Weekend Watchdog

Apologies for a belated Weekend Watchdog post, as I'm back from a vacation and long flight delay. But as usual, on Sunday at 4 PM ET, tune in to Air America Radio's "Seder on Sundays" program, where I'll offer the Weekend Watchdog Wrap-Up.

For Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice (ABC's This Week) and Sen. John McCain, R-AZ (Fox News Sunday): Time Magazine reported this week from Pakistan:

...as [Musharraf's] regime cracked down on lawyers, journalists and human-rights activists, it agreed to a cease-fire with a powerful militant leader who had taken 213 soldiers hostage in the lawless northwestern region. The irony was not lost on Asma Jahangir, Pakistan's best-known human-rights activist, who wrote in an e-mail from house arrest, "Those [Musharraf] has arrested are progressive, secular-minded people, while the terrorists are offered negotiations and cease-fires."

Yet, Condi Rice and President Bush have continued to describe Musharraf with kind words and have refused to take any substantive action in response to his dictatorial crackdown. And McCain has not criticized the White House for continuing to provide aid to Musharraf.

You claim your foreign policy is to defeat terrorism by promoting democracy. Isn't this further evidence that your actual foreign policy does neither?

For former Gov. Mike Huckabee, R-Ark. (CBS' Face The Nation): Last month, you asserted that "most" of the "56 brave people" who "put their signatures on the Declaration of Independence" were "clergymen."

That is false. Only one was active clergy and three others were former clergy.

Why should Americans elect as president someone who either doesn't know the basics about our country's founding, or is deliberately misrepresenting it?

For Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill. (NBC's Meet The Press): Economist Dean Baker blogged this week:

The Washington Post reports that Obama is making plans for raising SS taxes and/or cutting benefits if he is elected. It would be appropriate to remind readers that the Congressional Budget Office projects that the program will be fully solvent until 2046 with no changes whatsoever. This is almost thirty years after the latest date that Obama could possibly leave the presidency.

Readers should know that there is no urgency to address the projected shortfall in Social Security although there are many powerful actors who would like to see the program privatized and/or have its benefits cut.

Last month, you said yourself that "Social Security is not in crisis." Why then are you making significant changes to an effective program a campaign priority?

Views expressed on this page are those of the authors and not necessarily those of Campaign for America's Future or Institute for America's Future