told Roberts: "I am going to have a lot of political opposition," should he run for office, "but I don't give a damn."

Fox News' Greta Van Susteren was the first to interview Traficant the day he was released from prison. Here is that network's account of the interview:

Susteren asked him if he has any grudges. Traficant says that he was the number one target of American Israeli Public Affairs Committee and the Justice Department. He goes on to say that "he believes that Israel has a powerful stranglehold on the American government. They're controlling much of our foreign policy. They're influencing much of our domestic policy.

(Paul) Wolfowitz as undersecretary of defense manipulated President Bush number two back into Iraq. They've pushed definitely, definitely to try to get Bush before he left to move into Iran. We're conducting the expansionist policy of Israel and everybody's afraid to say it. They control much of the media, they control much of the commerce of the country, and they control powerfully both bodies of the Congress. They own the Congress."

Greta asks him, "are you an antisemite," Traficant replies, "what I am is an American. You see, I think America comes first. And we have a one-sided foreign policy in the Mideast, and we've alienated Arabs who have no way of fighting. So, what they've done -- and I predicted this on the House floor -- is they would export violence to America. And they have. They have no other way to fight.".

He adds, "they have us involved in wars in which we have little or no interest. Our children are coming back in body bags. Our nation is bankrupt over these wars. And if you open your mouth, you get targeted. And if they don't beat you at the poll, they'll put you in prison." He says "Israel gets approximately $15 billion a year from the American taxpayers. That $15 billion is $30,000 for every man, woman and child. And people in my district are losing their pension benefits."

Traficant talked about his controversial defense of John Demanjuk, who was accused of Nazi war crimes, and was facing execution by Israel. Traficant's used the freedom of information act to prove he was innocent and who the real individual was. A ruling by Israel's supreme court released him but Traficant's role angered the Jewish Establishment in America. Demanjuk is now facing trial in Germany, despite being found innocent by Israel.

Unlike most convicted politicians who are sent to country club prisons, he was not given any special treatment. He said he spent time in solitary confinement and was put in danger in a prison full of many illegal immigrants, being a staunch opponent of illegal immigration. He talks about how his experience in prison has changed his entire outlook on the justice system and that he now believes no one should go to prison for non-violent offenses and that he wishes he did more to right the war on drugs when he was in congress.

Unlike Van Susteren, I fail to have a Pavlovian response to Traficant's populist tirades and sound bite zingers. Oh, I suppose if I lived in his Ohio district I would appreciate the bridges he said he had built. But that is not enough to overcome his buffoonery.

The man is a clown and we already have enough incompetent but well-meaning comic operas going on inside the halls of congress and our nation's airways.

I'll make the same pledge about Traficant as I did Sarah Palin: No more stories from me about them until they offer a substantive discourse to politics as we know it in our country.

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/23/james-traficant-is-out-of_n_297359.html